Science and the Bible

[ItinerantLurker]

Once again, the issue of moon dust was confirmed science until it wasn't.

Why on earth you keep going back to this boggles the mind. Moon dust is a non-issue, even YEC organizations recognize that. Yes, scientists ideas about how moon dust was produced were confirmed by the landings.

It is simple science that bonds between atoms are degraded when bombarded with great amounts of EM energy. Look at the sand deserts. Granted that the process is accelerated on earth due to the presence of minute amounts of water in the rock, but the principle is the same. The EM energy (in this case infrared) turns rock into sand.

Absolute baloney. In terrestrial deserts sand is formed due to weathering not infrared energy from the sun. Think about what you’re saying, we’re talking about molecular bonds not granules of sand!

Now consider the moon, receiving hundreds of times the energy with no EM field or atmosphere to mitigate it, recieving not only the visible light and the infrared, but the gamma radiation, microwave and ultraviolet. The presence of the dust that there is speaks of the process, especially considering the obvious volcanic process that must have occured after the "meteorstrikes".

I remain completely unconvinced that lunar dust is a result of radiation from the sun breaking the molecular bonds of moon rocks, especially since a very practical solution stares at you in the face every time you look at the moon and see it pockmarked with enormous craters. Big rocks slamming into bigger rocks will make smaller rocks.

And why on earth is volcanism associated with meteor strikes a problem?

These are processes which are put forward only because of the a priori of an old earth-moon system.

No. . .those mechanisms are put forward because they explain the evidence.

Most of the "craters"on this side are calderas. Even if this was true, look at the erosion of the craters on this side. You can easy see that a crater is a young impact crater (such as Tycho) But the walls of most of the craters are eroded. And the walls of the "seas even more so. Where did all that rock go to? Dust!

The craters on our side look stunningly like craters on the far side of the moon so unless you’ve got actual examples I’m thinking this is simply made up. As is the stuff about eroded craters, the only thing that erodes old craters on the moon is new craters or volcanism.

The evidence doesn't support the "outgassing" theory. The chemicals of the atmosphere are not even close to being proportional to the chemicals produced by volcanic outgassing. Oxygen is being slowly released by the soil, but volcanic out gassing would not release enough to produce the atmosphere that we have. The oxygen released by the soil is only a sustainable system if it is calculated over hundreds of trillions of years, longer than even the scientists would postulate. In addition, this great "impact" would have an enormous impact on the plate structure of the earth, one that is not consistant with our present earth. The "comet" theory is again one proposed only to explain the inconsistancies of scientific models regarding the origin of earth.

As I mentioned, the atmosphere formed by outgassing, volcanism, and comets was earth’s second atmosphere and was not at all like our present atmosphere. Oxygen only began accumulating in significant amounts later, during the Archean era 3.8 billion years ago, due to primitive photosynthetic algae.

The tectonic plates formed as the molten surface cooled long after the impact.

That work is highly suspect, not only becuse it explains one thing while opening up a thousand other problems, but because it is a theory that uses the Sherlock maxim rather than Ocham's razor: Since the moon was formed by an impact, the only math that works, however improbable, must be the explanation.

Utterly ridiculous, it explains the most evidence – that’s what scientific theories do. It explains the moons similar oxygen isotopes and it’s distance from earth, among other things. That a planet gets hit by a really big object every once and a while is hardly “improbable”.

It is unlikely that such a ring could have formed into a sphere because of the competing gravitational pulls of Earth and the Sun. An example of this problem is the asteroid belt.

Again, this is utterly ridiculous. We have large and small objects that orbit the earth right now in relatively stable orbits despite the “competing gravitational pulls of the earth and sun”. Scientists have run simulations that show the giant impact hypothesis to be feasible, and it fits a lot of our observations, but it is by no means conclusive. Those simulations, however, do show a ring of debris that clumps together quite quickly, melts under it’s own pressure, and reforms into a spherical moon - NASA: Origin of the Earth and Moon

Non biological formation of amino acids result in an approximately even split. There is no explanation of how left-sided molecules would have an advantage, you are stating as fact that which is not evidenced.

There are some variables that can affect some amino acids and not others based on their chirality, but I trend more toward explanations that deal not only with what was there to start with but also why one type of amino acid over the other was selected for. In that sense there are some tentative yet intriguing explanations such as, Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems.

“Experimental data for a series of central and simple molecules in biosystems show that some amino acids and a simple sugar molecule have a chiral discrimination in favor of homochirality. Models for segregation of racemic mixtures of chiral amphiphiles and lipophiles in aqueous solutions show that the amphiphiles with an active isomerization kinetics can perform a spontaneous break of symmetry during the segregation and self-assembly to homochiral matter. Based on this observation it is argued that biomolecules with a sufficiently strong chiral discrimination could be the origin of homochirality in biological systems.”
​

But that is exactly the issue: evolution produces helpful adaptations except when it doesn't. The environmental history of the earth would have created increasingly narrow species spread as species died rather than changed quickly enough. Evolution demand greater homogeny in order for the genetic spread to widen.

Evolution doesn’t “produce” helpful adaptations, adaptations simply occur as either behavioral or physical. Physical adaptations are a direct product of random mutations (generally), whether or not those adaptations are helpful, hurtful, or neutral is largely dependent upon environment.

On what basis would the environmental history of the earth have discouraged diversity? The history of earth is characterized by progressive ecosystems, not homogeneity.

Evolution simply requires homogeneity within a given population to promote the genetic spread of a given trait. This is in no way applicable to populations in different environments or of different species.

There should be a process by which living organisms continue to produce viruses, since viruses are so abundant and show such a wide genetic spread.

New viruses are constantly evolving, where have you been?

New viruses and new disease: mutation, evolution and ecology

“Given the extraordinarily high mutation rate of viruses, particularly those with RNA genomes, it is not surprising that new viruses are continually evolving. However, the symptomatology of old viral diseases has remained stable for centuries. The combination of genetic and ecological factors that constrain as well as facilitate the emergence of new viruses is analyzed.”
​

Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

LURKER blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Unbeliever. Haha.

And hello to you as well. I understand the urge to classify those who don't agree with your particular views as an "unbeliever", it can be a scary thing to re-examine your own view of how things are "supposed" to have happened. I know because I started out very much like you (though I did phrase my thoughts slightly more articulately than "blah blah blah") arguing against evolution and an old earth, but the more I learned about the science behind these issues the clearer it became that either evolution occurred and the earth was really old, or that God had created a deceptive universe. Understanding that had no effect on my walk with Christ other than that it allowed me to appreciate His creation on a far deeper level than before.




Lurker

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Why on earth you keep going back to this boggles the mind. Moon dust is a non-issue, even YEC organizations recognize that. Yes, scientists ideas about how moon dust was produced were confirmed by the landings.
It is a non-issue to you. But it is a huge issue when it comes to an unbiased look at the age of the earth and the moon, an essential element of evolution.



Absolute baloney. In terrestrial deserts sand is formed due to weathering not infrared energy from the sun. Think about what you’re saying, we’re talking about molecular bonds not granules of sand!
Sand deserts were not produced by weathering. They are produced by the heating (EM radiation) and cooling process. And heat produces fatigue in other things, from metals to fiberglass. Take that process and multiple it hundreds of time, and you have the moon dust.



I remain completely unconvinced that lunar dust is a result of radiation from the sun breaking the molecular bonds of moon rocks, especially since a very practical solution stares at you in the face every time you look at the moon and see it pockmarked with enormous craters. Big rocks slamming into bigger rocks will make smaller rocks.
And you see the great smooth surfaces and the old walls, nearly swallowed by the relative smoothness. Something "weathered" those walls, and it was not weather or erosion.

And why on earth is volcanism associated with meteor strikes a problem?
Because any "dust" produced by the meteors would be gone due to the volcanic activity.



No. . .those mechanisms are put forward because they explain the evidence.
They explain the reason within the a priori of the proposer.



The craters on our side look stunningly like craters on the far side of the moon so unless you’ve got actual examples I’m thinking this is simply made up. As is the stuff about eroded craters, the only thing that erodes old craters on the moon is new craters or volcanism.
Have you actually seen a picture of the back side of the moon???? And again, you interpret the erosion based upon your predetermined set of possibilities.



As I mentioned, the atmosphere formed by outgassing, volcanism, and comets was earth’s second atmosphere and was not at all like our present atmosphere. Oxygen only began accumulating in significant amounts later, during the Archean era 3.8 billion years ago, due to primitive photosynthetic algae.
Plants do not create oxygen. They free oxygen. The proportion of oxygen and nitrogen to carbon and sulfur within the lithosphere is not consistant with outgassing.

I love this! Don't you see that this table is a perfect example of Sherlock's maxim. Since there was a meteor strike large enough to create the moon, and since the atmosphere would have been created after that, and since outgassing would not have produced significant amounts of oxygen, how would we explain the present oxygen in the lithosphere. By the way, I assume when they say Oxygen, they are refering only to pure oxygen?
The tectonic plates formed as the molten surface cooled long after the impact.
The tectonic plate have large amounts of silicate and carbon. That would have gone flying off into space. There would not have been enough to left to form a stable crust. The molten core would have been expose, causing enormous amounts of pure iron and nickel to pour onto the surface. Whatever shape that pure metal form would have frozen strongly enough to be seen even today.



Utterly ridiculous, it explains the most evidence – that’s what scientific theories do. It explains the moons similar oxygen isotopes and it’s distance from earth, among other things. That a planet gets hit by a really big object every once and a while is hardly “improbable”.
In three dimensional space, it isn't ridiculous at all. Do you realize how tiny the earth is within the space occupied by the solar system? But still, the moon causes great effect on the earth, but when the moon and the sun line up with the earth either between them or with the moon between the earth and the sun, it produces a sizably larger tide, because of the combined effects of the gravity of the moon and the sun. consider how far we are from the sun and the speed that we are going at. In both instances you can see the strength of the sun's gravilty, enough to have prevented the moon from forming out of a ring of dust and rock.



Again, this is utterly ridiculous. We have large and small objects that orbit the earth right now in relatively stable orbits despite the “competing gravitational pulls of the earth and sun”. Scientists have run simulations that show the giant impact hypothesis to be feasible, and it fits a lot of our observations, but it is by no means conclusive. Those simulations, however, do show a ring of debris that clumps together quite quickly, melts under it’s own pressure, and reforms into a spherical moon - NASA: Origin of the Earth and Moon
There is no such thing as a stable orbit. You must continue to put energy into the orbit, or the object falls to the earth. If you get too far out, the object falls toward the sun. In between, you have a tug-of war that would keep the object from ever forming enough mass to actually become a sphere of any notable size.






There are some variables that can affect some amino acids and not others based on their chirality, but I trend more toward explanations that deal not only with what was there to start with but also why one type of amino acid over the other was selected for. In that sense there are some tentative yet intriguing explanations such as, Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems.

“Experimental data for a series of central and simple molecules in biosystems show that some amino acids and a simple sugar molecule have a chiral discrimination in favor of homochirality. Models for segregation of racemic mixtures of chiral amphiphiles and lipophiles in aqueous solutions show that the amphiphiles with an active isomerization kinetics can perform a spontaneous break of symmetry during the segregation and self-assembly to homochiral matter. Based on this observation it is argued that biomolecules with a sufficiently strong chiral discrimination could be the origin of homochirality in biological systems.”

​

Again, a proposition with no evidence. There is no evidence to support the environmental preference of a left handed twist over a right handed twist.
Evolution doesn’t “produce” helpful adaptations, adaptations simply occur as either behavioral or physical. Physical adaptations are a direct product of random mutations (generally), whether or not those adaptations are helpful, hurtful, or neutral is largely dependent upon environment.
Individual adaptations (an idea without a true motor) would produce good and bad, but evolution assumes an upward complexity. Why not amphibians evolving into fish? It is just as probable, in fact more so, that the egg of an amphibian, laid in the water, would produce an offspring that breathed in water only, and had that mutation survive. But the theory of evolution demands an increasing complexity because it must begin with the simple and ultimately explain us, the supposed height of complexity. (By the way, frogs have more genetic material than us, so they are genetically more complex. Frogs rule.)

On what basis would the environmental history of the earth have discouraged diversity? The history of earth is characterized by progressive ecosystems, not homogeneity.
So we begin with life in the water (another assumption of evolution, because a dry environment produces more difficulties for the simplist life forms.) Every step of "evolution" produces a species adapted to handle something new. But it also closes doors. Man is the least adapted species because we have a huge list of what we cannot survive: water, heat cold, dryness, exposure to certain chemicals, tight spaces, an abundance of potential food sources, etc.

Evolution simply requires homogeneity within a given population to promote the genetic spread of a given trait. This is in no way applicable to populations in different environments or of different species.



New viruses are constantly evolving, where have you been?
New viruses are not springing out of non-viral life. Viruses are exchanging genetic material, but there is not ongoing mechanism to explain their existance in the first place. The thing is, viruses had to come from non-viral life. There is no reason for this mechanism of origin to have stopped, yet it is not happening anymore.

New viruses and new disease: mutation, evolution and ecology

“Given the extraordinarily high mutation rate of viruses, particularly those with RNA genomes, it is not surprising that new viruses are continually evolving. However, the symptomatology of old viral diseases has remained stable for centuries. The combination of genetic and ecological factors that constrain as well as facilitate the emergence of new viruses is analyzed.”
​

Lurker

Explain to me, in an old moon paradigm, the existance of water on the moon. Remember that the water in under constant exposure of microwaves.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

It is a non-issue to you. But it is a huge issue when it comes to an unbiased look at the age of the earth and the moon, an essential element of evolution.

No, it is simply a non-issue. Numerous other dating methods easily demonstrate that the earth is old and the moon-dust argument is a YEC talking point that is so debunked that even YEC organizations tell people like you not to use it.

Sand deserts were not produced by weathering. They are produced by the heating (EM radiation) and cooling process. And heat produces fatigue in other things, from metals to fiberglass. Take that process and multiple it hundreds of time, and you have the moon dust.

You can’t be serious. . .does the fact that we can actually see weathering occurring which produces sand that looks exactly like the sand that’s in a desert already bother you at all? Sure, heat from the sun can be a form of weathering as it helps to produce wind; is a major player in the water cycle; and can help to shatter rocks through repeated heating and cooling, but sand deserts are not the product of the same process that likely produced water on the moon via the breaking of molecular bonds from solar radiation.

And you see the great smooth surfaces and the old walls, nearly swallowed by the relative smoothness. Something "weathered" those walls, and it was not weather or erosion.

Detailed lunar pictures are not hard to find, here’s a great place to start:
Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon

When you find a formation consistent with your rather convoluted claims let me know.

Have you actually seen a picture of the back side of the moon????

Yes, and the craters on the near side of the moon look shockingly like the craters on the far side of the moon. The far side does have more, but they are craters nonetheless. See for yourself,

Far Side of the Moon
Near side of the Moon

Because any "dust" produced by the meteors would be gone due to the volcanic activity.

Look again at the survey of the near side of the moon, the lunar mare only covers about 40% of the surface leaving plenty of room for dust to accumulate. Furthermore, there are lots of impact craters within the mare that obviously occurred after volcanic activity ceased. Once again, reality disagrees with you.

Plants do not create oxygen. They free oxygen. The proportion of oxygen and nitrogen to carbon and sulfur within the lithosphere is not consistant with outgassing.

Except that it is consistent with outgassing combined with photosynthetic oxygen evolution since the gases from which plants free oxygen would have been present.

Atmospheric Evolution

Our current atmosphere is the result of influences on it over time, it has not remained static since the formation of the moon.

I love this! Don't you see that this table is a perfect example of Sherlock's maxim. Since there was a meteor strike large enough to create the moon, and since the atmosphere would have been created after that, and since outgassing would not have produced significant amounts of oxygen, how would we explain the present oxygen in the lithosphere. By the way, I assume when they say Oxygen, they are refering only to pure oxygen?

Except that this is not at all how the hypothesis of the evolution of earth’s atmosphere was developed or confirmed. In reality the theory was developed to explain observations and is supported by evidence such as banded iron formations.

“Banded iron formations are silica-rich rocks that show alternating thin layers of dark and red iron-rich rock. They are the most economically important deposits of iron ore. The silica probably was dissolved from volcanic ash and rock, and the iron came from sea floor vents or the weathering of iron-rich volcanic rocks. In the absence of free oxygen, iron dissolves in water. This must have occurred throughout the Archean, resulting in ocean waters that contained a great deal of dissolved iron. In the Proterozoic, however, the dissolved iron bonded with oxygen released into ocean water by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria to form magnetite (Fe3O4). This magnetite was then deposited on the ocean floor. The alternating layers in banded iron formations are thought to reflect the alternation of oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor conditions on the sea floor.

Thus, the history of Earth’s early crust also tells the story of its early atmosphere. Banded iron formations were precipitated from about 3.1 to about 2 billion years ago—most (92%) during the Proterozoic between 2.5 and 2 billion years ago. Until all the available iron had been deposited in banded iron formations, oxygen could not build up in the atmosphere. Red beds appeared only after free oxygen was released into the atmosphere, beginning about 2.0 to 1.8 billion years ago.”
Proterozoic: Changes in the Earth’s Atmosphere
​

Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.

1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis:

Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/earth.html
​

This is not, then, a matter of creating an explanation out of thin air in order to support an a priori assumption but is instead an explanation developed to fit the facts we observe which is supported by numerous lines of evidence.

The tectonic plate have large amounts of silicate and carbon. That would have gone flying off into space. There would not have been enough to left to form a stable crust. The molten core would have been expose, causing enormous amounts of pure iron and nickel to pour onto the surface. Whatever shape that pure metal form would have frozen strongly enough to be seen even today.

Sure the crust has large amounts of silicates. . .but then so does the upper mantle, so I don’t see why there shouldn’t be plenty left over after the upper layers of earth were blasted out into space. Furthermore, if such an impact occurred the sheer kinetic energy would have resulted in a molten planet, in which case I don’t see why heavy molten metals would have denied physics en masse and migrated to the surface.

In three dimensional space, it isn't ridiculous at all. Do you realize how tiny the earth is within the space occupied by the solar system? But still, the moon causes great effect on the earth, but when the moon and the sun line up with the earth either between them or with the moon between the earth and the sun, it produces a sizably larger tide, because of the combined effects of the gravity of the moon and the sun. consider how far we are from the sun and the speed that we are going at. In both instances you can see the strength of the sun's gravilty, enough to have prevented the moon from forming out of a ring of dust and rock.

Yes I realize how tiny the earth is within the space of the solar system, and yet we have thousands of impact craters all over the earth that prove we do get hit by lots of stuff from space. . .in fact according to your view we get hit by stuff all the time seeing as you have to cram all those impacts into 6,000 years.

No, I don’t at all see why the sun’s gravity should prevent ejected material from earth in a rapid and close-earth orbit to form the moon. Perhaps you are privy to data which scientists are not? Care to share it? I’m sure NASA would be thrilled.

There is no such thing as a stable orbit. You must continue to put energy into the orbit, or the object falls to the earth. If you get too far out, the object falls toward the sun. In between, you have a tug-of war that would keep the object from ever forming enough mass to actually become a sphere of any notable size.

Which is why I said that we already have objects with a relatively stable orbit. The moon is massive enough that when enough material collected together under the force of their own gravity the pressure generated re-melted and formed into the only shape possible for a molten body with a strong center of gravity – a sphere. Currently the moon is receding as well as slowing the rotation of the Earth due to tidal drag.

There is no evidence to support the environmental preference of a left handed twist over a right handed twist.

You mean beside the experimental data mentioned in the first line of the paper I provided? If there is a structural preference there doesn’t need to be a strong environmental preference.

Individual adaptations (an idea without a true motor) would produce good and bad, but evolution assumes an upward complexity.

No, evolution is descent with modification, there is no assumption of upward complexity. Increased diversification is a product of spreading populations interacting with diverging environments.

Why not amphibians evolving into fish? It is just as probable, in fact more so, that the egg of an amphibian, laid in the water, would produce an offspring that breathed in water only, and had that mutation survive.

That would be Lamarckism, not evolution. Evolution is driven by random variation within genomes prior to birth, not the environmental conditions into which individuals are borne. Yes, those environmental conditions will help to determine whether or not an individual is adapted to survive, but the adaptations themselves are already present, irregardless of environment.

But the theory of evolution demands an increasing complexity because it must begin with the simple and ultimately explain us, the supposed height of complexity. (By the way, frogs have more genetic material than us, so they are genetically more complex. Frogs rule.)

No, the theory of evolution explains the general trend of increased complexity, it does not “demand” it. So what if frogs have more genetic material than us? Not only is that not actually true, but it doesn’t actually matter. As far as I know only one amphibian has had their genome sequenced (the African frog, Xenopus tropicalis), and it has less chromosomes and less genes than humans,

“The X. tropicalis genome, which contains more than 20,000 genes – humans have about 23,000 – is of particular interest to Harland, who is part of a small community of scientists studying this frog in addition to its larger cousin, X. laevis. The frogs take up less room and have a shorter lifecycle – as little as 4 months instead of a year or more – while their smaller eggs are still relatively easy to manipulate and inject. The sequence will speed up the adoption of X. tropicalis for genetic studies in addition to developmental and cell biological studies, he said.”
​

First Amphibian Genome Sequenced - Science News - redOrbit
​

Irregardless, however, the net amount of genetic material is not synonymous with increased complexity. Nor is it an issue for the ToE.

So we begin with life in the water (another assumption of evolution, because a dry environment produces more difficulties for the simplist life forms.) Every step of "evolution" produces a species adapted to handle something new. But it also closes doors. Man is the least adapted species because we have a huge list of what we cannot survive: water, heat cold, dryness, exposure to certain chemicals, tight spaces, an abundance of potential food sources, etc.

I really don’t see what you’re going for here, we’ve already observed that things can evolve new and beneficial traits. No, man is obviously one of the best adapted species due to our very complex brains which make us excellent at making tools and, as a result, there is no species known that has spread to as many different environments as us.

Explain to me, in an old moon paradigm, the existance of water on the moon. Remember that the water in under constant exposure of microwave

Here’s one explanation,

The origin of the moon is now commonly believed to be the result of a Mars-sized object that impacted the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. This impact put a large amount of material into Earth's orbit that ultimately compacted to form the moon. The lunar magma ocean that is thought to have formed at some point during the compacting process, began to cool. During this cooling, water either escaped or was preserved as hydroxyl molecules in the crystallizing minerals.

Previous studies found evidence of water both on the lunar surface and inside the moon by using respectively, remote sensing data from the Indian spacecraft Chandrayaan-1 and other lunar sample analysis. Carnegie researchers looked within crystalline rocks called KREEP (K for potassium; REE, for rare Earth elements; and P for phosphorus). These rocks are a component of some lunar impact melt and basaltic rocks.

"Since water is insoluble in the main silicates that crystallized, we believed that it should have concentrated in those rocks," said Andrew Steele of Carnegie and co-author of the report. "That's why we selected KREEP to analyze."
NASA - Research Suggests Water Content Of Moon Interior Underestimated

​

Enjoy.




Lurker

 

[Lifelike]

And hello to you as well. I understand the urge to classify those who don't agree with your particular views as an "unbeliever", it can be a scary thing to re-examine your own view of how things are "supposed" to have happened. I know because I started out very much like you (though I did phrase my thoughts slightly more articulately than "blah blah blah") arguing against evolution and an old earth, but the more I learned about the science behind these issues the clearer it became that either evolution occurred and the earth was really old, or that God had created a deceptive universe. Understanding that had no effect on my walk with Christ other than that it allowed me to appreciate His creation on a far deeper level than before.




Lurker

Dont worry, I have areas in myself that are still an unbeliver as well. lol. thank you Lord Jesus for deliverance!
The reason I used the term unbeliever is because you really arent doing much else than explain how the word of God is incorrect and "science" is. I judge by the spirit of a thing, not by the words Im hearing.

If evolution were true it would have been confirmed by now, with the thousands of intermediate fossils and it wouldnt be called the "theory" of Evolution. Its just one of the things God is allowing so that He can humble the "wise" of this world and reveal His glory.
So how did death go on for billons of years before "and through the first Adam death came into the world"

I dont think evolution and Christianity can coexist as truth. Also, there are much more educated christian scientists than you and I both that believe in a young earth. Including Ken Ham (Founder of Answers in Genesis, who just happens to be my housemates uncle lol

Blah blah blah is just my way of saying ive heard it all before, and have looked at and understood the facts myself, and have debated, and dont really have the energy or passion to do it all over again

 

[ItinerantLurker]

The reason I used the term unbeliever is because you really arent doing much else than explain how the word of God is incorrect and "science" is. I judge by the spirit of a thing, not by the words Im hearing.

I certainly understand the impression, but what I'm actually doing is illustrating why believers shouldn't try to use the Bible in ways it was never meant to be used and, in so doing, to cause many Christians to stumble and many non-believers to view Christians as dishonest. The Bible simply isn't meant be a scientific description of creation, and when Christians try to use the Bible to say that the earth is really young, or that Isaiah knew the earth was a sphere they quickly start contradicting what we observe in reality. Many believers see this conflict between revelation and observation and end up concluding that the revelation must be wrong, I am merely suggesting that when revelation and observation collide we should look neither to denying scripture nor to denying reality but instead should look to our own flawed interpretations of scripture.

If evolution were true it would have been confirmed by now, with the thousands of intermediate fossils and it wouldnt be called the "theory" of Evolution.

Evolution has been confirmed though, that's why it is the leading theory in modern biology and is widely considered to be one of the most successful theories in history. In science theories explain things whereas laws describe things, that is why there is a "law of gravity" which describes how gravity affects objects, and a "theory of gravity" which tries to explain how this occurs. A "Theory" is the highest level to which an explanation can rise in science and is differentiated from a hypothesis in that it has been confirmed through testing its predictions.

So how did death go on for billons of years before "and through the first Adam death came into the world"

The same way Adam died "the very day" he ate from the tree of life; the death referred to was spiritual, not physical in nature.

I dont think evolution and Christianity can coexist as truth.

They used to say the same about heliocentrism and Christianity, but as Galileo explained,

“The way in which I could quickly and surely demonstrate that Copernicus’s position is not contrary to the Scriptures would be to show with a thousand proofs that it is true, and that the opposite cannot hold good; thus, since two truths cannot contradict each other, it is necessary that both his theory and the Scriptures are in agreement.”
​

Also, there are much more educated christian scientists than you and I both that believe in a young earth. Including Ken Ham (Founder of Answers in Genesis, who just happens to be my housemates uncle lol

Ken Ham is not a scientist and he is not more educated than me.

Blah blah blah is just my way of saying ive heard it all before, and have looked at and understood the facts myself, and have debated, and dont really have the energy or passion to do it all over again

I don't really see how you could have understood the facts if you are under the impression that a scientific theory graduates to some higher level after being confirmed. I would highly encourage you to broaden your horizons beyond sources like AIG who prey on your ignorance and learn a bit more about evolution, physics, and geology.




Lurker

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I have a meeting to go to, but I look forward to responding when I return.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

No, it is simply a non-issue. Numerous other dating methods easily demonstrate that the earth is old and the moon-dust argument is a YEC talking point that is so debunked that even YEC organizations tell people like you not to use it.
I have no expectation that you will ever move beyond the "this is not an issue". The fact is that the EM band radiation is the primary mover for all the weather on the inner planets. Without the ozone and our EM field the rocks of the earth would be leeched of many of the lighter elements and reduced (slowly but surely) to dust.



You can’t be serious. . .does the fact that we can actually see weathering occurring which produces sand that looks exactly like the sand that’s in a desert already bother you at all? Sure, heat from the sun can be a form of weathering as it helps to produce wind; is a major player in the water cycle; and can help to shatter rocks through repeated heating and cooling, but sand deserts are not the product of the same process that likely produced water on the moon via the breaking of molecular bonds from solar radiation.
The wadis of the Saharah are the result of thousands of years of infrared radiation. It was not water, because there is none, it was not wind, because there is not enough exposed stone to wear down. Remember that the EM band is very wide and we only get a small portion of that band.



Detailed lunar pictures are not hard to find, here’s a great place to start:
Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon

When you find a formation consistent with your rather convoluted claims let me know.
Just look up at the great circular calderas of the moon. Even the ones that are not affected by vulcanism have areas were the rims are worn down. Not by water, not by wind, but by radiation.



Yes, and the craters on the near side of the moon look shockingly like the craters on the far side of the moon. The far side does have more, but they are craters nonetheless. See for yourself,

Far Side of the Moon
Near side of the Moon



Look again at the survey of the near side of the moon, the lunar mare only covers about 40% of the surface leaving plenty of room for dust to accumulate. Furthermore, there are lots of impact craters within the mare that obviously occurred after volcanic activity ceased. Once again, reality disagrees with you.
Once again you miss the point. There is dust on the mares. Not from meteor strike, but from the wear of radiation.



Except that it is consistent with outgassing combined with photosynthetic oxygen evolution since the gases from which plants free oxygen would have been present.

There is not nearly enough carbon in the air, nor sulfur (I noticed that your illustration did not include sulfides). Go visit an "outgassing" volcano and see for yourself. The lithospere cannot be explained by "outgassing."
Atmospheric Evolution

Our current atmosphere is the result of influences on it over time, it has not remained static since the formation of the moon.
If the moon was broken off by a meteor impact, there would not be enough atmosphere to begin an oxygen cycle. If the impact through that much rock into escape velocity, there would be nothing left.




Except that this is not at all how the hypothesis of the evolution of earth’s atmosphere was developed or confirmed. In reality the theory was developed to explain observations and is supported by evidence such as banded iron formations.

“Banded iron formations are silica-rich rocks that show alternating thin layers of dark and red iron-rich rock. They are the most economically important deposits of iron ore. The silica probably was dissolved from volcanic ash and rock, and the iron came from sea floor vents or the weathering of iron-rich volcanic rocks. In the absence of free oxygen, iron dissolves in water. This must have occurred throughout the Archean, resulting in ocean waters that contained a great deal of dissolved iron. In the Proterozoic, however, the dissolved iron bonded with oxygen released into ocean water by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria to form magnetite (Fe3O4). This magnetite was then deposited on the ocean floor. The alternating layers in banded iron formations are thought to reflect the alternation of oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor conditions on the sea floor.

Thus, the history of Earth’s early crust also tells the story of its early atmosphere. Banded iron formations were precipitated from about 3.1 to about 2 billion years ago—most (92%) during the Proterozoic between 2.5 and 2 billion years ago. Until all the available iron had been deposited in banded iron formations, oxygen could not build up in the atmosphere. Red beds appeared only after free oxygen was released into the atmosphere, beginning about 2.0 to 1.8 billion years ago.”
Proterozoic: Changes in the Earth’s Atmosphere
​

Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.

1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis:

Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
​

This is not, then, a matter of creating an explanation out of thin air in order to support an a priori assumption but is instead an explanation developed to fit the facts we observe which is supported by numerous lines of evidence.
We are talking about a postulation that begins by saying, since the moon exists and since, because of the laws of physics, it cannot be captured, it must have come from the earth itself. And since such an event would have destroyed the atmosphere and since there is an atmosphere, there must have been enough internal gasses to replenish the atmosphere.



Sure the crust has large amounts of silicates. . .but then so does the upper mantle, so I don’t see why there shouldn’t be plenty left over after the upper layers of earth were blasted out into space. Furthermore, if such an impact occurred the sheer kinetic energy would have resulted in a molten planet, in which case I don’t see why heavy molten metals would have denied physics en masse and migrated to the surface.
Because the force neccesary would have cracked the core and we would have a giant rust belt covering at least a fifth of earth's surface.



Yes I realize how tiny the earth is within the space of the solar system, and yet we have thousands of impact craters all over the earth that prove we do get hit by lots of stuff from space. . .in fact according to your view we get hit by stuff all the time seeing as you have to cram all those impacts into 6,000 years.
Actually, we have very few.

No, I don’t at all see why the sun’s gravity should prevent ejected material from earth in a rapid and close-earth orbit to form the moon. Perhaps you are privy to data which scientists are not? Care to share it? I’m sure NASA would be thrilled.
Because everything is either moving away of moving toward the earth. Every satellite that we have put in orbit has degration. Even the moon is moving away. You are proposing millions of pieces of rocks in a stable orbit for millions of years. If it is far enough out to not fall back then the sun's gravity would be enough to either slow it enough to fall bakc or to pull it toward the sun.



Which is why I said that we already have objects with a relatively stable orbit. The moon is massive enough that when enough material collected together under the force of their own gravity the pressure generated re-melted and formed into the only shape possible for a molten body with a strong center of gravity – a sphere. Currently the moon is receding as well as slowing the rotation of the Earth due to tidal drag.




You mean beside the experimental data mentioned in the first line of the paper I provided? If there is a structural preference there doesn’t need to be a strong environmental preference.
If the dominance was 80/20 perhaps, but nearly 100%, I don't think so. The fact is that the more leaps from chemical to biological, the more likely that life would survive. As it is, the original leap would have left behind half of its potential, making it more likely to have been a one time event rather than an ongoing normative process.



No, evolution is descent with modification, there is no assumption of upward complexity. Increased diversification is a product of spreading populations interacting with diverging environments.
Tell me one example where evolutionist would see a downward movement in complexity.



That would be Lamarckism, not evolution. Evolution is driven by random variation within genomes prior to birth, not the environmental conditions into which individuals are borne. Yes, those environmental conditions will help to determine whether or not an individual is adapted to survive, but the adaptations themselves are already present, irregardless of environment.
I gave you one instance where evolution could go two ways: Amphibians to air breather or amphibians to water breather. So which is the most likely scenario? Since amphibians lay their eggs in water, the second is more likely by far. Otherwise you must have two events--the pre-birth anomaly of air-breathing from birth and the accidental placement (and survival) of the eggs on dry land.



No, the theory of evolution explains the general trend of increased complexity, it does not “demand” it. So what if frogs have more genetic material than us? Not only is that not actually true, but it doesn’t actually matter. As far as I know only one amphibian has had their genome sequenced (the African frog, Xenopus tropicalis), and it has less chromosomes and less genes than humans,
Uganda clawed frog, 7.8 times. Not that this specific example is important, but it shows that complexity is an illusion, yet "scientists" consistantly build evolutionary models according to that illusions, arranging the evolutionary events from simple to complex.

“The X. tropicalis genome, which contains more than 20,000 genes – humans have about 23,000 – is of particular interest to Harland, who is part of a small community of scientists studying this frog in addition to its larger cousin, X. laevis. The frogs take up less room and have a shorter lifecycle – as little as 4 months instead of a year or more – while their smaller eggs are still relatively easy to manipulate and inject. The sequence will speed up the adoption of X. tropicalis for genetic studies in addition to developmental and cell biological studies, he said.”
​

First Amphibian Genome Sequenced - Science News - redOrbit
​

Irregardless, however, the net amount of genetic material is not synonymous with increased complexity. Nor is it an issue for the ToE.



I really don’t see what you’re going for here, we’ve already observed that things can evolve new and beneficial traits. No, man is obviously one of the best adapted species due to our very complex brains which make us excellent at making tools and, as a result, there is no species known that has spread to as many different environments as us.
But not because we adapted. Rather we used technology. Naked, unsheltered and untooled, we die in most environments. Normally, we make tools.



Here’s one explanation,

The origin of the moon is now commonly believed to be the result of a Mars-sized object that impacted the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. This impact put a large amount of material into Earth's orbit that ultimately compacted to form the moon. The lunar magma ocean that is thought to have formed at some point during the compacting process, began to cool. During this cooling, water either escaped or was preserved as hydroxyl molecules in the crystallizing minerals.

Previous studies found evidence of water both on the lunar surface and inside the moon by using respectively, remote sensing data from the Indian spacecraft Chandrayaan-1 and other lunar sample analysis. Carnegie researchers looked within crystalline rocks called KREEP (K for potassium; REE, for rare Earth elements; and P for phosphorus). These rocks are a component of some lunar impact melt and basaltic rocks.

"Since water is insoluble in the main silicates that crystallized, we believed that it should have concentrated in those rocks," said Andrew Steele of Carnegie and co-author of the report. "That's why we selected KREEP to analyze."
NASA - Research Suggests Water Content Of Moon Interior Underestimated
Still no explanation why the microwaves have not dissipated them, even in the polar craters.
​

Enjoy.




Lurker

What is interesting to me is that you have never in all this discussion envoked the hand of God. You answer the issues like an atheist or a hard core deist. Even on the subject of miracles, you did not cite a single Biblical miracle that you believe. You did not mention a single thing that you accept by faith.

 

[Lifelike]

Evolution has been confirmed though, that's why it is the leading theory in modern biology and is widely considered to be one of the most successful theories in history. In science theories explain things whereas laws describe things, that is why there is a "law of gravity" which describes how gravity affects objects, and a "theory of gravity" which tries to explain how this occurs. A "Theory" is the highest level to which an explanation can rise in science and is differentiated from a hypothesis in that it has been confirmed through testing its predictions.

Evolution has not been confirmed, If a theory is confirmed it becomes fact... The Theory of gravity is just that - a theory, not a confirmed fact, in other words, we dont really know how this works but this is our supposition at this time until we have more facts or the information that we use to theorize changes and then our theory changes. New evidence may or may not support this theory and bring it closer to something we can say is fact. Evolution does not have this kind of support, and so is still a theory. If I say i have a theory about something it means"I dont know!" but based or what I do know "this is what i think is probably the case" "Theoretically" is not really something to start singing and dancing about, and as we can see so very often, theories change and are blown out of the water by new facts that are discovered. Oh how many times do the science books need to be rewritten? I dare say a lot of speculation will be desinegrated at the second coming. By the way, I am all for science, and it is a great endevour, and as human beings we should search and question, its part of the great discovery but God is so wise, and knows how to fully lead the ones that think they are so wise and knowledgable into the place that he can utterly humble them.

The same way Adam died "the very day" he ate from the tree of life; the death referred to was spiritual, not physical in nature.

Adam did die that very day, He died to God, who is the Life. So do you believe that adam even existed? or that he evolved from apes before he came to the point of disobedience, or do you think all of these stories are just parables?

They used to say the same about heliocentrism and Christianity, but as Galileo explained,

“The way in which I could quickly and surely demonstrate that Copernicus’s position is not contrary to the Scriptures would be to show with a thousand proofs that it is true, and that the opposite cannot hold good; thus, since two truths cannot contradict each other, it is necessary that both his theory and the Scriptures are in agreement.”
​

I dont believe that evolution and Christianity is compatible due to the fact that death entered through adam.

Ken Ham is not a scientist and he is not more educated than me.

Mmm I bet u couldnt beat Him in a debate though hey..

I don't really see how you could have understood the facts if you are under the impression that a scientific theory graduates to some higher level after being confirmed. I would highly encourage you to broaden your horizons beyond sources like AIG who prey on your ignorance and learn a bit more about evolution, physics, and geology.

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well established propositions that are regarded as matters of actual fact.

Everything can be argued, Its all about interpretation hey. Introduce new information and everything can change. God reigns, even to the extent that He allows man to understand what he does and holds back facts for His own purpose and timing. God is not mocked and its funny to me that man, who can be likened to the ant, is so pompous and prances around, chest puffed out, boasting great things, lol, we shall see.

And AIG doesnt prey on anyones ignorance, that believe what they believe, just like you believe what you believe.

 

[Cleante]

Only in Western Christianity does the subject of Evolution and Science conflict with Religious Truth. I am not saying that there are small spouts of conflicts in the Eastern World but I would describe the the conflict between Science and Religion in the West as a war.

As one Eastern Orthodox Writer said, "

The reason for the persistence of the fundamentalists, which makes this not merely a privately held belief, is social. It is only in our current situation of fin de siecle (the end of the age) that it became possible to come into open conflict with scientific data. At the end of this century statements contrary to science have become fashionable. Astrologers, fortunetellers, magicians, and other occultists are free to say the most bizarre things. It seems that people are tired of scientific sobriety and responsibility and are ready to accept anything - "Why not?" The purest form of voluntarism and irrationality takes the place of argumentation: "This is what I feel! This is so exciting!" This massive ecstasy by irrationality makes also Protestant literalness completely into sellable goods... Views and opinions of radical creationists can not be accepted because they use scientific data in an arbitrary and non-objective way, by which they produce fair objections from those who are professionally involved in science. There is a real danger here that a biologist, having read some arrogant creationist book, will apply the word "rubbish" to Christianity in general."

As the Orthodox Church of America has put it, "In short, then, Orthodoxy absolutely affirms that God is the Creator and Author of all things, that He is actively engaged with His creation, and that He desires to restore His creation to full communion with Himself through the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, unlike Darwinism, is not a matter of ideology but, rather, a matter of theology. Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."


The Holy Orthodox Church teaches that the Old Testament's purpose is not a literal history book. Its purpose is to explain the relationship of God and man. The critical elements of Orthodoxy can be found in the Nicene Creed and all it says about Creation is that God the Father is the "Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible" and that he did so through His Son, IC XC. Notice that it only says that god CREATED the Heaven and the Earth. It is not meant to tell us HOW God created the Heaven and the Earth.

If you are a believer in biblical literalism recall what IC XC said in Matthew. "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." How many of you would actually cut their right hand, or any part of their body, which causes you to sin? This verse to me means that we need to remove ourselves from things that cause us to sin, not to literally cut off our right hand.

I would attribute this massive conflict with the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura and Literalism. When a person discards the Σοφíα of Holy Tradition, all they are left with is the Bible itself and this created a logical dilemma. With nothing concrete to guide the person, how do they know what is literal and which is not, unless you treat it all as literal or none as literal. The Orthodox church does not have to deal with this logical dilemma. We can freely accept the Old Testament as largely allegorical. We can even accept it as "legend" [Notice the quotations, I am in no way saying that the Word of God is simply legend. So don't say that, if you do you have not read my entire post.] as G.K. Chesterton, an Anglican Theologian, said, "A legend as a matter of fact ought to be treated more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority in the village who are sane. The history book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad."

The Holy Scriptures are not a history book nor should they ever be treated as a history book. The Holy Scriptures are much more than that. St. Paul the Apostle wrote in his second letter to Timothy, "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is XC IC. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

St. Paul did not say that the Holy Scriptures are a history book. The Holy Scriptures accomplish all of the above just fine without being a history book.

 

[giantone]

I was thinking about some of what the bible is very specific about like:

Man was first then Woman was made out of the man's body, the chicken came before the egg.

Just these two alone screams against Evolution. Also at what stage in Evolution if it were true would man have got his soul?


Genesis 2:7 *And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Corinthians 15:45 *And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


I once lost an argument about evolution what happened was I was at work in the break room talking to someone about creationism and someone else was over hearing me talk and she lunges at me with her big fingernails she looked like she was going to gouge out my eyes screaming "EVOLUTION IS FOR REAL!, EVOLUTION IS FOR REAL!" and I said "YES IT IS!!!" thinking please don't gouge out my eyes. She didn't seem satisfied for some strange reason.

 

[Cleante]

I was thinking about some of what the bible is very specific about like:

Man was first then Woman was made out of the man's body, the chicken came before the egg.

Just these two alone screams against Evolution. Also at what stage in Evolution if it were true would man have got his soul?


Genesis 2:7 *And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Corinthians 15:45 *And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


I once lost an argument about evolution what happened was I was at work in the break room talking to someone about creationism and someone else was over hearing me talk and she lunges at me with her big fingernails she looked like she was going to gouge out my eyes screaming "EVOLUTION IS FOR REAL!, EVOLUTION IS FOR REAL!" and I said "YES IT IS!!!" thinking please don't gouge out my eyes. She didn't seem satisfied for some strange reason.

Again with the Literal interpretation. Looking beyond the literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 we arrive at a deeper meaning. Something I feel that the original author(s) of Genesis were trying to tell his (their) audience. This verse is telling us that we are not God. We did not make ourselves. We are limited. We do not rule the universe.

However, aside from these negatory statements, Genesis gives us consoling words. Man is dust from the Earth; therefore, we are all the same. No matter our culture, ethnicity, race, we are all the same, earth. This is an idea that was reinforced during the Black Plague. Emperor and commoner, tax collector and tax payer, master and slave, they were all dust and were destined to return to dust in their death. We are all one humanity that arose from God's one earth.

In response to the Corinthians verse you posted, it appears to me that St. Paul is telling the Corinthians and the Church of Corinth that man, you and me, are mortals meant to serve the Lord. We are set apart from IC XC, who was the Last Adam, because he gives life [Quickening in the King James Version means life-giving]. Through IC XC we are granted life. If you were to read the entire chapter, you would find that St. Paul is talking about the resurrection of the body, which in this case fits with my explanation of the verse.

 

[giantone]

Again with the Literal interpretation. Looking beyond the literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 we arrive at a deeper meaning. Something I feel that the original author(s) of Genesis were trying to tell his (their) audience. This verse is telling us that we are not God. We did not make ourselves. We are limited. We do not rule the universe.

However, aside from these negatory statements, Genesis gives us consoling words. Man is dust from the Earth; therefore, we are all the same. No matter our culture, ethnicity, race, we are all the same, earth. This is an idea that was reinforced during the Black Plague. Emperor and commoner, tax collector and tax payer, master and slave, they were all dust and were destined to return to dust in their death. We are all one humanity that arose from God's one earth.

In response to the Corinthians verse you posted, it appears to me that St. Paul is telling the Corinthians and the Church of Corinth that man, you and me, are mortals meant to serve the Lord. We are set apart from IC XC, who was the Last Adam, because he gives life [Quickening in the King James Version means life-giving]. Through IC XC we are granted life. If you were to read the entire chapter, you would find that St. Paul is talking about the resurrection of the body, which in this case fits with my explanation of the verse.

but you didn't answer when man got his soul, did some apes make it to heaven?

 

[Cleante]

but you didn't answer when man got his soul, did some apes make it to heaven?

Apes cannot make it to heaven. They do not possess a soul. That is a ridiculous question. I am not God. I cannot tell you when man received his soul, nor can I tell you when you or me received our soul. Could it have been before conception, at the moment of conception, at birth? This is what sets the Eastern Church apart from the Western Church. We do not try to figure out every single thing in our religion in terms of rational language. The Western Church is a rational church. The Eastern Church is a mystical church. There are some things that human beings will never be able to comprehend. These things are deemed mysteries in the Eastern Church. An example of such a mystery is the Mystical Supper, also known as the Eucharist, Holy Communion, etc.

Simply put, to deny the possibility of evolution as apart of God's creation is to deny the omnipotence of the Creator himself. Also, I would agree with the my church, the Greek Orthodox Church, that the literal interpretation of the Creation story leads to a false interpretation, just as a belief in evolution which excludes God. The aim, in my opinion, is a spiritual, allegorical, poetic, interpretation meant to strengthen our faith and to realize our relation to the Creator. Next to him we are nothing, but next to one another we are the same.

 

[jimmydiggs]

My strictly non-literal-metaphorical-personal-revelationa-opinionatedl interpretation of Genesis 1, states that the earth is a giant turtle shell.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Cleante]

My strictly non-literal-metaphorical-personal-revelationa-opinionatedl interpretation of Genesis 1, states that the earth is a giant turtle shell.

Prove me wrong.

Scripture is not open to personal interpretation, on that basis yours is wrong. Second, you being facetious is proof enough for anyone to know that you are wrong. Third, satellite images would prove you wrong. Fourth, do you know what metaphors are? Fifth, you are missing the entire point of interpreting the Creation story in a spiritual and allegorical manner.

Sarcasm isn't the best way to make your point. If you could actually make your point, you'd do so without arousing passions and emotions in your audience. This is why I appreciate Charis. While we may disagree on things, we can do so civilly and using logic.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Man was first then Woman was made out of the man's body

I find it interesting because it goes against logic--even ancient man recognized that women give birth, but men do not. Yet genetically, you find woman in man but you do not find man in woman.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

There are some foundational things that I believe regarding this subject.
First, I do not believe that the Bible is trying to be a science book. I believe that it uses ordinary language and that it is unreasonable to expect that it would not use the normal idioms of common language.
Second, I believe that the Bible is inspired and that it is historically accurate.
Third, I believe that the "conflicts" between the Bible and science are largely a product of world view.
Fourth, I believe that certain events, such as creation and the flood are not natural events and cannot be proven scientifically. I do believe that they are historic events and that there is evidence which speaks to that.
Fifth, I believe in macro-evolution. I believe that God planted the apple tree in the rose. I believe that the creative power of God continued to rest on the earth after creation.

 

[jailhouselounge]

I kind of like the discussion here.. lol. I just want to point out that evolution is somewhat broad and instead of disagreeing with the term itself you guys might want to point out what part of evolution do you agree/disagree with like macro or micro? I think it's important to make this distinction with the case one presents because evolution does have some merits to it.

 

[Graybeard]

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God is not a monkey....so that settles it for me