that should be center of the physical universe
How can God, who is not physical, be the center of a physical universe?
You want to rewrite this so it makes sense?
2 Likes
If you had bothered to read the original article you would have seen this is what was actually done.
2 Likes
What measurements do you have that tell us that the “very obvious fibres” should “simply not even be there in those samples”? The “very obvious fibres” were stuff such as collagen, which does tend to last a very long time. The stuff that really shouldn’t have been there in 68 million year old samples, but that should have been there in 4,500 year old samples, such as sequenceable DNA, wasn’t.
No Adam, it’s your analogy that is absurd. PCR Covid solutions and demineralising solutions are completely different things; please do not insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise.
The point, Adam, is that before you can make any claims about what should or shouldn’t have been there, you need to make sure your facts are straight about what actually was there. The fact that it needed to be soaked in a demineralising solution meant that, by definition, it was not “unpermineralised,” and to claim that it was, as I’ve heard YECs do time and time again, is lying.
Yes, precisely.
Did you get that from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?
Anyways, you “In the beginning God” is not relevant to the verses referencing a stationary earth.
from a Christian perspective, it absolutely is relevant…if there is a creator, wouldn’t that logically coincide with his residence being the center of all things? How then can one possibly claim the center of the universe is the earth exactly?
Stationary earth is not consistent at all with the narrative we are presented within the first few chapters of Genesis or the last book of the Bible Revelation where God is the center of all things.
What does place the focus on the earth is merely the explanation of the fall of man, the initiation and implementation of the plan of salvation, and the final restoration of the world back to its former glory before the fall (a new heavens and a new earth). That is the focus of the bible, however, it does not mean the earth is the center of the universe and all other things revolve around it.
I do not subscribe to the idea that simply because the catholic church made a series of errant doctrines that we now know were aimed at nothing more than a power and money grab, that should be considered the appropriate understanding of the scriptures from where they apparently got said doctrine. You have to also keep in context, this is the same organization that burned bibles not written in Latin…only allowing the publication of Latin bibles that by and large the majority of people could not read!
EDIT…
here are a couple of questions that i would ask evolutionists…
let’s say that natural selection is truth and that, humanity progresses from a lower form of life to a higher one. That would i think also means that our intelligence grows as well which is i think is fairly self-evident. This would then mean in my world that sexuality grows via the process of natural selection as well.
so i would expect that anything that does not fit the model of survival should die out yes?
Ok, so explain the following…how then can homosexuality be something that has seemingly expanded in the last few decades rather than declined?
Also, shouldn’t homosexuality be a human condition that predates heterosexual behavior and that those individuals who are not capable of naturally procreating would therefore die out?
Another question…how do evolutionists explain rape? Shouldn’t rapists also have died out by now because this behavior should pre-date a consensual intimacy? I think we even have medical references where this behavior may be biological rather than social. It seems to me that in fact the opposite has happened here also.
The bible truth is that these behaviours are the result of sin…they have always been part of the fallen mans nature and that without God, they will continue.
1 Like
I don’t know anything about the evolutionary ins and outs of homosexuality.
However I can tell you that even if homosexuality is something that evolution can’t account for, it would only mean that the theory of evolution is incomplete. It would not mean that it is incorrect. The fact that humans and animals share a common ancestor is still as rock solid as they come, and, for what it’s worth, something that the Bible itself affirms. And even if humans and animals didn’t share a common ancestor, that would not change the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and not six thousand.
1 Like
That is like, totally not a logical inference.
The rest of your post I leave to the reader as an exemplar of just how bizarre YEC objections to evolution can get.
3 Likes
Sometimes it’s best to leave bad arguments unanswered and just let their badness speak for itself.
Something that perhaps I would do well to remember myself.
4 Likes
“AiG … are yet committed to a 19th century pre-scientific worldview.” Ironically, they are actually committed to a 20th century modernistic worldview. It is the young-earthers and antievolutionists who overvalue science, falling for the secular error of claiming that science is the ultimate authority for theological issues. The creation science movement insists that it must have scientific support for its claims, to the point of lying about science in order to appear scientific. Thus, they are falling into the error of the legalistic theological leaders of Jesus’ day, breaking God’s command to uphold their tradition. Science is great for figuring out how the physical world works, but not especially useful for more important issues such as ethics or theology.
It is also unfair to the 19th and previous centuries to claim that AiG holds to the views of those times. Anyone knowledgeable about geology was aware of the earth being old by the mid-1770’s (with strong suspicion of an old earth going back to the late 1600’s). The date for creation invoked by AiG is a product of credible early 17th century scholarship. But the historical researches of people like James Ussher and Isaac Newton who were coming up with an age for the earth of a few thousand years in the 1500’s and 1600’s actually led to modern geology, not to modern young-earth claims. Ussher did not simply grab his Bible, add up the numbers, and get 4004 BC. The Bible does not give numbers for all the relevant times; textual transmission of some of the numbers is a problem (for example Saul’s reign is stated to have begun when he was 1 - something like “forty” is missing, and the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 1-10 vary considerably between ancient versions, besides the question of whether all the numbers are correctly interpreted as literal years), and of course the Bible does not tell us how long it has been since the close of the New Testament. Instead, scholars used all the information available, including other sources on ancient history (mostly Greek and Roman). Modern standards of reporting uncertainty also did not yet exist; no doubt Ussher and Newton and all the others thought that their own calculations were solid but did not see a problem when calculated dates of creation ranged from mid-3000’s to low 5000’s BC. As people began to realize in the second half of the 1600’s that geological evidence could also tell us about earth’s history (rejecting Platonic and Aristotelian explanations and convincing people that fossils actually could be as old as Noah), they gradually built up information pointing to a long pre-human history.
Young-earthers claim to represent the historical Christian position, but this rests entirely on the false dichotomy (also all too common in scientific sources) of either young earth or old earth. The reality is that multiple different views exist, promoting various ages of the earth. A better dividing line is between earth and humans existing through infinite cycles into the past versus a linear history that has a beginning and end. Earth being 6000 years old is much closer to a modern geological understanding than earth being infinitely old.
3 Likes
Quite frankly, I’d become suspicious of you guys if AiG gave you a good endorsement. 
8 Likes
[cut and pasted content deleted by moderator. Go up thread if you want to read it.]
I believe that CMI and AIG and any other defender of truth should not make excuses for those who oppose God - and let’s face it - the billions of years story is directly associated with the unbelieving atheist and hence with Satan who calls God a liar. CMI and AIG and anyone else should do exactly the same with this BOY story as has been done with the lgbtq+ agenda - call sin a sin and save people from the eternal flames by telling them to repent from their sin.
I now have reached peace over this matter - it’s simply a matter of having to repent of sin. Ephesians 4 tells me to speak the truth in love. What you do with it is up to you.
You keep repeating this as if you were trying to make it true. Can you point to even just one place where Biologos claimed this?
You say you oppose lying - and rightly so. Yet you keep bearing false witness about others by falsely attributing to them words that they do not own. The only place I’ve only seen that claim coming from is you. Why do you trample on the word of God by ignoring its imperative not to bear false witness about your neighbor?
1 Like
Read this post and all the replies in it. See Jammycakes in particular - and I’m not the only one responding to his accusations.
JammyCakes is intimately connected to Biologos and even if I wasn’t referring to Biologos as the organization ( I wrote “website” ) it essentially boils down to the same thing. Your choice of interpretation but that’s fair to me.
This isn’t the BioLogos website. That would be here: https://biologos.org/
This is a discussion forum hosted by BioLogos and open to anyone who shows up. It is moderated to keep people from descending into poop flinging, but BioLogos exercises no editorial control over what gets posted here.
4 Likes
I wrote what I wrote. Please see the illogic of your reply - how else would I get onto this particular forum if it wasn’t via the Biologos website? You seem to want to disassociate this forum and its contents from the official website?? That doesn’t make sense to me.
No, I want people to understand how the internet works and the difference between articles BioLogos publishes on its website (solicited and vetted in an editorial process) and comments on a comment board by anyone who cares to contribute. It is dishonest and willfully ignorant to identify something you read on a comment board as “published on the BioLogos website,” though that doesn’t stop DI and and AIG from pulling that kind of stuff all the time.
1 Like
I will not continue to discuss this small item. Suffice to show you the URL : https://discourse.biologos.org/
How does it read to you? The domain anchors anything that is contained in it and the way to get to your biologos website is www.biologos.org.
What more can I say? I rest my case.
It reads as a Discourse forum, which everyone who knows anything knows is a comment board.
By all means, continue to be dishonest and willfully ignorant if that’s how you roll.