The Fall of Historical Adam, (Federal Head of man), impacts all of humanity to need Christ's Salvation

So let me get this straight.

You are telling us that one of the most mature and well studied theories in the whole of biology—a subject that is supported by vast swathes of detailed, coherent, unambiguous and in some cases mathematically precise evidence, that has been studied in vast detail by hundreds of thousands of professional scientists across multiple disciplines over the course of two centuries or more, that has applications in multiple different lines of study, some of them of significant importance for the economy or public health, and that is foundational to numerous other areas of scientific inquiry—is a lie?

You are telling us that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists, from dozens of nations with multiple different political and religious backgrounds, have been acting in concert to falsify evidence in a highly coherent, tightly coordinated and rigorously disciplined manner on an industrial scale at the cost of trillions of dollars for more than a hundred and fifty years?

That’s a pretty extraordinary conspiracy that you’re talking about there. If it really is happening then aliens in Area 51, NASA faking the moon landings, 9/11 being an inside job, chemtrails, and the US Navy covering up the existence of mermaids would be child’s play by comparison. If it really is happening then there must be someone, somewhere, blowing the gaff on it by now. Who, where, and when?

5 Likes

In a nutshell, here is how I reconciled evolution and the classic creation story, A&E lived in the Garden, a supernatural place: in the presence of God, no death, no sickness etc. Because of their rebellion they were thrown on the natural evolved earth, away from the presence of God, a place where death rules, in fact is a necessity.

2 Likes

Thanks Mervin for your candid explanation, it is much appreciated!

The idea that death through an assumed ‘deep time’ is not death as stated in, “The wages of sin is death”, contradicts the clear intention of the scriptural authors in Genesis and Romans.
Certainly there is the second death that is to be avoided but that is a separate matter entirely and has to do with whether we have accepted our Lord’s gracious gift of salvation or not, at the day of judgement.

The scriptures explain the history of creation very well!
God in His omniscience, (knowing what was to come in the future regarding the mental contortions some people would be prepared to put themselves through to accommodate a belief that is different to how the Word says He created), made certain that the historical account of creation in Genesis could not be misinterpreted, i.e., “And there was evening and there was morning, (number) day.”
I really don’t know what more He could have done to ensure that the creation narrative in Genesis was not misinterpreted to mean anything other than what is stated in Genesis as historical narrative.

I accept the findings of science. I work in science. I understand the scientific method very well.
This is not a matter of science versus the Bible. The science is absolutely consistent with the Biblical account in Genesis.

  • List item

Why do you think there is the appearance of a catastrophic global flood having occurred in the past in the sedimentary layers in places miles thick, across the entire planet including under the oceans, that have billions of dead things fossilised in them that from their pristine condition obviously necessitated rapid burial that prevented scavenging and decomposition from bacteria? The order of fossils found documents the order of burial of plants and animals at the sedimentary rock location during the global flood of Noah; nothing more and nothing less. No deep time. No evolution.

  • List item

Why do you think we find an ever growing number of uncontested examples of real dinosaur soft tissue, including blood cells, DNA fragments, actin, collagen and an array of other proteins and physical anatomical structures in unpermineralised bone found sticking out of the ground in places where the summer diurnal temperature range often exceeds 40 degrees C or around 100 degrees F?

  • List item

Where are the billions upon billions of transitional forms that demonstrate the assumed ascension of life from the imaginary first reproducing cell to the diversity of life on Earth we see today?

  • List item

Why do we find Carbon 14 in many diamonds that are supposedly 300 million years old when all detectable C would be gone in a tiny fraction of that immense period of time?

To list but a few questions that illustrate the palpable fallacy of placing one’s faith in ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’. The Bible CAN be trusted to mean exactly what it says. Scripture is not rubbery, it is God’s word to us, and our loving God is not inept nor is He illiterate, when He says He created in 6 days and rested on the seventh, you can be absolutely certain that He meant that He created in 6 literal 24 hour days and rested on the seventh literal 24 day so that we would have an example to follow, i.e., the seven 24 hour day week.

After studying the evolution/creation debate for many decades it’s clear to me the whole evolution edifice is a house of cards, with lots of smoke and mirrors. The false belief of evolution was initially established through ignorance, deception and people wishing to be seen as intelligent intellectuals up to date with the latest science. The problem with evolution is that it is categorically NOT scientific. In just about any other discipline of science, the theory would have been falsified long ago and thrown out, but of course evolution is the only theory that I am aware of that is still taught in universities yet it is absolutely unfalsifiable. It does not stand up when it is scrutinised carefully, it is a false philosophical belief system that has nothing to do with real empirical science.

Unfortunately the religious stranglehold of evolution in academia continues to deceive many who do not take the time to perform real science to test its validity. It is sad that so many just accept evolution as a given and do not test the basic premises.

Thank you again Mervin for being honest and gracious about your beliefs in this vitally important matter.
There was a time when I was much younger, that I shared your belief in ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’.
I prayed for wisdom and not long after, many, many decades ago I was visited by an old friend (of the Salvation Army) who I haven’t seen since, and He left me three copies of Creation magazine. That was well into last century, but God graciously opened my eyes to the historical reality of the creation account and global flood exactly as stated in Genesis. I praise God for His love for us all that He loves us all so much that He endured the punishment that His own righteousness demands.

I pray that our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit grant to you the wisdom to know the truth.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus,
jon

We don’t. We only find the ultimately stable breakdown products of dinosaur soft tissue.

Please make sure that you’re getting your facts straight about what the evidence consists of before you start trying to make arguments about what it does or does not support.

It’s contamination. Period. And no, contamination is NOT any kind of “rescuing device.” Every scientific study must fully and correctly account for contamination before claiming anything out of the ordinary. By dismissing contamination as a “rescuing device,” young earthists are insisting that the basic rules and principles of the scientific method do not apply to them. In other words, they’re demanding a free pass to make things up and invent their own alternative reality.

As someone who works in science and knows the scientific method very well, you should know this.

3 Likes

Hi Christy,
thank you for your reply.

What evidence do you offer that supports your belief that, “death existed in the world long before humans arrived on the planet.”?

The point I was making was not about whether God exists, but rather it is about whether the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says about origins as evolution is clearly a departure from the Word that states that God (Jesus the Son) spoke the creation into existence. In the same way that Jesus spoke the water into wine, or He spoke and the wind and waves calmed, the same Creator, the same method.
I believe the Biblical account is both accurate and is consistent with the real empirical evidence.

Even though it is claimed to be science, I’ve yet to see an example where belief in it has produced a useful thing we use in the world today. Evolution is pseudo-science, a false paradigm through which many view the origins issue.

God Bless,
jon

Off the top of my head: oil, ChatGPT, and cancer treatments for starters.

3 Likes

Hi James,
thanks for your reply.

**

  • List item

So what would you put down as the top three from the supposed “vast swathes of evidence” you assert exist?**

I have stated nothing of the sort, this is a straw man that you have created!

God Bless,
j

I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave just nine minutes ago.

You may not have stated that explicitly, but if they haven’t been doing that then evolution can not be a lie, because that is what would be needed for it to be one.

1 Like

I’ve met Andrew Snelling many years ago, and he is a fine Christian and God fearing man who is a geologist. He gets it right, " Successful oil…exploration and discoveries do not depend on believing the strata are millions of years old. In fact, the supposed ages are irrelevant, both to the exploration techniques used and to successful discoveries."

God Bless,
j

Two words: Arrhenius Equation.

Read this article:

It explains not only that Andrew Snelling is lying, but why he is lying. By claiming that petroleum geologists don’t need to know the ages of rock deposits, he is basically denying that the aforementioned Arrhenius Equation is a thing.

2 Likes

Incorrect, we DO find, blood vessels, DNA fragments, containing a few base pairs, various components of proteins and break down products from them that still exist in real unpermineralised dinosaur bone in harsh environments. That the bone itself exists intact after the imaginary hundreds of millions of years is in itself clear proof that the ‘deep time’ paradigm is false.

To believe the ‘deep time’ myth for the dinosaur bones, you automatically must accept the contravention of known laws of physics and chemistry. Bone let alone blood cells, proteins, DNA fragments etc, simply cannot last hundreds of millions of years, the chemical bonds fall apart, there should be nothing left if the bones were truly hundreds of millions of years old. The obvious solution is that the bones are merely a few thousand years old and have not disintegrated as they would if they were actually hundreds of millions of years old.

Incorrect. Contamination has been accounted for and ruled out.
The C 14 is real, the only truthful explanation is that the diamonds are NOT hundreds of millions of years old!

Please see:
Diamonds: a creationists best friend ; AND
Carbon14 in Diamonds? It shouldn't be there! · Creation.com ; AND
Does Carbon Dating Prove Millions of Years? · Creation.com

God Bless,
j

Dear James,
I refute the blatant false accusation that you have made against a fine Christian man, Dr Andrew Snelling.
You do yourself no favours being a bulldog for the accuser.
There is little to be gained from continuing dialogue with you as no-one will be edified by your accusations, and thus I have decided this will be my last reply to you.

May our Lord and Saviour Jesus, bless you and give you insight about the truth.
j

Would that be the same Dr. Andrew Snelling that uses millions of years in his professional publications but only thousands of years when he is writing to a YEC audience. The same Dr. Andrew Snelling that claims the folded rock layers in the Grand Canyon were folded when they were soft and therefore have no cracks who was photographed in front of one of those folds with a crack plainly visible behind him?

2 Likes

It’s overwhelmingly clear from reading Paul that he thought that, or at least that was willing to advance that as a possible framework for understanding sin and death. Most of the Bible doesn’t say anything of the sort.

1 Like

The entire fossil record.

You can believe that Jesus spoke creation into existence and is the author of life and not insist that Jesus spoke creation into existence as it is in its present form a few thousand years ago.

Okay. You aren’t a scientist.

3 Likes

I too have studied the evolution/creation debate for many decades. Unlike you, however, I have actual first-hand experience as a scientific researcher, both in evolution and in other scientific disciplines, including experimental physics. Based on that experience, I can state with complete confidence that what you’ve written here is complete nonsense. Common descent by natural processes is a highly successful scientific theory that has successfully explained and predicted vast amounts of data in a wide range of fields. Professional creationists deal with that data by misrepresenting it, denying its existence, or simply ignoring it.

I have yet to see a creationist who could explain even simple features of the genetic data I deal with every day.

8 Likes

I’m sorry if you feel that way, and if you thought that my use of the “L” word was overly strong.

However, when someone has a PhD in geology, it is only right and proper to expect them to meet much higher standards of honesty and factual accuracy when teaching about their own areas of expertise. Untrue claims from non-experts can be excused on the grounds of ignorance or misunderstanding; experts do not have the luxury of that excuse. Additionally when someone is teaching in the Church, they are in a position of trust, and that gives them an additional duty of care to make sure that their facts are straight, because failing to do so is a breach of that trust. That is what James 3:1 is all about, is it not?

What evidence do you have that my “accusation” was “blatant false”?

I didn’t just state that Snelling’s assertion was wrong; I explained why it was wrong. If you want to refute my response, you need to bring some evidence to the table that contradicts my explanation. Merely dismissing it as a “blatant false accusation” doesn’t tell anyone anything.

And may our Lord and Saviour Jesus bless you too.

Incidentally, you may find it helpful to read the backstory of why I take the approach to science that I do. I will admit that I can get pretty touchy or even confrontational when I see bad arguments, scientific misinformation or bad attitudes towards science being promoted in a Church context—this is because I bought into a lot of that stuff myself when I was in my twenties, and only when I got into my thirties I found that those attitudes had done massive damage to my career prospects. A lot of the damage has since been repaired, and I think I’ve forgiven the people who egged me on into it (and I certainly need to forgive myself for actually getting into it in the first place), but it still strikes a bit of a raw nerve at times.

2 Likes

Have you actually read Mary Schweitzer’s original 2005 paper? She had to soak the samples in demineralising solution for a week to get at the stuff.

This must be some new meaning of the word “unpermineralised” of which I was not previously aware.

Look, we know what soft tissue looks like after a few thousand years. It looks like this:

450px-Otzi-Quinson

Or like this:

That is the state of preservation that you would expect to find from dinosaur carcasses if they really were only a few thousand years old. We would have sequenced the entire T-Rex genome by now. Why haven’t we?

There’s one simple reason why this isn’t true. The amount of carbon-14 in ancient samples varies widely.

Here are the graphs from the RATE project reports:

screen-shot-2017-08-26-at-20-01-08

screen-shot-2017-08-26-at-20-00-39

If the radiocarbon levels really were intrinsic rather than contamination, the amounts in the oldest samples would tightly cluster round some value significantly larger than the standard deviation and significantly larger than known, well studied and measured contamination vectors. A peak with a spread from, say, 2-2.5% might be something to write home about. A spread from 0-0.1 or 0.1-0.7 … not so much.

The levels would be the same for Precambrian coals as for Phanerozoic coals. The fact that Phanerozoic samples give about five times as much radiocarbon as Precambrian coals is fully accounted for by the fact that they have to undergo more complex sample preparation to extract cellulose from wood or collagen from bone. The extra processing steps introduce more contamination.

The levels would be the same for coals and diamonds. All diamonds would have very similar amounts of radiocarbon. This is not what we find in reality. The articles that you linked to are dismissive of the suggestion that carbon-14 could come from irradiation from nearby uranium, but the fact of the matter is that the correlation between nearby uranium and radiocarbon in diamonds is observable, testable, repeatable and measurable even by YEC standards of “observable, testable, repeatable and measurable.”

5 Likes

@Jammycakes is correct, it’s contamination. It has not been accounted for and ruled out. The familiar creationist articles you reference are lying ( don’t like the word lie?, then don’t accuse others of it in your lead post ), about the calibration procedures, sample management, and sensitivity of AMS carbon dating. It is likely none of the authors have ever even seen an accelerator up close. No actual lab has ever found intrinsic C-14 in diamonds. There will always be a trace detection of C-14; it is rich in the air you breathe.

Despite what is stated in YEC literature, there is no evidence at all that diamonds contain any C-14. The half-truth which led to this full falsehood was essentially a legitimate calibration exercise, using diamond samples for AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry), designed not to find C-14, but to establish a technique to zero the instrument - in other words to find the point where signal is completely subsumed into noise.

This noise, mathematically, equated from 65,000 to 80,000 years of age, but this is just the sound of static; it does not demonstrate even a trace of C-14 in the sample. 50,000 years of age is widely regarded as the limit for carbon dating. The double minded response of YEC to carbon dating is that they dismiss dating signals as noise and embrace noise as signal.

3 Likes

Except it isn’t – only human death, and not literal physical death or they would have died right then.

And that’s assuming that it’s fine to read the scriptures from a modern worldview.

Why would you read Genesis as a type of literature that didn’t even exist yet?

That’s not in the text anywhere.

That’s arguable. All that can really be said from the Gospels is that Jesus recognized Genesis as authoritative.

But people come to Christ from studying evolution – there were a bunch in the informal intelligent design club when I was in university, atheists and agnostics who due to studying evolution concluded that there must be a Designer, then concluded the Designer must be a Creator, and then looked for where that Creator might have communicated with humans – and ended up as Christians.

And reading Genesis was one reason most of them accepted that the Bible was actual communication from the Creator because it fits with evolution.

Since studying evolution has brought people to Christ, how can it be called “anti-God”? When I was in university, both my Christian and my atheist biology professors laughed at that idea because it’s like saying that because coffee comes from a machine then there’s no such thing as a barrista.

On top of that, consider that back before there were telescopes some scholars who grew up reading Hebrew and became experts in it read the opening of Genesis and oncluded that:

  • the universe started out smaller than a grain of mustard (idiom for “the smallest possible”)
  • the universe was filled with fluid, which thinned as the universe expanded rapidly
  • when the fluid was thin enough God commanded light to exist, and light flowed through the universe
  • the universe is inconceivably ancient
  • the Earth is not as old as the universe but is uncountably ancient

These conclusions didn’t come from any science because there really wasn’t much science yet, they came purely from studying the Hebrew.

Why would I want to try to demolish something that has brought people I know to Christ?

1 Like