i am a born again christian

[Will]

No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

 english is not my native language. i made  a 3month english course. thats my base.

dna genome project tells you wrong :

Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is, have been revealed to mankind. Today, everyone who considers the results of this project and finds out that a single human cell contains enough information to be stored in thousands of encyclopaedia pages, grasps what a great miracle of creation this is.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html


For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

We see mutation all the time. We see it in everything from tiny bacteria to Galapagos finches. It's a normal part of life. As mutations happen, organisms tend to become more complex. Now, allow for 4 billion years. That's 4,000,000,000 years of mutation and natural selection of successful mutations. Of course we're complex.

[SteveS]

Dude, this is ridiculous.  There is numerous proof of genetic mutation and the beneficial side effects.  The most striking that leaps to my mind is evolution of bacteria to digest nylon: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Also,

a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place.

you state this as if it were fact, with absolutely nothing to back it up.  In other words, you don't understand how natural law can lead to order or complexity, so you just pretend this is true.  There are countless scientific observations that contradict your own personal emotional predilections.  You have ignored Squid's pictures: is a snowflake not ordered and complex?  Does this mean god makes snowflakes?  If not, then natural law has clearly led to an ordered and complex arrangement of molecules.

This is true in the biological realm as well.  Consider the following, from Dr. Theobald's excellent paper on Talk Origins, also about the nylon eating bacteria:

Second, increases in complexity due to gene duplications and mutations have been observed in the wild and
the lab (Copley 2000; Futuyma 1998, p. 274; Lederberg and Lederberg 1952; Lee et al. 1998; Ohno 1984;
Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994; Salamone et al. 2002). For example, Flavobacterium recently
evolved the ability to metabolize the exclusively man-made chemical nylon as its sole carbon source. This
ability required the duplication and mutation of genes for three different enzymes (Negoro et al. 1994;
Ohno 1984; Okada et al. 1983). These results have also been duplicated in the lab (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Some of these studies have demonstrated that new enzymes have evolved with increased specificity for
their substrates (Salamone et al. 2002). This is not ad hoc nor is it "liberal"—it is factual.

Source: Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The text I quoted appears on page 184.

The important thing to grasp is that the effects of mutation, following natural law and leading to new, complex, ordered functions has been observed in the lab.

And what do you have to say about it?  You just claim

and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place

What am I supposed to do?  Just take your word for it, over documented scientific lab results?  Why on earth should I do that?  And why do you cling to your own notion while discrediting the evidence to the contrary?

One final thing,

ok, and who put these natural laws in place ? to say: they just existed always is not a rational answer.

Okay - you say that claiming natural laws have always existed is irrational.  Why?  What rational problem is there with this statement?

Presumably, you would say "nothing can always exist, everything must come from something else".  And yet, in a moment of blatant contradiction, you're probably going to claim in the same sentence that god has always existed.  Am I wrong?

[Will]

Presumably, you would say "nothing can always exist, everything must come from something else". And yet, in a moment of blatant contradiction, you're probably going to claim in the same sentence that god has always existed. Am I wrong?

That's the best thing I've read all day.

[Squid]

Won't do any good folks.  He won't listen to anything you say and simply fall back onto the usual argument from personal incredulity while slinging out straw men versions of biological theories.  He's not here to exchange information but to keep talking until you agree with his ideas which he has no empirical support for.  He's tried this approach on other boards.

[angelosergipe]

No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

 english is not my native language. i made  a 3month english course. thats my base.

dna genome project tells you wrong :

Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is, have been revealed to mankind. Today, everyone who considers the results of this project and finds out that a single human cell contains enough information to be stored in thousands of encyclopaedia pages, grasps what a great miracle of creation this is.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html


For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

We see mutation all the time. We see it in everything from tiny bacteria to Galapagos finches. It's a normal part of life. As mutations happen, organisms tend to become more complex. Now, allow for 4 billion years. That's 4,000,000,000 years of mutation and natural selection of successful mutations. Of course we're complex.

i think you did not read carefully my last post. It can be 4 trillion years, it does not matter.  

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces39.html

DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors;d if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?  Each requires the other.

[rlrose328]

Won't do any good folks.  He won't listen to anything you say and simply fall back onto the usual argument from personal incredulity while slinging out straw men versions of biological theories.  He's not here to exchange information but to keep talking until you agree with his ideas which he has no empirical support for.  He's tried this approach on other boards.

And for this reason, I'm keeping quiet.  It's of no use any way, one way or the other.  

Yet if we keep quiet, he (and other lurking xtians) will assume we have no more arguments and that they win by default.

No matter how you look at it, we lose in the discussion.  We quietly win because we have evidence and proof on our side... but in the discussion with xtians, we lose and will every time.  :roll:

[rlrose328]

i think you did not read carefully my last post. It can be 4 trillion years, it does not matter.  

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces39.html

Again, you cannot make a point in this discussion by using a "creation science" website.  There is no such thing as "creation science."  It's a misnomer that has no place in any true science forum or discussion.  There is nothing scientific that can be tested and/or proven, so it's an irrelevant field of pseudo-study.

DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors;d if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?  Each requires the other.

So your bottom line point of proof is that DNA exists therefore, there is a god?  I can just as easily state that because DNA exists, there ISN'T a god and I'm just as correct as you are.  Another straw man argument... another falsehood by the religious society to discredit evidential science.


OOOps... and I just said I wasn't going to reply.  Geez... the "quote button" finger is just not attached to the brain today.  LOL!

[angelosergipe]

Dude, this is ridiculous.  There is numerous proof of genetic mutation and the beneficial side effects.  The most striking that leaps to my mind is evolution of bacteria to digest nylon: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Also,

a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place
you state this as if it were fact, with absolutely nothing to back it up.  In other words, you don't understand how natural law can lead to order or complexity, so you just pretend this is true.  There are countless scientific observations that contradict your own personal emotional predilections.  You have ignored Squid's pictures: is a snowflake not ordered and complex?  Does this mean god makes snowflakes?  If not, then natural law has clearly led to an ordered and complex arrangement of molecules..

http://www.icr.org/article/266/

The growth of ice crystals does not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution. Ice crystal growth is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, and both are evidences for God's oversight and care for His creation. God is a God of beauty and order, and wishes for us to study His creation to learn more about Him.

The theory of evolution suggests that increased organization has developed simply by random processes. Prigogine 4, for example, in attempting to make this argument, has stated ". . . in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures." However, random processes in the physical world always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics. If simple physical processes like the mixing of gases always becomes more disorderly, why should complex biological processes naturally become more orderly? Prigogine (4), after attempting to demonstrate self-organization in non-equilibrium systems by random processes states, "Unfortunately, this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small." Furthermore, crystal order results from the withdrawal of heat energy, whereas evolutionists argue that evolution sustains itself by the addition of heat energy from the sun. The two are not analogous at all. Still further, evolution is supposed to be open-ended, continuing indefinitely its growth in order, whereas a crystal, once formed deterministically by the pre-coded system which produced it, is at a dead end, and can go no further toward higher order.

and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place

What am I supposed to do?  

in your case, i would start to think and use your brain.

[Will]

The people at creationscience.com have no scientific understanding of the world. Their research is truly useless and ultimately is destructive to actual science, which uses the scientific method to develop understanding of the universe, not the bible. When you use the bible or any non-scientific and supernatural texts or information as a starting point for scientific understanding, you undercut yourself considerably and usually doom yourself to misunderstanding.

DNA probably came from viruses.

Here's the thing: science, in it's current state, cannot answer every question. You see, science is not like god. It can be fallible and it's ever changing. But it's important to remember one thing: if science can't explain something, that does not automatically mean that it can be attributed to god. Science cannot conclusively prove exactly what happened at the dawn of the current incarnation of the universe. We've got good ideas supported by evidence, sure, but it's not certain. Does that mean it was god? Of course not, and I'll tell you why: whereas theories like big bang have evidence, god never has evidence. There's no evidence short of an ancient mythological collection of stories and fables to suggest god has anything to do with anything. To instantly run to that as evidence is to ignore what evidence really is. I hope you're reading this, because it's important.

[Tricky_Niki]

I am not a scientist I am just a normal everyday person who happens to think that someday through science all of our questions will be answered and then we will have new questions to hunt the answers for. To say that because we dont have all the answers now means that god must have done it is just silly. Aside from that all that angelo seems to be saying is all the same stuff we have heard time and time again and there really is no point in argueing with someone who thinks copy and paste is a gift from god.

[Tom62]

Yes nature is complex, but that doesn't mean, nor indicate, not explains that there is be a magical creature behind it. From a logical point of view that is absolute nonsense, because you'd end up with the questions like "If complex things need a maker then who created the maker?" or "Why did the all powerful guy in the sky didn't do a better job?".  Also even if your creator story is true (what you can't prove ofcourse) then there is not a single thread of evidence that that creature would have been the christian god of the bible. If you read the bible well, the god of the bible is a rather silly, imperfect nasty piece of shit who prefers to rather to destroy things than to create. Not really a worthy candidate for supremacy.

[SteveS]

angelogersipe:

Gripe #1:

The growth of ice crystals does not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Who said it does?  I offered this in rebuttal to the point that natural law cannot create ordered complex structures.  Since you applied the rebuttal to the theory of evolution, I take it that you have conceded the point about natural law.  Which makes sense, since you went on to quote:

in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures

Sounds like a concession to me.  I'm glad we can agree on this point.

Gripe #2:

and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place

What am I supposed to do?

in your case, i would start to think and use your brain.

Totally ignored my point and answered with a personal insult.  Thanks, by the way.  How about addressing the question,

Okay - you say that claiming natural laws have always existed is irrational. Why? What rational problem is there with this statement?

Presumably, you would say "nothing can always exist, everything must come from something else". And yet, in a moment of blatant contradiction, you're probably going to claim in the same sentence that god has always existed. Am I wrong?

Its okay - I'll give you a second go at it - maybe I was confusing.  To reiterate, why is it irrational to say that natural law could possibly have always existed?  If nothing can exist always, then did god exist always?  These are questions, and they are not rhetorical - normally, this is the point where you would give me some sort of answer....

Gripe #3: You ignored my comments on the precession of the earth.  The earth does totter, due to mass imbalance (equatorial bulge), yet you claimed the bible teaches the earth is balanced.  Do you concede this point that the bible is wrong in this regard?

Fun With Contradictions

there is a driving force. It is called 'natural law'.

who put these natural laws in place ?

(implied answer: God)

God is a God of beauty and order

However, random processes in the physical world always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

Recap: God is a god of beauty and order, and so god created natural laws (i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics) that dictate that physical processes will always move in the direction of greater total disorder.  See the issue I have with this?

A few final points

The theory of evolution suggests that increased organization has developed simply by random processes.

Not random!  Natural law, chemistry, physics - these are the forces that dictate the way molecules interact.  They are decidedly non-random!

If simple physical processes like the mixing of gases always becomes more disorderly, why should complex biological processes naturally become more orderly?

Because

in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures

Does the biological arena seem like an isolated system to you?  Apparently, because you quote

"Unfortunately, this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small."

And yet, it does happen.  Remember this bit:

Life can come from non-life, in fact. While I don't imagine googling "origin of life" is particularly difficult, nor is going to science class at school, I will briefly explain some evidence:
- The Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950s demonstrated how simply combining gasses present several billion years ago on earth, water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), could create organic amino acids. This is proof positive of organic compounds from non-life.
- After WW2, scientist Sidney W. Fox studies spontaneous formation of peptides from amino acids (like those amino acids created from inorganic elements above). He was able to demonstrate that peptides could be formed by those amino acids spontaneously.
- Peptides and amino acids can catalyze aldol reactions, some of which can yield sugars. This can be a metabolic cycle.

Now before you go weird on me, these experiments show that the components of life can form naturally.  Nobody is suggesting that a giraffe just popped randomly into existence because the sun was shining that day  :roll:

Characterizing evolution and abiogenesis as complex living organism spontaneously forming by a random process is a clear strawman.  Nobody (besides creationists, anyway) makes these assertions about these fields of study.  

If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?

Abiogenesis is an current field of research that remains baffling.  But people are actively studying and researching in this area.  Nobody, that I can tell, currently has an answer to this question you pose.  Does that mean god must have done it?  I say this is a fallacy of false alternatives.  The fact than something is currently unknown leads only to a conclusion that it is currently unknown.  Abiogenesis has not revealed that the formation of life is impossible --- only that it is currently understood to be unlikely.  Unlikely and impossible are very, very different.

Reality Check - Get Back on Track

You cannot prove creation by discrediting abiogenesis or evolution: you must provide evidence of creation.

So - if god created DNA and it's repair mechanism, how did god do it?  Has anybody observed a creation event in a laboratory?  Did god create DNA directly, or did he create simpler forms first, like an RNA or PNA or PAH world first?  Did he create organisms directly of eukaryotic cells?  Or did he go with prokaryotic cells, and then subsequently modify them?  And, in each of these cases, what positive evidence can you present to support your answers?  In other words, evidence that god performed these acts, not simply arguments that evolution or abiogenesis might be incorrect.

[Whitney]

Does the Bible Contain Scientific Errors?

Many Christians assume the Bible contains scientific errors, and that it is authoritative only when it speaks on spiritual matters. But that is saying in effect that the God who wrote the Bible knew a lot about spiritual things, but not too much about science. To say that parts of the Bible are accurate, but others are not is to deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Since God knows all things, and what He speaks is true (cf., Titus 1:2), all that the Bible teaches is accurate, not just its spiritual truths.

The issue is not between science and Scripture; the issue is whether man will submit to the Word of God. Romans 1:28 describes people who refuse to submit as those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Because they rejected God's revelation of Himself as Creator, men came up with the only alternative: that the universe and everything in it just happened.

Lesson

I. THERMODYNAMICS

There are three principles basic to science: matter, energy, and the space-time continuum. Science tells us that none of the three can exist without the other two; therefore all three must have existed from the beginning of the universe. Note that Genesis 1:1 mentions all three: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

A. The First Law of Thermodynamics

The Bible says in Genesis 2:2 that "God ended His work which He had made." The matter and energy that was part of the original creation is all there will ever be; no new matter or energy is being created. The complete cessation of creative activity has been recognized by modern science as the first law of thermodynamics, or the law of the conservation of mass and energy. According to this law, which is one of the most universal and certain of all scientific principles, nothing is now being created or destroyed. That principle is illustrated in the following verses:

1. Isaiah 40:26--"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, who bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might; for he is strong in power. Not one faileth."

2. Nehemiah 9:6--"Thou, even thou art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are in it, the seas, and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all."

3. Ecclesiastes 3:14-15--"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it .... That which hath been is now, and that which is to be hath already been."

The Word of God accurately states the first law of thermodynamics.

B. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

This law, also known as the law of entropy, tells us that though energy cannot be destroyed, its ability to do useful work decreases. Systems tend to degenerate from a state of order to a state of chaos. Science tells us that eventually this process will lead to the death of the universe.

The Bible teaches that the second law of thermodynamics is a result of the Fall. Romans 8:20-22 says, "The creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Although that passage pictures the entire creation as progessively breaking down, it also gives us hope for the future. When God creates the new heaven and the new earth, the second law of thermodynamics will not operate. In that new creation there will be no more curse, death, decay, or sin.

II. HYDROLOGY

A. Defined

Hydrology is the branch of science that studies the waters of the earth. In the hydrologic cycle, water evaporates into the atmosphere and is redeposited onto the earth in the form of rain or snow. That precipitation feeds rivers, which flow into the ocean. Evaporation from the ocean forms clouds, from which precipitation falls on the land, and the cycle repeats itself.

B. Described

The science of hydrology was founded in the seventeenth century by Mariotte, Perrault, and Halley, but the hydrologic cycle is clearly described in Scripture:

1. Isaiah 55:10-11--"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (NASB).

2. Ecclesiastes 1:7--"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full." That's because of the hydrologic cycle.

3. Job 36:27-28--"He [God] draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly" (NASB).

4. Psalm 135:7--"He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain." This verse speaks of evaporation and precipitation.

5. Job 26:8--"He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not torn under them." This verse speaks of the formation of clouds by condensation.

6. Job 28:10--"He cutteth out rivers among the rocks." This verse describes run-off.

7. Job 38:22--"Hast thou entered into the treasuries of the snow? Or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail?" This speaks of the clouds.

III. ASTRONOMY

A. The Size of the Universe

1. Job 22:12--"Is not God in the height of heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" Although the height of the stars was unknown until the nineteenth century (Jean Sloat Morton, Ph.D., Science in the Bible [Chicago: Moody, 1978], p. 15), the book of Job recognized they were very distant from the earth.

2. Jeremiah 31:37--"Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord." This verse mentions the immense size of the universe. It also tells us that God will not permanently set aside Israel.

B. The Variety of Stars

1. Jeremiah 33:22--"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David, my servant." The invention of the telescope in the seventeenth century made men aware of the vast number of stars. Beforehand scientists had said the total number was only in the hundreds or thousands. Only about four thousand can be counted with the unaided eye. Today no one knows how many stars there are, but "with the giant telescopes now available ..., astronomers have statistically estimated that there are about 1025 stars (that is, 10 million billion billion) in the known universe. One can also calculate that this is about the number of grains of sand in the world" (Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], p. 156; The Genesis Record [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976], p. 384). The Bible is accurate when it states the impossibility of numbering the stars.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:41--"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory." With the development of modern astronomy has come the realization that there is great variety of sizes and degrees of brightness among stars. If the Bible had stated that all stars were the same, it would have been in error. However, it doesn't say that because God knows as much about stars as He does about salvation!

C. The Order of the Solar System

1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

2. Psalm 19:6--Referring to the sun the psalmist says, "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hidden from the heat thereof." This verse took on new meaning when it was discovered that the sun, along with the other stars in our galaxy, revolve around the center of the galaxy. Astronomy books currently teach that the sun completes one such circuit every 250 million years (e.g., Robert Jastrow and Malcom H. Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers [New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977], p. 6)

IV. GEOLOGY

A. Isostasy

Isostasy is a field of study within geology that deals with the balance maintained within the earth's crust. The differing weights of the various types of rock maintain a delicate balance; otherwise the earth would wobble in its rotation like a lopsided basketball. Isaiah 40:12 says, "[God] hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and measured out heaven with the span, and measured the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance." Psalm 104:5, 8 tells us that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter .... The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which [He] didst establish for them" (NASB). The Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

B. Geodesy

This branch of geology studies the size and shape of the earth.

1. The ancient views

a) The flat-earth theory

People in ancient times thought of the earth as being a flat disk, like a record, surrounded by a river called Oceanus. It was believed that anyone foolish enough to sail through the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar) would fall off the earth into nothingness.

b) The Ptolemaic theory

Ptolemy, in the second century after Christ, proposed a spherical earth as the stationary center of the universe, with the sun and the other heavenly bodies revolving around it. Not until the sixteenth century with the discoveries of

Copernicus was this theory abandoned.

2. The biblical view

In contrast to the widely held ancient belief that the earth was flat, the Bible clearly teaches that it is round. Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Job 38:14 says, "It [the earth] is turned like clay to the seal." That is a reference to the small cylinders used in ancient times to put one's seal on a clay document. Those cylinders had sticks through the center, like a rolling pin, and while the clay was still soft, they would be rolled across it, leaving the impression of the seal. The Bible tells us the earth rotates on its axis like a cylinder making a seal.

V. METEOROLOGY

A. Wind Circulation

In the seventeenth century George Hadley discovered that the winds circulate around the earth. Thousands of years earlier the book of Ecclesiastes referred to this phenomenon: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits."

B. Air Pressure

Before the time of Galileo, it was not known that the air had weight. Evangelista Torricelli, a student of Galileo, invented the first barometer, proving the air has pressure. However, Scripture implied that thousands of years before. Job 28:25 says, "He imparted weight to the wind" (NASB).

Ange,
In future posting, please remember to cite sources as required per the forum rules...or even better, use your own words rather than copy and pasting...its much more personal that way.

Source link:  http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm

Anyway, welcome to the forum.  Have fun and be sure to keep an open mind.

[Bella]

in your case, i would start to think and use your brain.

Oh, the irony.

1. The fact that humans and fruit flies share 70% of their genes supports evolution and not creationism.

2. As it has been pointed out to you, you're trying to say that there MUST be a creator because we exist but that God exists WITHOUT a creator. For all you know, there were green aliens hanging out in this section of the galaxy in their flying saucers and created Earth with their superior intelligence before their mommies called them home for dinner.

[Will]

Nice catch, fearless leader!