Summations Only

You object to his use of colors and fonts? I think that shows more about YOUR childish mentality than his. How about commenting on the substance of his post? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess either can be called a superstition if that's your point, but Genesis 2:7 gives the essential difference between life spontaneously coming out of matter and God creating life by using matter, which is that, according to the Bible, the life doesn't come from the matter, God breathes life into the matter after He's formed the material body. Matter can't breathe life into itself, even if it could somehow come up with the material shell, which of course it couldn't without the life in it. In other words life is something entirely different from matter, matter is just the vehicle for life to be able to function in the physical universe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Call it whatever you want but as I said it is NOT about "creating life from dirt," it clearly says that life CANNOT be created from dirt, that the principle of life is something other than dirt that must be added.

Ha ha, so true. Same superstition but without the creative Mind, and they actually believe it! It's obviously impossible but "science" has no problem with such an impossibility while calling the reasonable explanation of a Creator a superstition. "Science" even claims to "know" things that are nothing but outlandish interpretations of observed facts that are open to other interpretations. What you "know" is only that certain rocks you've very probably erroneously dated to 3.5 billion years ago contain no signs of life. That's ALL you know, that there is no hint of life in those particular rocks. The rest is sheer mental castle-building. And of course the term "pre-biotic" is another piece of wishful thinking and nothing more than that. What's the actual observation here? The observation is something identified as "self-replicating molecules." THAT is what is wishfully interpreted as "pre-biotic." Molecules are not life, but here we have a title pretending it might as well be: "Life's Building Blocks." Golly "science" is so rigorous isn't it? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nutrition related to disease is an area where you should ultimately be able to get reliable results if you set up the experiment properly, because it is NOT merely a matter of interpretation as the age of the earth and the meaning of signs of life existing or not existing in particular rocks. There is no way to test your interpretation from the distant past but there should be ways of testing anything in the present. Nutrition is a pretty unwieldy area though, that's true enough, and does involve interpretation at many points, but the point here is that there's always the possibility of correcting your errors through more research. And that is not true of the sciences of the distant past.As a YEC I can say that the life found or not found in particular rocks shows the effects of the Flood -- the life forms found in rocks all lived at the same time before the Flood and all died at the same time in the Flood and got buried in different rocks. Nothing to do with successive time periods. That's an interpretation too but I have a written document from the past for support at least. And there are some tests that have been done that fit with the Flood, but it's not like a science where all the information is in the present, which means that it's all there if you can figure out how to set up a test to find out what it means. But again, there's no way to replicate a one-time event like a worldwide Flood so when it comes to the distant past there are built-in handicaps that aren't the problem for a study that's all in the present like nutrition.I'm interested in your thread about diet by the way. I know what I need to do for health and weight loss and I've done it in the past, my problem these days is more about motivation, though I do want to follow the information you want to cover in your thread. The more these things get discussed the more I may be willing to try out some new approaches.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence for old age is hardly "massive," it's all radiometric dating. All Hutton did was make up a scenario out of thin air, and that's the only other "evidence" for old age.There IS evidence for the Flood, and I continue to think it really funny that such obvious evidence as sedimentary strata and bazillions of fossils is just flatly refused while the absurd and impossible interpretation of time periods assigned to various blocks of strata is treated as reasonable. This sort of "science" really is laughable. Oh, also that wishfulness that calls the non-life of replicating molecules "building blocks of life." Where there is no evidence just make it up. The most complex variables of REAL science on the other hand, such as the nutritional studies Phat is talking about, may be difficult, but ultimately they should be resolvable, unlike the sciences of the past for which most of the information is irretrievably lost.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Tree rings, varves and ice cores do not support an ancient earth, they add a few thousand years at most to the YEC timing.

CRR is right, the sciences of nutrition and dieting have a lousy track record over the last few decades, which was a major theme of Percy's threads on this subject too. We may now be getting better information but it's still coming from alternative sources while the mainstream still pushes the low fat diets that have always failed. Wanting to keep my blood sugar down I've read up on mainstream diabetes sources and have been amazed at the high carb intake they recommend. As Phat says, many doctors don't know the latest about nutrition and continue to prescribe the old failed ideas.I should have mentioned this problem too but my point was only that all the information is available for studies of nutrition so theoretically it ought to be possible to come up with reliable results. However there are lots and lots of variables to complicate matters. But the main thing is that for some studies it has all been guesswork on the the level of there is cholesterol in eggs, it's cholesterol that clogs arteries, therefore don't eat eggs, failing to grasp that the cholesterol in the eggs doesn't end up as cholesterol in your arteries and that it may actually be sugar that causes that condition.But theoretically the information is all available for study while for the distant past the information isn't even all available and most of it has to be guessed at without any means of correction available.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to have quoted the wrong post of mine, but it's pretty clear what you meant to quote: Maybe. But in the case of the meaning of the strata and fossils the Flood accounts for the actual facts much better than the Geological Time Scale, which is really an impossibility as an explanation for a block of sedimentary strata, and though there's no way to test your interpretation about a one-time event in the past the prejudices of mainstream science are accepted anyway. It's logical in the abstract but get into the actual facts and see how far you get.ABE: And what about calling replicating molecules "building blocks of life" when there is no life in such molecules, or "pre-biotic." Science uses a lot of wishful word magic like that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Some day all these accusations of creationists as lying are going to come back and bite the accusers. The sooner the better. There is nothing in your argument to warrant that accusation. There is nothing that the ellipses replaced that is anything but innocuous and that's why it was excluded, so as not to muddy up the main point, and the rest is all open to interpretations. Creationists interpret information differently, and even if you disagree you ought to have the grace to treat our arguments with that much respect.

I could have chosen any number of posts to make this point but this one is nice and pithy: This accusation is typical of evo misrepresentations of creationist arguments. What Dredge said is completely true, and Gould's observation of the fossil record does indeed support creationist arguments. Dredge put no words in Gould's mouth, he simply drew a different and very reasonable conclusion from Gould's observations. There is nothing dishonest about that.Gould pointed out the obvious: the lack of the gradations of transitional forms that Darwin expected and led others to expect if his theory was correct. That prompted Gould to devise his Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to explain this obvious failure of the ToE.But what Gould observed DOES call the ToE into question just as Darwin said, and PE is really a laughable way to resolve it, whether Gould believed in it or not.I was recently making the same observation as Gould's when I pointed out how trilobites and coelecanths show no signs of evolving over hundreds of millions of years beyond the variations built into the genome of the Kind, so when transitionals are available they do not support the ToE. Whereas when they are not available, such as between reptiles and mammals, the ToE hallucinates them, though at least Gould had the honesty to point out they are simply not there, and further pointed out that unless there is a reasonable explanation that fact spells doom for the ToE just as Darwin asserted. Unless you believe in the reasonableness of Punctuated Equilibrium theory the ToE has had the rug pulled out from under it. Gould's honest observations support Creationism and to call a Creationist a liar for drawing that obvious conclusion just shows the usual deceitfulness of the whole evo argument.

This is what Dredge said: That is indeed an argument and not mind-reading, and anyone with the slightest fairness, just a teeny little smidgen of fairness, would read it that way. He is saying Gould recognized the facts that are evidence for Creation, he did not say nor mean to say that Gould drew the conclusion that they point to Creation, he's only saying that he could have if his mind wasn't warped by his committed atheism. \At the very least he knew the absence of a smooth gradation of transitionals killed the ToE and that is why he went on to invent his ridiculous PE, and that is basically what Dredge was saying -- oh a time of soul-searching honesty could have led him to Creation but instead he followed his preconceptions and looked for a rationalization. Saying that Dredge imputed those thoughts about creation to Gould himself is in fact putting words in Dredge's mouth. But of course, what else would an evo do but accuse a creationist of the things he himself does. It's SOP at EvC. There was no illustration given for this bald assertion and when I read it I thought it as crazy as PE itself. Except for those examples I gave of multiple "transitionals" (they are all contemporaries and not transitionals at all in reality)- transitionals between varieties of trilobites and coelacanths which span hundreds of millions of years, there are NO gradations of transitionals evidenced in the fossil record, such as between reptiles and mammals, where they are nevertheless assumed, or as I said, hallucinated. They do not exist. And Gould did acknowledge their absence which was his reason for inventing Punctuated Equilibrium after all.His ability to come up with rationalizations does not mean Dredge or any other creationist has to accept his rationalizations, and calling us liars for not accepting them is a foul. The fact remains that Gould did observe the lack of transitionals that do indeed prove the ToE wrong, and just because there is no way to prove or disprove any absurd theory intended to explain away this inconvenient fact doesn't give you the right to declar it true, quite the opposite.But honesty from an evo is of course not to be expected. All we ever get is your dishonesty projected on us creationists along with every other kind of insult, because the evidence does support creationism and not evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dealing with your twisting everything anyone says isn't worth it. I'll just say for myself then that Gould's observations support Creation whether he recognized it or not, and at least it's clear that he knew the evidence of the fossil record is exactly what Darwin said would overthrow the ToE, which is of course why he invented PE and tried to make an argument out of population genetics. But PE is absurd, and population genetics accounts for the fossil trilobites and coelacanths remaining identifiable trilobites and coelacanths for hundreds of millions of years, and offers not a shred of evidence for reptiles turning into mammals.

What kind of "lesson about God" could one get from a mythicized story? That's absurd. If it isn't all historically true, inspired by God Himself, then it is corrupted by human error and why should anyone take it seriously? All those who argue that the Bible contains human error are promoting a lie. Either the Bible is God's accurate inerrant word or it's just another fable to be ignored.

Except writings inspired by God Himself.