Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Teejay

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Teejay last won the day on March 9 2019

Teejay had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

109 Excellent

About Teejay

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    78
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

343 profile views
  1. Piasan, I give up. See you down the road. God bless, TeeJaY
  2. Piasan, I just finished watching a DVD titled "Evolution, The Grand Experiment," by Dr. Carl Werner. On it, he exposes every transitional whale fossil as a hoax perpetrated by museums and evolution scientists. You can listene to the entire interview on RSR and find out for yourself. He also has a DVD on "Living Fossils, Evolution: The Grand Experiment." On this DVD, he shows just about every bird extant today, found with dinosaur fossils. If dinosaur and bird fossils are found buried together, does this not demolish the belief that dinosaurs became birds? And you have the dilemma of how unfossilized dinos (70 million years old) were found today? And, after billion of years of the evolutionary process, not one fossil has been found that proves it happened?. And you can't explain gradualism in light of the irreduceable complexity? I am perplexed why you believe in evolution and an old earth? TeeJay
  3. Piasan, Radiometric dating is unreliable because it has been shown to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose ages are historically known, i.e., Mt. St. Hellens. But the most prominent old-earth creationists (Ross) has an explanation: "Supposed 'evidence' against the reliability of radiometric dating focuses on the method's 'flaws' or in inaccuracies when applied outside its limitations. For example, uranium-238 radiometric dating, when applied to young samples, yields absurd dates. Why? With a half-life of 4.51 billion years, uranium-238 dating cannot be effective for measuring the age of any sample younger than a few hundred million years old." Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy, p. 178 One does not have to be a logician to see there is something wrong with Ross' argument here. First, all the rock samples are "young." According to Scripture, they are all much younger than few hundred million years. Uranium-238 dating will yield "absurd dates" for all samples. Ross has assumed that radiometric dating really does give correct answers on rocks that are really millions of years old. But I must ask Ross (a very prominent old-earth creationist) how does he know which rocks are really millions of years old? Drum roll please: By uranium dating them, of course. But this only works on "old" rocks. Now I'm not a scientist, But by this Texas rancher's reasoning, Ross would have to already know the rock is ancient in order to use radio-metric dating to prove the rock is ancient. Is this not circular? Virtually all old-earth arguments are circular. They assume the secular old-earth assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism to prove the earth is old. Instead of looking to the past (God's word in Genesis) to know the present, they must look at the present to know the past. But realize that when they do this, they must assume that processes in the past were like the present. How can they possibly know this? Thus, instead of a lot of water over a very short time for the Grand Canyon, they must assume the present was like the past and a little bit of water over a long time. There is a very simple answer to Bob's argument: Genesis. Recall Eve's dilemma when asked: "Did God really say...?" If only she had taken God at His word. If only... Piasan, do you realize that if you could produce a genuine transitional fossil you would win the Nobel prize? Piasan, I must bow out of this. I have been tasked to teach an adult Christian Apologetics class and my time is precious. Thanks for your time. TeeJay
  4. Hello Piasan, I do not consider unfossilized dinos “a better [or lesser] means†of determining age. Matters are not settled with one piece of evidence. Even Jesus said, “If I bear witness of myself [one piece of evidence], don’t believe Me†(John 5:31). But what makes this one piece of evidence convincing to me is that it agrees with God’s word—Genesis and Job. Then there is the second piece of evidence: There is a total absence of transitional fossils. Piasan, you can convince me by showing me some convincing evidence. Dr. Carl Warner on Bob and Fred’s show (RSR) says there is none. And atheist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the most renowned paleontologists in the world, admits the fossil record shows animals fully formed with no evidence of any transition by gradualism. And lastly, there is the problem of irreducible complexity. The simplest cell can’t evolve in steps and live. Like the inside of a car engine, all parts have to be in place to function. As Bob Enyart shows in his argument that gradualism is impossible. If these three pieces of evidence can’t be answered, then the theistic evolutionist must seriously question his presuppositions about the rest: distant starlight, radiometric dating, and so on. Piasan, if it is true it is impossible for an unfossilized dino to remain preserved for 70 million years, if it is true that you have no transitional fossils, and if it is true that gradualism is not possible, how can your other two arguments prove your position true? For your other arguments to be valid, you have to overcome the three pieces of evidence I present above. Stephen Jay Gould would disagree with you. Piasan, why don’t you send these transitional fossils to Bob and Fred so that they can present them to Dr. Carl Warner? Okay. Let me know when you want me to tackle the distant starlight dilemma. As I mentioned above, I don’t expect this one piece of evidence as the clincher. But I do want you to admit that the unfossilized dino comports with Genesis and Job. And I want you to admit to the obvious truth that a dino can’t last for 70 million years. I do not expect a reasonable man to reason that we will eventually find out how the impossible can become possible. Will you at least admit that dinos and men lived together as God reveals in Job? Of necessity, evolutionists (theistic and atheists) must believe in uniformitarianism: natural processes in the past are the same as we see in the present. As far as food preservation goes, for the last 6,000 years, man has endeavored to preserve food. We froze it, salted it, smoked it, nuked it, dehydrated it and then hydrated it, curried it, and buried it and add to the list. I don’t mean to be insulting, but to believe that a dino can remain fresh in the ground for 70 million years is absurd on the face of it. ‘ "When is a bird not a bird? When it's Archaeopteryx. In the 150th anniversary of its discovery, the position of Archaeopteryx as the earliest-known bird has been weakened thanks to the discovery of increasing numbers of feathered, bird-like dinosaurs over the past decade and a half. The discovery of another bird-like dinosaur, described by Xu Xing and colleagues, might be the last straw. Although the analysis is tentative, the report suggests that we are about to enter a new era in which Archaeopteryx is considered as distant from the ancestry of modern birds as dinosaurs such as Deinonychus." Why is that a problem? Due to the rarity of conditions that lead to fossilization, the fossil record is extremely spotty and imperfect. Because of that it is more notable for it's gaps than the spaces that are filled. As new discoveries are made (such as the 1996 discovery of ancient birds in China) the established thinking is reviewed and modified as necessary to conform to the new evidence. There was no 100 year lag in the published scientific discoveries. In fact, according to your own source, it was less than 15 years. Textbooks can be slow to change. I know that the text I used when I taught biology still had the Haeckle drawings but it had a note that they had been "exaggerated." On the other hand, Pluto was redesignated as a dwarf planet and the number of planets in the solar system was reduced from 9 to 8 in 2006. By 2009, the change was showing up in textbooks. Piasan, if evolution occurred over billions of years, then we should be tripping over transitional fossils. Can you present fossils (plural) that show conclusively gradual evolution of dinos to birds. As Gould admits, the fossils are not there.
  5. Piasan, Please listen to the latest show on Real Science Radio. Fred is away on assignment, so Bob was solo. This show covers the discovery of more soft dino tissue and Bob and his guest cover the impossibility of this tissue being 70 million years old--preposterous even. This show might make you doubt your present worldview--that dinos and man did not live together. TeeJay
  6. Piasan, you posted: "Well, when I first rejected a literal Genesis it was because the literal reading would cause most of the universe to be filled with objects we see but don't exist (because the light hasn't had time to reach Earth) and events that didn't happen (for the same reason). This would mean that most of the universe is a deception. Since God is not deceptive, there must be another explanation. Since most of the really important lessons of the Bible are given by symbolic means, it only made sense that the Genesis account is not literal." Piasan, Recall that you were "woodenly literally" in your interpretation of Gen. 1:24. When this verse said, "... let the earth bring forth..." I asked you how mindless earth can write a DNA code and that gradualism can't work, you played the Supernatural card. So, either Genesis is literal or symbolic/metaphoric, but not both (law of non-contradiction). your worldview forces you to arbitrarily assume naturalism and uniformitarianism. Is God restrained by natural laws? No. Recall Jesus walked on water. Can God be forced to conform to uniformitarianism? No. God's creation of the universe was Supernatural, not natural. The laws of nature came after the creation. You believe that God could use the earth supernaturally to bring forth all the animals but then disbelieve that God could "stretch out the heavens" and bring light instantly from the distant stars to us. Why is this? " I must also point out that proponents of the Big Bang have their own time-travel problem: "the horizon problem." The Big Bang can't explain how light could have traveled across the universe to produce uniform background temperatures. TeeJay
  7. Hello Piasan, Recall that I pointed out that gradualism isn't possible due to Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument. You stated that this argument has been refuted. In a debate between atheist Zakath and Christian apologist Bob Enyart, Bob wrote the following challenge on the impossibility of life forming by gradual processes, that all had to be in place, functioning, for life. It is an expanded version of Behe's mousetrap. After reading it, you might reconsider gradualism? And, I have looked at the mousetrap and considered the parts carefully. Can you tell me which part you can remove? (I'm talking abut the standard mousetrap.) By the way, while Enyart's response was to an atheist, I think it is still a problem for theistic evolutionists as well. (Zakath dropped out of the debate in the 8th round and left Bob's challenge below unanswered.) A cell makes man’s technology look primitive, with hundreds of millions of its simplest components, the proteins (albeit themselves sophisticated three-dimensional machines of thousands of different types) doing a multitude of critical chemical jobs, coordinated by hundreds of millions of digital instructions, with a human possessing dozens of different types totaling about 100 trillion cells. Living cells are the laboratories that make an organism’s chemical components, yet they themselves are made of these same components. Such circularly dependent requirements pervade biology and introduce a dilemma for atheists, for no plausible starting point has ever been described for this circular dependence, so this remains an inexplicable mystery. By natural law, you cannot get a tree without a seed, or an egg without a chicken, or the system to copy DNA without the DNA itself. Evolutionists cannot explain even theoretically in gross terms how the first DNA strands appeared, and then before they deteriorated, how an error-correcting duplication system arose by chance. To manage life’s nutritional and functional needs, a typical cell needs to separate itself from its outside environment, it needs sophisticated subsystems with high-bandwidth and robust communication between them, it must be able to produce hundreds of intricate compounds, it must repair damaged components, it must selectively admit raw materials from outside and expel waste, and paramount, it must reliably reproduce itself. Evolutionists admit great complexity in obtaining a first cell by nature, but do not appreciate how many “first cells†would have disappeared before perfecting the ability to reproduce themselves; millions, billions, trillions, gazillions even, supposedly blindly moving toward an unknowable goal of self-reproduction, without benefit of natural selection nor any law or force driving them forward to achieve that particular goal. Thus, apart from any evidence, atheists desperately posit some simpler form of life that led up to the cell, but that is a logical impossibility, given the function of biological life. To identify only the necessary systems of a single-celled creature virtually means to identify the entire cell. And so, its subsystems cannot be removed without certain death, unless a subsystem’s function was somehow replaced by a service provided from outside the cell; but of course, this would increase the complexity. Any biological life must accomplish the basic fundamentals of life, and the cell accomplishes these efficiently. To propose pre-cell symbiotic life forms which fulfill each other’s requirements adds the complexity of external communication, coordination, shared eco-system dependency, and proximity in time and space. So, I declare that the atheist who posits a simpler life form which leads up to the cell cannot even conceptually describe that simplicity, thus he posits something that he has no evidence for, and something that he cannot even imagine: that is blind faith. Perhaps you can disprove my declaration, and explain what basic functions a cell’s simpler precursors would perform, and how they might perform them reliably and more simply. Let me recap and remind you of a cell’s basic functions that must somehow be addressed for survival. First, please explain what comes first, the functionality, or the instructions to build the functionality; then describe what force or law led to the development of an instruction set for that functionality, and how those instructions then began to encode themselves chemically with amino acids; then explain how those encoded instructions began to get implemented by describing some primitive ribosome-like agents, and how the theoretically necessary function of messenger RNA would have been accomplished, with the development of proteins and enzymes (or their simpler predecessors) to accomplish the needed work of maintenance and reproduction. Also, you might explain, and win a Nobel Prize while you’re at it, how the wildly complex and crucial cell wall with a million sophisticated openings could develop, the wall needed for the survival of the cell, yet utterly dependent upon the cell’s functions for its own existence. Instructions for all of this are encoded into the DNA in the nucleus, the nucleus itself housing these millions of instructions and being able to produce groups of them on demand as needed to build complex chemical machines, all dependent upon the availability of a necessary supply of various amino acids. Of course, I’m not asking you for a detailed account of how this all would happen in a simpler life form. Now you must ask yourself and answer honestly: a) Explain conceptually how the first cell would have developed; or, Give an explanation, in broad terms, of how a simpler system could perform the necessary functions of a biological life form, which I believe must include processing raw materials, containing itself, encoding instructions, implementing instructions, processing chemicals, and reproducing, which the whole system is itself irreducibly complex; and c) After pondering all this, reconsider: You would conclude that Mt. Rushmore could not have been carved by the wind and rain—an absurdity on the faces of it. But, a living cell which is a gazillion times more complex than Mt. Rushmore, you deem an accident of nature. TeeJay
  8. [quote]Well, you actually asked for a transitional between birds and dinos and, as I recalled, Archie had been the classic example. Honestly, I could do some research and come up with dozens of examples.... most of which you would probably reject based on evaluations by those who have openly discarded an objective approach to the evidence. Hello Piasan, Sorry. I admit I did ask for a transitional from dinos to birds. But as to being objective, I think the only truly “objective†Person died on the Cross about 2,000 years ago. I have a worldview (a set of presuppositions through which I interpret the reality I encounter in life). And you have a theistic evolutionary worldview. Any person who claims to be totally objective is committing the Pretended Neutrality Fallacy. But I think that both of us, as Christians, have to agree that if our worldviews are contradictory, then both can’t be true (law of non-contradiction). Piasan, over the years, I have shied away from debating theistic evolutionists. To be honest, I could run rings around atheist evolutionists much easier than theistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists I have debated on ToL (and I’m not accusing you) seemed to invoke the Supernatural when trapped but switch back to the metaphorical when it suited them. But now that I’m teaching Christian Apologetics I am encountering students whose parents are theistic evolutionists. I must equip myself to deal with them. While I am not allowed to challenge the parents’ doctrine too much, I like to present just enough of an argument to get them thinking. On the subject of Truth, I teach them that just because it comes from their parents doesn’t necessarily make it true. I did get challenge on this the first day. But I pointed out that if parental pronouncement made something true, then Muslims must accept Islam as true--it comes from their parents. So, I should thank you for being patient with me in our discussion. I am learning where the theistic evolutionist is coming from; and this will equip me to better understand where my students are. I admit I’m fixated on fossils, and this includes the unfossilized dino. Why? Call me simple minded, but I reason that if someone can show me some transitional fossils from one species to another, then I would be forced (kicking and screaming even) to take a baby step and question my worldview. But all the so called “transitional†fossils I’ve seen over the years have not convinced me. Recall that in Post 17 I posted the following. Take into consideration that this admission of no transitional fossils comes from one of the most renowned paleontologists in the world. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) http://evolution.ber...nsitional.shtml and another article about the same thing athttp://www.livescien...win-theory.htmlHere's one link with 50 or so http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ Here's a much more extensive list at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils (many of these are accompanied by a reference to the article in the scientific literature. So the list of transitionals accepted by mainstream science is quite extensive. When "scirus.org" was up and running, we could use a searchable database of tens of millions of scientific documents and would come up with dozens of transitional fossil lists. Piasan, Bob Enyart and Fred are doing a series on transitional fossils in which I’m sure you’ll be interested. Why don’t we listen to the series and then look at what they present. Bob kicked off the first program with an interview with Dr. Carl Werner That’s fine. I will look into what I find wrong with evolutionists’ dating of fossils. Can you tell me what method you favor and why you think it dates fossils accurately? While we are listening to Bob and Fred on transitional fossils, perhaps we can tackle carbon dating? Take your time, I’m as busy as a one-armed paperhanger with fleas myself. Please take your time. TeeJay
  9. Piasan, Sorry I missed this on one of your posts. I asked for a transitional fossil that proved evolution happened. I'm surprised that you gave Archaeopteryx as proof of a transitional fossil. But I will give you another chance. If there was an evolutionary process going on for billions of years, shouldn't we be tripping over transitional fossils? Yet,, the only fossil you can come up with is this? Now don't worry. I will address your other arguments. But can we do them one at a time. I'm 80 and not exactly a fast typist. How about I address your distant starlight argument, since looking at stars in your backyard makes the transitional fossil argument of no importance? In the mean time, will you admit that you have no transitional fossils to prove evolution happened? I will start working on your distant starlight argument. Or you can ask me to address any other argument for your position that you think makes the transitional fossil absence insignificant? Radiometric dating? You choose. I will leave the unfossilized dinosaur argument. If you insist on believing that this dinosaur could remain fresh in the ground for 70 million years, then I will leave you with this absurd belief. Be sure to let us know when someone figures out how this is possible. Archaeopteryx, Bison, Pelican, Chimp, & Cancer: Fred Williams engineer and webmaster for the Creation Research Society, and Bob Enyart, on this episode of Real Science Radio draw from the latest peer-reviewed science journal article on original biological material and from Creation magazine, April - June 2011. * July 2011 Update from Nature: Not Transitional: It's official. Archaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional creature from dinosaurs to modern birds. Nature News & Views admits that this "icon" of evolution has been "knocked from its perch" after leading palaeontologists reassessed "the creature that has been considered the evolutionary link between the two." Also, Nature News reported that Archaeopteryx had been "the ideal 'missing link' with which to demonstrate evolution from non-avian dinosaurs to [modern] birds." Why the reassessment? A paper in the journal Nature reports a result that "challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds" and that "shifts Archaeopteryx" out of the modern bird lineage. In the popuar press, Wired admits, "Archaeopteryx‘s status as the forerunner of modern birds is crumbling" and in the science press, Discover News laments that, "Archaeopteryx [is] likely removed from the bird family tree". Demonstrating the adage that evidence for evolution devolves over time, along with "vestigial" organs, Nebraska Man, and our "backwardly" wired retina, after 150 years of being the transitional trump card, Archaeopteryx is out (except for the typical 100-year lag in the published scientific discoveries and the outdated claims published in evolutionary textbooks). And as for the Chinese fossils that knocked Archaeopteryx off its perch, remember the late Larry Martin, University of Kansas paleontologist, whom CNN reported as cautioning, "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur." TeeJay
  10. Hello Piasan. Thank you. I did have a good trip. While we agree, I must point out that science is a process that really tells us nothing. It is scientists interpreting science that tell us things. But all evidence will be interpreted through one's presuppositional worldview. A case in point is that you, as an Old Earther, were presented with an unfossilized dinosaur, but your presuppositional old earth worldview forced you to reject the self-evident proof before your eyes. Everyone has a worldview (or a philosophy if you like) or a set of presuppositions through which they interpret the reality they encounter. But if what you encounter in reality does not comport with your worldview, then, of necessity, your worldview is irrational. Can scientific arguments be dismissed with a "no thinks"? How about philosophic arguments? How about logic? Now you can ignore them if you like, but I will consider your failure to address a presuppositional argument as your admission that you can't answer it. Piasan, you can believe all day that gravity will remain constant, but absent God's promise to keep it constant, you have no justification to believe that. The evolutionist lives in an unguided, mindless, random chance universe. While you believe in a Creator, you reject His promise to uphold all by the word of His power as metaphorical. If you take His promise as literal, then you are inconsistent with your original argument that Genesis is metaphorical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Axioms? I do not agree that the law of gravity is an axiom that can never change. Jesus could violate the law of gravity by walking on water and still remain the God the Son. But could He ever violate the law of non-contradiction and remain truthful? No! Piasan, if you were to see these things, you would not accpt them as evidence that proves your worldview wrong. I live about 50 plus miles from a riverbed here in Texas and I stood in dinosaur tracks with a boy's footprint inside the dinosaur footprint. Bonedigger presents evidence to you. Around the world there are pictographs (and carvings) of dinosaurs that the natives must have seen in order to be able to carve and draw them. And we have God talking to Job about the Behemoth--which has been unearthed in South America. Again, Piasan, your worldview will not allow you accept any evidence you see.'' TeeJay
  11. Piasan, I'm curious how you will answer this: In Revelation 21 (I believe it's 21) God will create a new heaven and a new Earth. Will He take billions of years to do it? If you answer no, I must ask: Why is Genesis metaphorical and Revelation 21 literal? TeeJay
  12. Piasan, I stand corrected. Here again, I must point out that you are being "woodenly" literal. When I read this, I interpret this to mean that He created all plants and animals fully formed and fully functional and that all would reproduce after its own kind from the nutrients of the earth. But your interpretation has mindless matter creating and writing DNA information programs--absurd on the face of it. And I'm sure that you will argue that God micro-managed the evolution by gradualism. But Behe's irreducible complexity argument makes gradualism impossible. Take one part from an amoeba and it dies. Unless there are precreated lungs, oxygen is destructive. Unless there is a precreated mechanism to capture to the energy of the sun, plants would shrivel and die. And there is no transitional fossils. If your theory were correct, wouldn't you expect to find millions of transitional fossils. Shouldn't the missing transitional fossils make you at least question your worldview? Which is more reasonable to believe: Genesis and Job are true as written by God? Or I can shoot one of my cows and bury it and 70 million years from now we can dig it up and have a BBQ? Jesus Christ may ask you that someday? In one of my classes, I had an 18-year-old senior ask if there were any transitional fossils that showed evolution had happened. When I told her there was not one single transitional fossil ever found, wide-eyed she practicallly screamed at me the question: "Then why do they believe it happened?" My answer to her was from the apostle Paul: Willful self-deception." As Paul said, "They suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Now, Piasan, if you can explain to me, in just the broadest terms, how gradual evolution could occur over billions of years without leaving one transitional fossil, then you will have my attention and probably with a Nobel Prize as well. But absent the transitional fossil, your belief is arbitrary--arbitrary because you have no reason to believe it happened. I can believe that it will not rain on my granddaughter's wedding this month. But I can't know that it will not rain, for my belief is arbitrary. Even if it indeed does not rain on the wedding, my belief was still arbitrary, for I had no reason to believe it would not rain. Notice that you have now rejected two pieces evidence against your worldview that are self-evident: Dinosaur soft-tissue and total absence of transitional fossils. If I were a theistic evolutionist, and if I were presented with these two arguments, I think I would at least question my worldview. TeeJay
  13. Piasan, Science (which is a search for causes) does not enable you to understand the Bible. It it is not true that we are created in God's image, with a logical mind that is capable of knowing truth, then no truth can be known--whether it be special revelation from the Bible or truth learned from scientific experimentation. Unless God's word is put first, then science as we know it today, could not exist. For example, we know that the laws of physics will not change arbitrarily from one day to the next because God promises in His word that He upholds it all with the word of His power. God promises this in Genesis. If you take His promise as not being literal, you have no basis to believe that the law of gravity, say, will not be different tomorrow. Any scientific experimentation must be based on an Ultimate Standard that need not be proved by anything else. So, you can't deem God's promise to uphold all as metaphorical; you must take it as literal. But then I must ask why you can pick some of Genesis as literal and some not literal? Here is where I reason that Old Earthers have a problem. When I presented to you the soft tissue dinosaur, you immediately did back flips and contortions looking for an escape to justify your worldview. If your worldview does not comport with what you encounter in reality, shouldn't you stop and question it? Instead of this irrefragable evidence giving you pause, you are now searching for how this tissue could have been preserved for 70 million years. If it's impossible for this tissue to be preserved for this time, will you ever find a process that can preserve it? That preservation of this tissue for 70 million years is not possible should be self-evident to you? TeeJay
  14. Piasan, I must apologize. I wanted to get into a more in-depth dialogue. The reason I have not answered your questions is I have to go out of town and will be busy. Thank you for answering me. God bless, TeeJay
  15. Piasan, Do you realize that you are being woodenly literal with Gen. 1:24 (where God does not want you to be) and not literal where He wants you to be. Instead of God creating living things fullly formed and functional, you now have mindless matter writing DNA information programs. Some questions: Is it possible for mindless matter to write a DNA information program? If the living creatures evolved gradually, you are on the horns of another dilemma: Unless all the parts are present and functional, the most simple cell cannot function and will die. Can you give us an explanation of how to overcome this dilemma? And, let's cut to the chase: If you want to take Gen. 1:24 literal, then present the millions of transitional fossils. Thus far, I haven't seen any. Please don't present me some extinct fossil that has already been debunked by YEC's. And I will ask you again, why do you believe something for which there is no evidence and reject God's account of how He did it? TeeJay
×

Important Information

Our Terms