Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Dave

Super Moderator
  • Content Count

    903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Dave last won the day on March 24 2017

Dave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About Dave

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    67
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

241 profile views
  1. Ah, yes. The good old "creation science isn't science" argument. Wibble, that has been asked, answered and refuted many times on EFT. I'm thinking you should realize that's a non-starter for you as a rebuttal to my post. Actually, I and many like me wonder why you can be so content with self-limiting your scientific study by denying the huge part of reality that goes beyond the mere material world. Are you really smarter than Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Maury, Linnaeus, et al, who had no problem making incredible scientific discoveries all the while holding to a biblical worldview? My, aren't you the arrogant one? So, you have a lock on truth? Logically, it isn't even possible, since you proudly ignore a huge portion of the real world. You limit yourself as to what you can draw on for arriving at the truth.
  2. The problem, Wibble, is that you are overthinking it. I'll say, once again, that the God who can create the universe and everything in it with merely a thought would have no problem whatsoever in providing solutions for all of the minor issues that you mention here. It's also why I'm fond of saying that those who do materialistic-only science are trying to do science with half their brains tied behind their backs. Imagine how much more you could understand about the real world if you opened your mind to recognizing that the physical world, the self-limiting part of your science, is merely a small part of reality. That the bigger world, the real world, has a spiritual component that goes far, far beyond what your self-limiting worldview allows you to see. The tragedy is that when science took a left turn on the voyage to Galapagos and forewent reality, it lost so much productive time and energy. Imagine if the biblical worldview of the majority of the founders of science prevailed today, and the slavish followers of the cult of evolution were relegated to the backwaters of "science," how much more progress could have been made. Oh well.
  3. Wibble, for a good treatment of whether insects were on the ark, and whether insects could have survived outside the ark during the flood, please see Were Insects on the Ark? There you'll read about what the breath of life constitutes, and how it applied to insects. In God's economy "breath of life" and life are not the same things. Interestingly, this AIG article concludes by answering, "We don't know." So, we each can decide for ourselves whether we believe insects were on the ark or not. Personally, worrying about that for me ranks right up there with wondering whether Jesus had a beard or not. In the grand scheme of things, it has nothing to do with where we will all spend eternity.
  4. Killer, you were a little strident in your response , but you preceded me by only a few moments as I was going to basically answer with the same verses. Once again we crash into that old brick wall, the worldview. It is no great stretch to realize that a God who could create the universe and everything in it merely by thinking and speaking it into existence wouldn't have any trouble at all in keeping sea creatures safe during the flood. However, I can understand how those of the God-denying worldview would see it as a convenient and smug "gotcha." Same thing as to the idea that the flood was just some local occurrence that has been built up by alleged myth-makers into some kind of world-wide judgment. The Bible is crystal clear that the flood was universal to this planet. Anyone can believe it or not. Worldview.
  5. Dave

    The Toad's Genesis

    ".... light from the stars exist to give light on earth ..." Actually is true. Have you ever been in the desert on a clear, moonless night away from any man-made lights? Once your eyes adjust you can truly see enough from the stars to accomplish simple tasks. It's a fact, I've been there, done that. But my main point is that God was thinking much, much bigger when he gave us the stars. He meant them to mean something to us, to be a sign. Gen 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" Psalm 147:4 tells us that God knows each individual star by name: "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names." Really? To what purpose? A favorite Bible teacher of mine used to say that everything in Scripture is about Jesus Christ. If you have a question about a certain passage, look for the Lord in it, and the meaning will come to you. The purpose of the stars is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Toward that end, you'll be fascinated by doing a study of the Hebrew Mazzaroth. A good summary, and a place to whet your appetite, is in this short article at: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2014/1193/ With that and further study you'll discover that with God stars are not just some trivial addon to the sun and moon at creation. And remember, God calls each and every star by name. Scripture says ALL!
  6. Dave

    The Toad's Genesis

    I like to think that God has a sense of humor, and an impish desire to make fools of those who would aspire to know more than he does. 1Cor 1:27 " But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; " He provided light before it was scientifically feasible because ... he can. He created life with just his word because ... he can. And he's sitting up there laughing at how much fun it is to confound the "wise." Personally, I have no problem taking Genesis word for absolute word. I don't worry about if I don't understand the how, or whether the wise ones can explain it scientifically. What I do know is that the further scientific inquiry progresses the more it vindicates God's word.
  7. Dave

    The Toad's Genesis

    I'm always intrigued whenever I discover new and fascinating things about God's Word. One of those intriguing things is the discovery of how similar the first and last books of the Bible are to each other; like bookends, but that the last book is in reverse order to the first. In the first book it begins with God providing light before the Sun and stars, then he goes on to create everything culminating in man. Then the story proceeds with man walking with God in Eden as pure and sinless as God himself is, but man falls into sin, and then there's the rest of history of depraved mankind as we know it. The final book begins with a depraved mankind, proceeds with a cleansing of the fallen world, and the taking away of the sun and stars, and ends with an Edenic existence with the light, once again, being provided exclusively by God. My point is that the sun could go completely dark tomorrow and life COULD go on as normal with no interruption in life processes at all ... all because of the beneficence of a merciful God, who can provide everything needed to sustain life without even having to work up a sweat to do it. Creation didn't need the sun and stars for light in the first moment, and won't need the sun and stars at the final time when the heaven and earth have passed away. Scientists would scoff at this notion, of course. Everybody knows that if the sun goes dark it would be the end of life on this planet. But, God knows how to deal with scoffers, and tells us, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ..." That is from the famous passage in Romans Chapter 1 that includes, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ..." It is to our credit and to God's glory that we clearly see and understand. No mystery about it.
  8. Dave

    Secular "Objectivity" Versus Creation Creeds?

    In a world without a faith component what you said makes perfect sense. But, here's the rub ... saying "God did it" and really believing it means that one must accept the whole package; which is God of the Bible. And God clearly, unambiguously does not support in his word anything having to do with evolution. And that's why people like yourself cling so strongly to the notion that evolution must be separated from the initial origin of life. To admit the two are connected, and to finally admit the truth that life can only be created by God would destroy everything that God deniers believe in.
  9. Dave

    Secular "Objectivity" Versus Creation Creeds?

    Popoi, I did a quick survey of the word abiogenesis in response to your comment. I purposely bypassed dictionary or encyclopedia entries and tried to find strictly scientific treatments. What I discovered is that scientists discussing abiogenesis do indeed use the "language" of evolution. The impression one gets is that the origin of life is but the first step in an evolutionary process. I'm tied up with other things right now, so I can't pull quotes to prove what I'm saying. My point is that abiogenesis as a "requirement" for evolution is indeed a valid subject. Continue on.
  10. Dave

    Forum Upgrade complete!

    What If and Piasan, I'm thinking the Source feature must be a moderator-only option. In the previous version the source button was available for everyone. I can see how it would be awkward now having to sort out nested quotes without being able to do it from "source." Oh well, some bad with the good, I suppose.
  11. Dave

    Forum Upgrade complete!

    You don't see this when you choose Quote to reply? And allowable BB codes are set by the individual forum settings. You'd have to ask an admin which codes are allowed with this software.
  12. Dave

    Forum Upgrade complete!

    What if, I'm not sure what you are asking about BB code. The editor menu bar has most of the features that you would need a BB code for ... ie. bold, italic, etc. If you need additional code you can always click on the "Source" option to reveal all the coding used in the comment.
  13. Dave

    Are People Becoming An Absurd Superficial Joke?

    Just so everyone knows ... In every instance where normal people are targeted by h*m*sexuals to force them to create something for them each and every one of the defendants said that they do provide services to their h*mos*xual customers. IOW, they do happily provide baked goods or flower arrangements, etc., for their h*mos*xual customers. What the defendants in each case refuse to do, and are sued for, is to provide creative expression that violates their God-given right to not advocate for a sinful agenda. And do not misunderstand, it is purely a hateful agenda for these h*m*sexuals to target their victims. There are plenty of bakers, I'm sure, who would satisfy the h*m*sexuals' desires. Here's how you can know for sure it is a hateful agenda against Christians. Tell me one instance where a h*mos*xual "couple" went into a Muslim bakery and demanded the Muslim owners endorse the h*mos*xual agenda with an expression of art.
  14. Dave

    Stoeckle-Thaler Dna Study

    You're welcome. The thing is, if this study had confirmed beyond all doubt Darwinian theory and long ages we'd be inundated with non-stop coverage, special editions of science-oriented magazines and a blog-o-sphere aflame with the urgency to spread the word. But ... crickets.
  15. Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution I caught this a few days ago and am wondering why this hasn't become news in the general public. Basically the gist is:
×

Important Information

Our Terms