Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Advanced member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kairos2014

  1. Hey y'all,


    Hope all is well. I watched an interesting youtube vid on John Ankerberg show:




    Old earth vs Young earth. There were some very interesting and captivating responses from all of them.


    I wanted to see if you would of said anything different from what was spoken on the show?


    Also, I have a few questions:

    - Is John Ankerberg bias against young earth?

    - Does the genesis account truly support young or old earth in your opinion?

    - 35min Hugh Ross - "for ye number and length of six days, by what is set above, you may make ye first day as long as you please, and ye second day too."

    Did Issac Newton believed in old earth?


    Many thanks in advance

  2. Hello,


    Na, you haven't misunderstood...you're right on the mark:


    The big bang is a "Just So" Story.  It's not even a Scientific Hypothesis,  Crocheting is more Scientific  ;)



    Thanks Enoch good to hear from you old friend. "Crocheting" lol.


    Sadly, due to the bastardisation of actual science via evolution "science"... Untested hypotheses are being deemed scientific "theories".


    I guess they have to keep up appearances, can't have evolution as the only untested hypothesis "theory".


    Ah I see.


    I was watching the Richards Dawkins vs John Lennox debate/dialogue and found it interesting when the big bang was mentioned a few times which led to me here to open it up.

  3. Yes well, GOD SAID...


    (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."


    Then you look back...


    (Genesis 1:1-2) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."


    So.... GOD CREATED, the Heaven and the Earth on the First Day .  When it was CREATED, it was Formless and Void. HE didn't START with Formless and Void.


    Ah yes, that makes perfect sense now when you read Exodus 20:11! I re-read Genesis 1:1-5 and verse 5 completes the first day. 

    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."



    Be careful that it's not "BLIND FAITH"....you're talking about.


    Biblical Faith is....


    (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


    It has "Substance" and "Evidence".  As Opposed to "BLIND" FAITH. 


    (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good."



    I appreciate your input. As for my own Faith I am basing it off the word of GOD and believing everyword. For example; if GOD said "He created the heaven and the earth or Jesus walked on water, or raised from the dead", etc, it is quite normal for a Christian like myself to go on Faith without evidence and believe in the word of GOD. Is this not part of our Christian Faith? I understand Hebrews 11:1 but when I read Ephesians 2:8-9 it is clearly talking about Faith alone.

    Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."


    I don't know what you mean by Blind Faith until looked I it up? Why would you accuse or warn me of possibly having Blind Faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind-faith)? Maybe I need to go back to the basics and understand what Faith is? As for evidence, that is only a concern for the non-believers not for the believers my friend because it has clearly been shown in Romans 1:20 or have I misinterpreted?




    P.S My friend Enoch, I really do appreciate your input and will always try to respect you as best as I can. I believe I have all the answers you have given me on Old Earth Creation and very well please with it. I have another thread if you can please take a look: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6494-speciation-divergent-and-micro-evolution/

  4. Theistic evolutionists are not atheists.....


    Just pointing out the obvious.

    Thanks piasan I do know the difference. I know I kind of hijacked the OP and took it somewhere else :D


    Kairos, it's interesting that Venter says, the universe is, "far more wonderful". Whatever does he mean by, "wonderful"? Is that not a subjective term? If atheism is true, what is, "wonderful", it is nothing, therefore Venter's opinion is nothing, because his opinion is nothing more than some chemicals bouncing around his head, that have evolved from pond-scum.


    I find that an interesting epithet to use, "wonderful".


    Now if you are a Christian, you can appreciate the true wonder of creation for what it is without lying. You don't have to pretend that a butterfly is only beautiful to the human but that objectively it is a created thing. You don't have to believe morality is invented by man, you don't have to believe that freewill is an illusion. You don't have to pretend that a miraculous level of design in organisms and in nature generally, is a mirage and that it was intelligently designed by something with no intelligence. (evolution).


    In short, you can take reality for what it is - truly wonderful because it is a miraculous creation. A creation with meaning. But in Venter's world - what is 'meaning'?, What is 'wonderful'? They are nothing more than the opines of relativity. They are dust, shadows, phantoms, and the atheist becomes the puppeteer that animates them, having no tether to the earth himself.


    Furthermore, if the creation is wonderful then since the Creator made it, the Creator would be wonderful as the creation is a reflection of the creator. It is an assumption that we "assume" God is there, just because the atheists say we do, as though they have proven the bible is not God's voice to us.


    To say the universe is too wonderful to be made by God is like saying that a wonderful song is too wonderful to be sung by a wonderful singer. A contradiction, for they both compliment eacother. To imagine that God existing would not be wonderful, is bizarre and shows how far from God the unbelieving mind is in it's belief in falsehoods and contradictions and a failure to even understand base-wisdom.


    Where do these guys come from, Goku? Who are these people you quote, that have no wisdom and state contradictions as though we should value them?


    S O P H I S T R Y. Why do you glorify these glorified sinners in your mind?


    Absolutely! I remember watching a Christian movie "GOD's NOT DEAD" and one of the reference was used by John Lennox "Nonsense remains nonsense even for Stephen Hawking"

    It kind of reminded me of Venter how you were describing "Wonderful".


    Hmm I always wondered but never got around to it. I have a question for evolution:

    1. Why are insects, animals, hamo sapiens, etc, have almost a perfect outline or perpendicular in design? Why is it not a random design? (hope that makes sense)


    Example: http://www.bestanimations.com/Animals/Insects/Butterflys/butterfly-animated-gif-32.gif

  5. Enoch, that was very helpful thank so much for your insight! You're exactly right. I have a habit of using wikipedia as a reliable source because sometimes nothing else is listed on the google search?


    I should of explained it further why I asked these questions. In my circle of people and friends I am dealing with different worldviews and some believe in the Gap and evolution theory. So I wanted to use apologetic to hopefully shred some light on why YEC makes more sense? Obviously, it would be a future reference to use and be ready in and out of season.


    That Ellipses ( ... ) is the Problem...


    (Genesis 1:1-2) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."


    That's Game Over !


    My apology Enoch, I assume everyone knew it is referring to Genesis 1:1-2? I am not quite sure what you mean by "Game Over"? Am I missing something or could you kindly elaborate for me please? Interesting, I am starting to notice why it is recommend to read KJV. NIV uses "...the heavens..." and KJV uses "...the heaven...".


    Exactly the way it reads.


    I know that is common for the average bible reader but how would OEC interpret this scripture when yom is used as a long period? I think this will be answered by question 1?


    First mistake is Listening to Hugh Ross.  He may be a Good Man but he's clueless regarding Science and his Hermeneutics are even worse.


     The Hebrew word for day: "yom". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morningâ€, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. There were plenty of words that GOD could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, yet HE did not use them.


    Ops I forgot to mentioned I only heard him when he was debating brother Kent H*vind. I never agreed with Hugh Ross since it didn't feel right what he was saying. I like watching all the YEC like Jason Lisle, Ken Ham, but brother Kent H*vind is my favorite and so please to see him released and with his family.


    I always believed in the bible when I became a born-again and had no choice but to go on Faith since it's impossible to please GOD without Faith. Until I heard and studied the creation model it brought everything into perspective and totally changed the way I view our universe. Now I have confidence when I share to the people/friends in my circle. We always hear Jesus is the answer but when I actually hear questions answered it literally means no questions on GOD is unanswered.


    Thanks for the link I will read it now and post back :)

  6. Uncertain, but unlikely.



    OK, cheers!




    "As is the case with most scientists, Venter is an atheist. When asked by “60 Minutes†interviewer Steve Kroft if he believed in God, Venter quickly replied:

    No. I believe that the universe is far more wonderful than just assuming it was made by some higher power."   http://hollowverse.com/craig-venter/ 


    lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?


    Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)

  7. Ok

    What do you mean when you say “I always knew this was unscientific�


    I was under the impression that both creationists and evolutionists agree that the three processes were observable (accepted as scientific).


    I was implying to macroevolution being unscientific and the 3 above is observable. Isn't that what you were saying "..but I don't think they are "proof" of  macroevolution."?





    The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks".  Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas.  I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT. 


    To Refute:  Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin!





    Well DNA is made up of Atoms, AND...
    "DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE
    So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
    Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
    "Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine} 

    Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) 

    “DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.†{Emphasis Mine} 

    Paul Davies PhD Physics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk



    So you were saying....?



    That video of Craig Venter is interesting. Is he a creationist?

  9. Wow! Praise the lord Jesus! You are the man 'Enoch 2021', you gave them a boozooka!! I read all your comments and noticed the ones who defend evolution only pick one or two lines to respond to and then hide away lol.

    I think evolution works the way; pop and hide, pop and hide.


    Hey Enoch, can you respond to my thread on Old Earth, and gap theory please: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6491-old-earth-gap-theory/

    I am having some problem understanding the Old Earth and Gap theory?

  10. Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.


    I believe in a Young earth creation and was doing a bit of study on the Gap theory or Old earth creation which I may have misunderstood in the past. So I am here to hopefully to get some clarity with what I originally thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

    I've been a Kent H*vind fan on Young earth creation, the Holy bible makes sense perfect sense of how the Lord created everything in existence according to the genesis account. However, when I recently looked up Old earth it said something which I may have missed in the past "In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void." and "This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew"."


    I have a few questions on the Gap or Old earth creation and do appreciate your time in responding:


    1. If GOD is timeless, eternal and created everything; how would you interpret that particular scripture Genesis 1:1-2?

    2. If GOD aged the universe or leaped forward since being unaffected by time, do you apply a 24hr literal day to the creation account once GOD has aged the universe or long period (yom)?

    3. When I listen to Hugh Ross on the Old earth creation, he explains a long period (yom) during the 7 day creation account. Is Yom used after GOD has aged the universe?

    If so, on day 3 the vegetation, plants, fruits, etc, was created but day 4 the lights were created; sun and moon? Is the long period (Yom) still in process during the creation account day 3 and 4? If so, how would the plants survive without sunlight?

    4. How long is the Yom period between each creation day?


    Thanks in advance

  11. Hey y'all,


    I found this article and thought of the forum: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320120708.htm


    I find it bizarre how this creature has been unchanged, and interesting enough the Evolutionist. Did reptiles lived in the same era as dinosaurs? Or are they originally classed as a dinosaur (reptile) but Man called it a separate group?



    Noticed here "approx 8000yrs..they are evolving -- at a DNA level -- faster than any other animal yet examined.". Wow I wonder what happen to the slow process of millions of years?

    Why do evolutionists ignore the flood of noah so easily and the Holy Bible and the Lord GOD has been spot on right from the beginning?

  12. I ran into these videos just the other day. While I cannot say if they are true they do contain a lot of points that make sense.

    The other point that I believe is germane to this topic is that if it is close to the end times what do we see forming? What kind of things are in place for such a massive global control?

    Thanks for the vids. Very interesting. I found another one on the Monster energy drink.



  13. Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.


    He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..


    Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.




    After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?


    Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question wink.png

    I always wondered why many scientists and non-scientists say "creationist have no credentials or not real scientist"? It has become a broken record of excuses they use these days.

    Hey Gilbo, I am curious to know the particular question you asked your Professor? Forgive me I have missed it.


    Thanks my friend


    Who told you that? Peter was never a 'pope' and in fact, there was no pope office mentioned in the Bible. Peter wrote two books but never referred to himself as 'the holy father' nor called himself 'pope'. Neither did any of the other writers of scripture.


    Most of us here on EFF don't follow the 'pope' nor Catholic teaching to begin with. We follow God's written Word.

    Yep, you can count me in as one who doesn't follow the pope.


    Damn those pics of idol worshiping taking it to a whole new level lol.


Important Information

Our Terms