My Discussion with an Atheist – Part 2

This is part two of my New Year’s Facebook discussion with atheist John. Jim, a mutual friend, had asked me to help him show John the truth of God in terms of creation. I thought it might be a wonderful example of things you may want to watch out for when you are discussing origins with a non-believer. I made many errors in this debate. But ultimately, I gave it a try to help a lost soul find the truth that God has so plainly put in front of us. I have tried to make things easy to follow, and to that point, it is somewhat edited for clarification (misspellings, etc.). John’s comments are in Blue and mine remain in Black. I have made comments after the fact in Red.

 

 

Jerry: John, I don’t know how this will work out, but do you think it will work out if we address each issue in a new segment of the thread instead of going on forever?

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 4:51pm

John: That is fine. You start.

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 4:59pm

 

Jerry: Super. How do you define “evolution?”

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 5:05pm

(It is critical to get an agreement on definitions, especially when it comes to “evolution.” The major issue that arises in these discussions is that an evolutionist will use changes in a species to make the leap to changes from one type of animal to another. When I use “type” I mean something along the order of family in the classification system. Genus and species we can all agree on change due to natural selection. However, if you do not hold your atheist to a definition, then they will always use it to “prove” evolution from molecules to man.)

John: There is very strong scientific evidence showing that life has existed long before Adam, Eve, and talking serpent. To answer your question, Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

This has been proven with fruit flies giving offspring to an entirely different species of flies.

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 5:45pm

(There have been long standing experiments with fruit flies and e. coli. They have spanned many generations. One experiment starts with fruit flies and ends with fruit flies and the other begins with e.coli and ends with e.coli. There is no change from a bacterium to a virus, for example, or a fruit fly to a beetle. And this is the perfect example of what I discussed above – John is trying to show the fact of micro-evolution to prove the dream of macro-evolution. This is a very common tactic of evolutionists, and is the main reason you should define this at the very beginning.)

John: Jerry, do you believe that every single species of animals and insects that exist today were on Noah’s ark? Do you think there are any species of animals or insects existing today that did NOT exist 4500 years ago?

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 6:53pm

 

Jerry: So you and I agree that there are characteristic traits that can change. This is commonly known as micro evolution where a fruit fly changes to a fruit fly. Are we sticking with that definition or are we going to say that evolution is the ability for a dog kind to change into a cat kind, or something like that, also known as macro evolution?

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 7:47pm

 

John: No I don’t believe a dog can give birth to a cat. That is ridiculous. But it is possible for A to give birth to A1 and A2. Then A1 gives birth to A3, but A2 gives birth to A4. Each A above has a slightly different genetic code so each successive offspring is slightly different. Now do that for one million years, where the number of slightly different but constantly changing offspring is a geometric progression.

New species are naturally being created.

We know human lifespan was about 25 to 30 years in the first century, but it is around 80 years now and people are much taller. How do you explain that. This is part of evolution.

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 8:05pm

(Creationists agree with the premise that “New species are naturally being created,” but we do not agree with the extension that version A leads to A1, then A2 and so on until B. We have never seen this…ever. The problem for evolution is that the transitional fossils do not exist, and if they do there is no way to confirm that they are indeed transitional since they only have structure and not DNA.)

 

John: Jim, do you notice that when I ask the tough questions or point out some inconsistencies, that nobody responds? You sometimes do that too. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know”

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 6:57pm

 

Jim: Give him time. I know he’ll respond.

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 7:26pm

 

John: Jim, But you do the same. Do you believe that every species of animals and insects that exist today also existed and were put on Noah’s ark some 5000 years ago?

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 7:37pm

 

John: I mean about 4,350 years ago since great flood

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 7:43pm

 

John: From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So life started 6000 years ago according to bible. Flood was about 1,650 years after that.

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 7:47pm

 

Jerry: If this was intended for me, I had family things to attend to. I will be able to respond occasionally. Bishop Ussher’s timeline is a good approximation. And in light of secular calculations for Mitochondrial Eve, I would suggest the dating is quite good.

Like · Reply · December 30, 2017 at 7:52pm

(Mitrochondrial Eve is a common ancestor of Homo Sapiens. From looking at the DNA of modern humans (us) scientists believe they can trace the lineage back to a common ancestor. Of course, this theory suffers from the same problem as any dating technique in that we cannot know for certain if events have taken place at the same rate in the past as they do now. Plus, scientists have tinkered with a number that used to be about 6000 years to make it about 4 million years as it did not fit the evolutionary narrative.)

 

 

Jerry: How is a rock dated? There are several methods used to give the age of rocks. They all deal with radioisotopes. Uranium is known to decay to Lead via alpha decay. Strontium decays to Rubidium (beta), Potassium to Argon (beta and electron capture). There are others. A rock is cleaned to remove contaminants. It is then dissolved to introduce the sample into a mass spectrometer although some methods allow direct sampling via laser ablation. The data is reproducible. However, there is one key assumption made – there were no daughter ions present when the rock formed. Is this a good assumption? No. All atoms in these techniques are naturally occurring and not solely the result of isotopic decay. So, if we don’t know how many daughter ions were present when the rock formed, how can we know the actual number of parent ions decayed to give us an age? Did you know that scientists only report one dating technique unless several give them the same number? Did you know rocks created during the eruption of Mount Saint Helens give radioisotope dating of millions of years? The technique will tell us how may ions of everything is in the sample. But it cannot tell us what the conditions of the rock were some 3.8 billion years ago.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 8:24am

(The major flaw in radiometric dating techniques is that they assume there was no daughter ions to begin with. Daughter ions are the breakdown product of radioactive decay. Scientists date rocks by counting the number of Uranium and Lead ions in a sample and then assigning a date based on the number of Lead ions that they assume came from the decay of Uranium. However, if there was any Lead in the sample to begin with, then the age would be inflated. While it is a little more complicated than that, this is the main idea behind the technique.)

John: Just more Christian justification to avoid the truth !! I believe the many scientists who all say the Earth is definitely a lot more than 6000 years old. Therefore creation theory 6000 years ago is total nonsense. Nice try though.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 9:53am

(John has just gone off the deep end. He has already admitted he is “not a scientist” and he does not understand the science, when he is confronted with actual facts about the fallacies of his religion, he lashes out. While I have hit a nerve, it is important that I continue to attack the flaws in his belief system, evolution. As a result, I hit several areas of study which should show a reasonable person that there are problems, and serious ones, with the theory of evolution.)

 

Jerry: Did you know junk DNA proves millions of years? All this excess DNA that does nothing are the vestigial remnants of a myriad of failed adaptations, mutations and old characteristics no longer needed. Well, as we learn more and more, all this “junk” DNA that do not code for proteins is being discovered to be part of the instruction sheets for building cells. Sorry, naturalists. God put this part of DNA in there for a reason, and scientists are finding this to be true more and more. DNA is so complex that random chance processes creating it are as likely mathematically as a million monkeys typing on keyboards coming up with On the Origin of Species.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 8:37am

 

John: More Christian justification. Sorry creationists.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 9:54am

(“Junk DNA” had been for decades all the proof man needed to prove evolution. Left over stuff from times gone by that just got left in the genes of man. But when man ultimately discovered that the “junk DNA” had purpose, that theory went out the window in a hurry. I also touch on the mathematical impossibility of DNA evolving. Of course, John’s response is the same as the last one as he does not understand the science.)

 

 

Jerry: Every good theory should be able to explain origins. In the case of Darwinian Evolution, we don’t have an explainable beginning. A simple life form has to come into existence. A simple protein contains no fewer than 20 amino acids. (By the way, all the amino acids have to be “left-handed.” The only problem is that when amino acids are created in a lab (Miller Urey) they are a racemic mixture of right and left. So you have to have 20 left handed amino acids coming together in the right order without any interference from right handed ones. The chances of this are about 1 in 10^80. And this is before we build a cell, which is, contrary to Darwin’s thinking, not at all simple. For building a cell, the proteins will need to be ordered correctly and the somehow folded (DNA gives instructions for machines to be formed to do the folding). So far, our simple cell is going to happen 1 in 10^150 times. Wow! And naturalists laugh at me because of my faith. The math just does not work.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 8:47am

(The statistical probability of forming a single protein by chance is so remote. That 1 in 10^80 number? Scientists estimate there are 10^80 atoms in the universe! Miller and Urey did an experiment in the lab where they “simulated” conditions in the early atmosphere to try to create amino acids that could be used for building a protein which could then be used for building DNA. And the formation of DNA still does not guarantee that life would come from it. And the critical part is that for evolutionists, this has to be done by blind chance. In other words, it just has to happen on its own – life from non-life. You have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions lottery 50,000 times in a row than nature has of forming a simple protein by chance. Oh, and the piece de resistance – you cannot create a protein in the presence of oxygen and you cannot create life in its absence. Really think about that last sentence.)

Jerry: The Grand Canyon was laid down over hundreds of millions of years. Then, water eroded through the canyon for millions more creating the wonderful feature we see today. But, did you know that in the millions and millions of years that the sediments were being laid, there was not a single significant rainfall? How do I know this? Because each of the layers is perfectly laid on top of the next, year after year after year and not one single example of a washout during that millions and millions of years. I guess climate change was not an issue at all back then. The math just does not work.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 8:57am

 

John: You are totally brainwashed and so gullible on this creation subject

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 9:56am

(Imagine the evolutionary time frame if you can. Millions of years passing by slowly. Rocks eroding and settling into layer after layer after layer of sediment. After hundreds of millions of years, there are thousands of feet laid sequentially upon one another. We see beautiful layering in the Grand Canyon. Now, for those same hundreds of millions of years, there cannot be any rain or wind. None. Why? Because the Grand Canyon has perfect layers one atop the next. Not in a single spot is there a place where rain runoff or wind has marred the perfectly laid layers. I am expected to believe that over the course of hundreds of millions of years that no rain or wind impacted the newly laid layers? And I am the one who is “gullible.” A global flood is a perfect means of depositing the thousands of feet of sediments that formed the basis of the Grand Canyon. It had to happen quickly. Oh, and secular sediment deposition experiments proven that these layers had to form quickly as sedimentation is a process which cannot proceed slowly.)

 

 

Jerry: You know, I can keep going. But unless you have ears to hear and eyes to see, you will not. But with the irreducible complexity of your ears and eyes, random chance processes will eventually come up with the billions of lines of code to create them. Maybe we can get those monkeys to type it out. 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. (Romans 1:20) The math just does not work.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 9:09am

(I pretty much know at this point that there is no point in this discussion with John. He is blind to the mathematical improbability and the actual science. He only sees his worldview – evolution.)

John: I hope you are not a math professor. Wrong profession for you. Happy new year.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 9:59am

 

Jerry: And exactly why do you say that?

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:00am

 

John: Jerry because so many scientists probe otherwise. Are u a scientist? What is your profession?

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:08am

(John appeals to the majority of scientists here, which is a logical fallacy. He would never identify it as such, but he has been blinded by the “scientists” who have a “godless” worldview.)

Jerry: Chemist. Mass spectrometry and chromatography are my areas of expertise. I have also done post baccalaureate studies in geology. I don’t actually care what you studied because it does not matter. But what does matter is your ability to see the truth. I just gave you statistically impossible dreams in historical geology and evolutionary theory and you basically think, “We are here, so nature must have somehow managed to get it to work.” That, John, is the very definition of faith, something you have a great deal of. Nature sure has some remarkable abilities. It created all the laws of physics as well as all the matter and energy. Whew! She is a remarkable thing.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:20am

(John gave me an opening to use the same fallacy he uses, so I did. I do have a chemistry degree and I did studies in geology. But none of that means that I can tell any more than a PhD that a rock is billions of years old unless someone was there to record the composition of the rock when it was formed. Just for fun, I mock “Mother Nature” for her wonderful abilities to create not only herself, but everything from nothing. As a result, John runs off to yet another logical fallacy.)

John: Jerry, You should also know there are so many “Gods” who existed long before Christ who have very similar stories as Christ. World mythology is full of religious figures who have undergone resurrection. Gods like Krishna, Adonis, Mithra, Dionysus, Oriris, and Ganesha are just some in a long list of Gods BEFORE Christ that have many similarities. When you read up on this long list of Gods, you will see some were crucified then were resurrected 3 days later, some died in another way then resurrected 3 days later, some born of a virgin mother, some buried in a stone tomb, some where father was a carpenter, some born on Dec 25th, one born in a manger (Krishna), and one who turned water into wine (Dionysus). Therefore, Christianity is not original at all !!

Therefore, if you asked me what it would take to have me believe, I know one thing that would do it. If a world famous person died today (like the Pope), was 100% proven to be dead, then his body rose from the dead for all to be clearly seen, that would definitely do it for me. If there really is a God, then he knows how much confusion and debate there is on this subject. Since he was the almighty creator of the universe, Earth, Sun, and life, who wants us all to believe in the eternal life after death, why doesn’t he just do that?

The reason it hasn’t happened is that it is impossible, especially for a logical and rationally thinking mind to ever believe. Until that happens I respectfully view Christianity and all religions to be nothing more than fairy tales.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:30am

 

Jerry: Ok, if that is what it would take – 100% proof – then why are you satisfied with the major flaws in the BBT and evolutionary theory that you are still willing to believe them? That is highly illogical.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:33am

(John runs off to the “Christianity is not original” argument. Just because other elements of God’s book exist in part in other religions does not mean that the whole of it is not true. But the big tell here is the one thing that would get John to believe – a man dying and rising again. It struck me greatly as I realized it would take the antichrist to prove to John what Christ has already proven. Sorry, John, it already happened, and Jesus was known to have died and to have risen almost 2000 years ago. It is very well documented. And you are not willing to believe it unless you were to see it with your own eyes. The irony here is that he is willing to believe that the earth was formed 3.8Bya and man evolved from apes and from a common ancestor that formed from some primordial goo we have not been able to replicate and that HE DID NOT SEE!)

John: Jerry I respect your views and knowledge but we disagree. We both have different faiths but at least my beliefs are based on facts to support an unproven truth so far. As science improves long after we pass, evolution and the age of earth will be proven fact.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:55am

 

John: Jerry I never said I 100% believe evolution. I said it’s the most logical based on what we do know. But I don’t know.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:56am

 

John: Meaning highest probability

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:57am

(John fully admits that he has faith in evolution. But he continues to try to make his case. There are really only two possibilities here – either God created the universe or He did not. There are, of course, subsets of the two, but the fact that “stuff” even exists is proof of God! All scientists who work in the field of cosmogony (origins of the universe, in effect) agree that there was a start to the universe. This means at some point, there was no time, space or matter. The question, “Where did it all come from?” is unanswerable in John’s religion. John also pleads to another common argument that as we continue to learn more and more about the universe, we will see that the BBT and evolution are true. But look at all the evidence against these two theories.)

Jerry: You and I have the same facts, John. A fossil was found in a sedimentary layer. It has collagen.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:58am

(Do not be deceived by this argument – we all have the same facts. If we find a bone that has been fossilized in a layer of rock that has been named Mesozoic in Alberta, Canada, we know that there was a bone found in a particular rock layer in Alberta. We interpret it as 65Myo and that its ancestor was some other creature whose bone was found in a lower layer.) 

Jerry: You interpret it as millions of years old; I interpret it as 4350 years old. More likely it is closer to my age than yours when we know soft tissues decay rapidly.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 10:59am

 

John: Jerry fine but based on we do know, evolution still makes more sense, even if it’s 60% in favor of it world wide.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:01am

 

Jerry: So you are going with the consensus argument?!? Wow! The consensus used to be biblical creation. Science by consensus is not science.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:03am

 

Jerry: John, I have enjoyed the discussion. I hope you one day will find the truth.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:07am

 

John: Jerry, all we have to prove is that it is older than 6000 to 8000 years old. Let’s say you’re right and the actual number is 50,000 years old, which is much closer to your number than mine. That number stills disproves creation theory 6 to 8 thousand years ago right? At least admit that. For me, the probability that your number is right is less than 1%. But the probability the earth is over 8000 years old is extremely high.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:08am

 

John: Jerry and I hope one day you find the truth. I say the real truth will come scientifically long after we pass. Until then I live thinking that every decision is on the highest probability for success since there are few guarantees.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:12am

 

Jerry: But you can’t do that! You have no direct way of measuring time. You also have no way of measuring time indirectly. You need to make the assumption that there were no daughter ions to begin with. You also cannot date sediments. You have to assume the date of a “reference” fossil based on the estimated date of a sediment based on where it is relative to bedrock and other sediments. It is a house of cards.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:12am

(This right here is exactly why the evolutionary story is wrong – scientists use a fossil to date the rocks, then when they see that rock layer, they date fossils in the layer because of the presumed age of the rock. It is circular reasoning.)

John: Jerry, yes, but the cards show there is a much much higher probability the world is over 8000 years old.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:14am

 

Jerry: I have found the truth, John, and the truth has set me free. (John 8:32)

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:14am

 

John: Jerry, you are bound by the many beliefs of Christianity. That is not free since you are not allowed to think openly and clearly. You are not allowed to ask questions or investigate what you are being told in church. An atheist is free to follow and believe the most logical thoughts without gullibility. I much prefer that so I feel free.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:21am

 

Jerry: I researched this for nearly a year after having spent my entire life believing evolutionary theory. I changed. You and I both have a worldview that “locks” us into our beliefs. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you stick to the constraints of an old earth. Very free, you are. LOL!

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:26am

 

John: Christianity and religion in general are full of misconceptions, fairy tales, lies, and false promises. It gives many comfort, which is totally fine, but also extremely harmful and deadly. World history has proven that!

John 1:23

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:26am

(Man’s misinterpretation of God and His Word are the problem. And I have no idea why John refers to this particular verse. Perhaps he truly knows he is on the wrong path. We can pray.)

Jerry: World history has proven the fall in Genesis 3.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:30am

 

John: Jerry you never responded to my post saying that Christianity is totally unoriginal when it comes to Christ, but it is also unoriginal when it comes to Noah’s ark. Look up the epic of Gilgamesh, which provides written proof that the story of Noah’s ark was copied from Gilgamesh, who lived long before Noah. And before Gilgamesh, there was Atra Hasis and Ziusudra with very similar stories of a boat, animals, and a flood. The Bible writers of old and new Testament plagiarized a lot of it. Therefore the Bible is the highest selling fiction book of all time in the USA. Based on that, why believe any of it? To each their own. Happy new year.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:40am

(It never ceases to amaze me when archaeologists discover something that confirms a story in the Bible. It seems to happen a few times a year these days.)

John: Jerry the only Genesis I believe in is the band. One of my favorites.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:42am

 

Jerry:  Oh, I know all about the epic of Gilgamesh. People in a cube shaped ship dying(sic) a massive flood. The Bible describes a ship that could easily survive extremely treacherous seas. Advantage, God.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:44am

 

Jerry: I like them, too! (The band Genesis, that is.)

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 11:44am

 

John: Jerry yep the Bible writers knew a square boat was not sea worthy so they made up a 3 level ark that is sea worthy. But since evolution is impossible according to you, how do you suppose Noah was able to catch and load at least 2 of tens of thousands of animal and insect species (including dinosaurs lol) from all over the world, then put them on a boat much too small for all of those animals and his family, while feeding all of them until the flood waters went down much later? This is a comedy! Another in the long list of reasons to not believe the Bible. Would love to hear you explain this logically!

Oh and there have been about 200 proven false claims of people finding parts of the ark in Turkey. One non-believing person even intentionally made a board to look really old, and then submitted it to a group of news people claiming the ark story is true, and they put the board on TV saying the ark has been found. Then the guy who made the board proved it was fake and put that on the news. LOL. Disadvantage God.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 12:18pm

(John tries to cover by suggesting that by the time the Gilgamesh story of a flood was “stolen” by Moses that man had learned the best dimensions for a ship. And he also tells of all the people claiming they have found the Ark. I personally believe it had been completely consumed for building materials as the inhabitants began building homes and such after the flood, so we will likely never see anything about it.)

Jerry: I never said evolution was not true. I agree with micro evolution – you know, a dog becoming a dog (i.e. a wolf being bred to be a Bassett hound) If you cannot be honest about the difference here then we are never going to be able to have a reasonable discussion. Macro evolution- (i.e an ape turning into a human) has never been demonstrated or observed. Even Lenski’s famous fruit fly experiments only ever produced fruit flies! Even after 50,000 generations of designed experiments have come up with fruit flies. This is the equivalent of 1 million years in human generations. But Lenski can design his experiment to force macro evolution whereas nature cannot. (And yet he only has fruit flies.) Look, if you believe in macro evolution, that is fine. Just don’t equate macro with micro. It is a pathetic attempt at twisting my argument and it will not work. You believe in macro evolution? Then show me just one confirmed case of macro evolution. This should be easy! After all the fossils we have found? Just one!

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 12:58pm

(Here again John uses the term evolution to cover micro (what we have observed) and macro (which we have never observed.) Of course, I call on him to find just one example of macro evolution, which he cannot and does not do. If you think I was harsh on how I approached this, please consider the importance of the process here. In this battle, you are not fighting on a level playing field. Atheists and evolutionists are zealots for their religion. They will take any advantage they can. Your argument will be held to a higher standard than theirs. Do not just give them a free pass. Do everything you can to show them the folly in their thoughts.)

(I made an error here that I need to correct, but regardless, the gist of the argument does not change. Lenski did an experiment with e. coli. He cultivated over 68,000 generations of e.coli bacteria in hopes of creating a completely new species that would prove evolution is true. After many generations, the offspring in one experiment produced a remarkable change. The bacteria found a way to utilize the citrate used to “stress” the bacteria to make change. Basically, what happened was the bacteria blocked an existing protein which then allowed them to consume the citrate. But the key is that the information in their genetic code was still the same! After some 18,000 generations, Lenski still had e.coli, a bacterium. The experiment was recently stopped after 68,000 generation of producing one species of one genus and only the one change – escherichia coli. If we were to extrapolate this experiment to humans, this would be the equivalent of 1.36My or a time well before Homo Sapiens by old age reckoning. There have also been similar experiments like this with fruit flies, producing only fruit flies.)

Jerry: (Fake ark? Disadvantage man. These were not God’s lies.)

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 12:59pm

 

John: Jerry, so answer my questions please about how all those animals and insects from all over the world got on ark

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 1:19pm

John: Jerry, I don’t believe in any theory. Just said evolution makes more sense. There is a lot to be learned here. Agreed

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 1:23pm

(A theory with no known way of creating life and with no evidence of molecules to man change is hardly a theory. It is a dream.)

Jerry: God directed them. Noah needed only to build the ark to God’s specifications. One thing both of us need to do is accept a supernatural creation. There are no physics that can describe the beginning. Both sides agree with the universe coming from nothing. There is no other possibility. But also on my side is an all-powerful creator who can direct all the necessary animals to the ark.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 1:40pm

 

John: Jerry, of course I don’t believe God can guide all of those animals to an ark, especially across oceans and water. That is thousands of miles and they would prey on each other.

How do you explain so many different kinds of primate fossils found (some with DNA) to be really old long before the creation theory date of 6000 years ago?

There has also been so many old artifacts dug up dating much much older than creation theory date.

This is why such a huge percentage of scientists are not creationists.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 2:46pm

(John is ignoring first and foremost the power of God. Second, creationists believe that there was a supercontinent, Pangaea, that was broken up into the continents we have today. Even secularists believe this. All animals would come from the one continent before it broke up.)

Jerry:  The dating is the problem. I don’t want to have to rewrite everything I have written about the problems with radiometric dating. I wish you would read it again. Answer this question for me – why is there still C14 in coal that is supposedly millions of years old?

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 3:05pm

 

Jerry: John, but you can believe that matter and energy came from nothing, a supernatural occupancy (sic occurance) which violates the law of conservation of matter and energy, but you have a problem with a supernatural god directing animals in His own creation.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 3:09pm · Edited

 

John: Jerry, we are not talking about how matter and energy originated now. I don’t know the answer to that. (But this is an important and integral part of the entire issue. Without a solution for this, you either say the universe just happened to appear or someone created it. The naturalist believes we will eventually find a “non-God” solution.)

We are taking about the dating methods for bones and artifacts. I’m not a chemist, geologist, or scientist so I don’t fully understand what you are saying with your terminology. I will look into it but find it so extremely unlikely that all the dating scientists have it wrong when it comes to everything dug up like bones, artifacts, and the earth’s layers of stone. To imply that some of the things dated could have problems is one thing, but to suggest that every single thing that was ever dug up and dated is not more than 6000 years old is ridiculous! Especially when so many things are estimated to be over 1 million years old. All we need is just one thing to be over 6000 to 8000 years old to dump the creation theory timeline.

If creationists believe all this happened millions of years ago, I could possibly accept that, so it’s the 6000 year date I have a huge problem with.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 3:32pm

(I guess I have still not made it clear: dating techniques cannot work because they make unverifiable assumptions.)

Jerry: No, you don’t need one thing to be dated older than 6000 years. You need to have a dating technique that works. And for it to work, you have to know something that is unknowable… how many daughter ions existed when the rock was formed. The ONLY thing scientists can do is to ASSUME there were no daughter ions.

Like · Reply · December 31, 2017 at 3:37pm

 (Please come back for Part 3.)

Top