PDA

View Full Version : Discussion creation in 6 literal days?



Brendac
Jul 18th 2008, 01:25 PM
Looking at Genesis 1, we see that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Now the question is was that six literal days or not? The Hebrew word "yom" can refer to a 24 hour day, but it can also refer to time or a long time, a period of time, but actually means "heat". The Word also tells us that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" to God. Looking at the lexicology and the syntax, to me it was over a long period of time, as with God there is no time, and well we won't go into that... I am doing an assignment for bible school. Our question is that looking at the early chapters of Genesis and the hebrew word "yom" did creation occur in six days or six periods of unspecified duration. Any comments and assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.:pray::bounce::hmm:

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 01:38 PM
Looking at Genesis 1, we see that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Now the question is was that six literal days or not? The Hebrew word "yom" can refer to a 24 hour day, but it can also refer to time or a long time, a period of time, but actually means "heat". The Word also tells us that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" to God. Looking at the lexicology and the syntax, to me it was over a long period of time, as with God there is no time, and well we won't go into that... I am doing an assignment for bible school. Our question is that looking at the early chapters of Genesis and the hebrew word "yom" did creation occur in six days or six periods of unspecified duration. Any comments and assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.:pray::bounce::hmm:

Moses said it was six days in the ten commandments:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

Then he told the Hebrews in the law that they were to honor God by working six days (literal days) and rest on the seventh.

"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."
Exodus 23:12.

It is important to note that there is no distinction between the Hebrew day "yom" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and 23. They are all the same.

Also, it may be true that a day is as a thousand years to God and a thousand years is as a day to Him, but not to us. A day is still a day and we cannot stretch it into a thousand years no matter what we do. Nor can we force a thousand years to be a single day.

There is no biblical or scientific reason to accept anything other than the literal six day creation of the world by God Almighty.




May His name be forever praised!

Reynolds357
Jul 18th 2008, 01:39 PM
You will receive arguements for several positions on this subject. Some will advocate 6 literal, some will advocate 6 long periods of time, and some will advocate a gap in creation.
I personally lean to the gap theory of creation. The fact that most people will not recognize is that the scripture simply is not plain enough in the orig. language for us to be dogmatic about any of the 3 major positions. There is scriptural support for all three. I personally feel that there are scriptural problems with young earth, but proponents of young earth feel that there are problems with gap. If we allow ourselves to be 100% open minded and candidly honest; we can not say with certainty which theological stance is correct.

Reynolds357
Jul 18th 2008, 01:49 PM
Moses said it was six days in the ten commandments:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

Then he told the Hebrews in the law that they were to honor God by working six days (literal days) and rest on the seventh.

"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."
Exodus 23:12.

It is important to note that there is no distinction between the Hebrew day "yom" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and 23. They are all the same.

Also, it may be true that a day is as a thousand years to God and a thousand years is as a day to Him, but not to us. A day is still a day and we cannot stretch it into a thousand years no matter what we do. Nor can we force a thousand years to be a single day.

There is no biblical or scientific reason to accept anything other than the literal six day creation of the world by God Almighty.


http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNQ/UNQ337/u10191255.jpg



May His name be forever praised!


There is no distinction between "yom" anywhere it appears in text. It can always mean one of two things. "Yom" depends on the context of its use to set its meaning. "Yom" has as many references to periods of time as it does to literal day. To imply that the definition of "yom" strengthens a young earth position is simply improper application of the rules of the Hebrew language. There are many scriptural instances when day means age and a literal day is paralleled to an age. Most true Hebrew scholars concur that "Yom" in the Genesis account of Creation means "period of time."

I have two problems with the young earth model. Neither of them is based on science. Both are based on Scripture. In a young earth model, my first and foremost problem is that I can not place the rule, rebellion, and fall, of Satan into a young earth model. My second major problem with young earth creation is the fact that beginning with day one, God begins to use the word "day." Day one, two, and 3, are all listed in the creation account. You contend they are 24 hour days. What happens on day 4? God creates the 24 hour day. The 24 hour day is not even created until day 4, so the "yom" of day one, two, and three most obviously is not a 24 hour "yom," but a period of time "yom."

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 02:03 PM
You will receive arguements for several positions on this subject. Some will advocate 6 literal, some will advocate 6 long periods of time, and some will advocate a gap in creation.
I personally lean to the gap theory of creation. The fact that most people will not recognize is that the scripture simply is not plain enough in the orig. language for us to be dogmatic about any of the 3 major positions. There is scriptural support for all three. I personally feel that there are scriptural problems with young earth, but proponents of young earth feel that there are problems with gap. If we allow ourselves to be 100% open minded and candidly honest; we can not say with certainty which theological stance is correct.

Why problems believing in a young earth? When God created Adam as a man how old did he look ten seconds after he was made? The world only has the appearance of great age, which begs the question: how would the Lord make the world in the fashion described without an appearance of age?

I tossed out the gap theory over thirty years ago after making a careful comparison of "without form & void" (tohu & wabohu in Hebrew) with Jeremiah 4:

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

I don't know exactly which period of time Jeremiah was speaking of but he wasn't speaking of a period before Adam and Eve were created, for such a position would demand the existence of death. Death did not exist until Adam sinned. Romans 5:12.

God bless you.


http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNQ/UNQ337/u10191255.jpg

May God be honored and glorified forever!

apothanein kerdos
Jul 18th 2008, 02:08 PM
Why problems believing in a young earth? When God created Adam as a man how old did he look ten seconds after he was made? The world only has the appearance of great age, which begs the question: how would the Lord make the world in the fashion described without an appearance of age?

This line of thinking has always seemed unsatisfactory to me. For example, when Adam was created he was certainly a mature adult. However, there is an adjacent natural process that can bring about maturation in humans. The miracle is that it happened suddenly, but it doesn't discredit there is a natural process that also brings about maturation. Same with the miracle of Christ - He cured defects to the point that it was as though they never existed. There is, however, a natural process for those without defects to be able to see, walk, speak, etc.

If, however, God created the world with the appearance of age (via evolution), then we would have to argue there is likewise a natural occurrence of it as well. The problem is, because creation is a one time thing, it can only occur once. Therefore, it either happened suddenly or it happened over time. It cannot have the appearance of age if it happened suddenly because there would be no natural occurrence to compare it to.

I know this sounds confusing and I apologize, but does it make any sense?

Kate
Jul 18th 2008, 03:12 PM
Genesis clearly states that the earth was created in six literal days. It specifically spells it out by saying "and the evening and the morning were the __ day". It gives the perameter for the day - morning to evening - right in the scripture, over and over again, day after day to make certain it's being clear. Each day is specifically described as " the evening and the morning were the __ day". How much clearer could it be?

There are some big problems with the "gap" theory. First of all, the very basis of it is a rethinking of Creationism by Christians in light of what the scientific community has purported as the "fact" of evolution. Some Christians, who have seemingly bought into the propaganda that an evolutionary origin of the species is fact have felt the need to meld the two theories of creationism and evolution together to make Creationism more accepted and more plausible to those who hail evolution. Let's be clear: The Bible is a scientifically accurate book, and as human society grows in scientific knowledge the more the Bible holds to be true. There was a time when the scientific community believed the earth was flat. The Christians who read their Bibles ALWAYS knew the earth was round - Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in..."
AND Proverbs 8:27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep..."

For years it was not known that the deep ocean contained fresh water springs because technology didn't allow for probing of the deep. Yet it states in Job, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked into the recesses of the deep?" Sure enough, springs in the ocean were discovered this last century. For centuries no-one knew the wind blew on a "circuit", as in circles over large areas of land and follow a circular pattern. It wasn't until satellite imagery that we were able to see the circuits of the wind, yet the Bible refers to them clearly: "The wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit". (Ecc. 1:7)
I could go on and on.

My point is this: Because of all the propaganda surrounding evolution and the way it is touted as truth, Christians have "re-thought" the creation account to make it fit into what science has "proven". Evolution is far from science, but a faith based belief system regarding origins that has its own dogma and societal effects. Since the Word of God proves to be right over and over and was written by the One who created the whole thing, I feel no need to make concessions to fit the word of God into a faulty theory that has no Biblical basis or hard scientific evidence for whatsoever. Again, I think it's pretty clear that we're talking 6 literal days from the wording. No-one reading it for the first time without coaching would think otherwise - it reads as 6 literal days to any reader. I'd like to point out one other thing: There was no other reading of it in the past millenia except 6 literal days until the evolution theory began being taught and Christians began to feel silly about 6 days against the billions and billions of years science was coming up with.

One more thing: Genesis states that the plant-life of the entire earth was created on the third day. The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so if the days referred to are actually long gaps then those plants would be waiting a real long time for the sun to come up, don't you think? How could plants survive for any amount of time - even one year! - without sun? I'll tell you - they can't, because they were created to photosynthesize; God planned it that way and set about creating the sun the next day.

Then, you also have the issue of death before Adam which I won't get into for lack of time.

Also, who says the earth has an appearance of great age? That statement is debatable at best. Let's not forget about the worldwide flood that wiped out the entire earth and the effects from that which we still see - like the Grand Canyon basin.

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 06:03 PM
"Genesis clearly states that the earth was created in six literal days. It specifically spells it out by saying 'and the evening and the morning were the __ day'. It gives the perameter for the day - morning to evening - right in the scripture, over and over again, day after day to make certain it's being clear. Each day is specifically described as 'the evening and the morning were the __ day'. How much clearer could it be?"

Kate is right on target. In fact, one could not make a stronger argument about the 'day' of Genesis than what she did. End of line.

Her other arguments were very good also. Amen.




Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 06:12 PM
This line of thinking has always seemed unsatisfactory to me. For example, when Adam was created he was certainly a mature adult. However, there is an adjacent natural process that can bring about maturation in humans. The miracle is that it happened suddenly, but it doesn't discredit there is a natural process that also brings about maturation. Same with the miracle of Christ - He cured defects to the point that it was as though they never existed. There is, however, a natural process for those without defects to be able to see, walk, speak, etc.

If, however, God created the world with the appearance of age (via evolution), then we would have to argue there is likewise a natural occurrence of it as well. The problem is, because creation is a one time thing, it can only occur once. Therefore, it either happened suddenly or it happened over time. It cannot have the appearance of age if it happened suddenly because there would be no natural occurrence to compare it to.

I know this sounds confusing and I apologize, but does it make any sense?

Well, not really. Why not just take Him at His Word that He did it just the way Moses said He did?

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Mark 10:6.

Have a nice day.




Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 18th 2008, 06:20 PM
Well, not really. Why not just take Him at His Word that He did it just the way Moses said He did?

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Mark 10:6.

Have a nice day.


http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:UOeWuHpzxGN5TM:files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_3_18_2003_22_36_42/atom0.jpgFE06721B-B5C3-4DA3-9D5DDCF34F64CD5F.jpgLarge.jpg

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Why don't you take Revelation at its word when it says Jesus is a lamb or that He has a sword coming out of His mouth? Are those not to be taken literally? Or what about the Psalms? Are we to take every work in the Psalms literally as well?

People here need to drop the judgmental attitudes. "Oh, you just don't trust God." "You don't really believe the Bible." "You don't trust the Word."

Or, it could just be that we have studied the first 11 chapters and recognized their written in a prose format and not in a historical narrative format (like the rest of Genesis). In light of this, we are weary to take the literal 6 day approach because it wouldn't make sense compared to the prose narrative.

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 07:21 PM
Why don't you take Revelation at its word when it says Jesus is a lamb or that He has a sword coming out of His mouth? Are those not to be taken literally? Or what about the Psalms? Are we to take every work in the Psalms literally as well?

People here need to drop the judgmental attitudes. "Oh, you just don't trust God." "You don't really believe the Bible." "You don't trust the Word."

Or, it could just be that we have studied the first 11 chapters and recognized their written in a prose format and not in a historical narrative format (like the rest of Genesis). In light of this, we are weary to take the literal 6 day approach because it wouldn't make sense compared to the prose narrative.

Not so, friend. The truth is that when men view Jesus before the Father in heaven they will see Him as a 'lamb'. He can manifest Himself in any manner He so chooses as it pleases Him. As far as a 'sword coming out of his mouth'...I think you will be shocked at what you see when you see it. When we use the 'sword of the spirit' God's holy Word against Satan...I trust that an invisible sword attacks him and his devils though I cannot see it. It remains to be seen how all of this will appear.

God gave excellent reasons for believing that the six day creation was a literal one; lots of them. Don't ignore them because of peer pressure or because most of the Christian world has surrendered to evolution.

Both Jesus and his apostles made it clear that Genesis was historical:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:27

Are you and those like you trying to suggest that Jesus compared his literal 2nd coming with a storybook tale that never happned?

1Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.

It should be easy to see that the writers of the N.T. thought that the Genesis account in chapters 1-11 were real/literal/historical. No other position is really honest.



Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 18th 2008, 07:23 PM
Not so, friend. The truth is that when men view Jesus before the Father in heaven they will see Him as a 'lamb'. He can manifest Himself in any manner He so chooses as it pleases Him. As far as a 'sword coming out of his mouth'...I think you will be shocked at what you see when you see it. When we use the 'sword of the spirit' God's holy Word against Satan...I trust that an invisible sword attacks him and his devils though I cannot see it. It remains to be seen how all of this will appear.

So I'm to believe that every single thing in Revelation is literal?

At least you're consistent - consistently using the wrong hermeneutic, but consistent none-the-less

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 08:21 PM
So I'm to believe that every single thing in Revelation is literal?

At least you're consistent - consistently using the wrong hermeneutic, but consistent none-the-less

I don't mean to be unkind to you but you need to look into the mirror when you say that.

The truth is that even symbolical things in scripture pertain to that which is real. The beast of Revelation is a man who will take dictatorial, totalitarian rule over the world at a yet future time. This man will be possessed by a 'beast' which is Satan himself, hence, he is described as a 'beast' in revelation.

The symbol of the dragon with seven heads and ten horns we know is not literal because the Bible tells us that he is Satan (Rev. 12:9).

The harlot of Rev. 17 is a world religious system, seated in Rome, that will persecute the saints of God unto death. Vs. 18 establishes that she is Rome.

These things are not hard to grasp if we just read carefully...and keep reading. Genesis, however, has no such symbolical character to it. It is almost entirely historical. I quoted the scriptures that reveal that the disciples believed that they were actual/literal/real. Shall I quote them again?

There is no evolution in scripture and God's Word never hints that God used it or even wants it to be believed in.




Lord, give us the key of understanding

Reynolds357
Jul 18th 2008, 08:32 PM
Why problems believing in a young earth? When God created Adam as a man how old did he look ten seconds after he was made? The world only has the appearance of great age, which begs the question: how would the Lord make the world in the fashion described without an appearance of age?

I tossed out the gap theory over thirty years ago after making a careful comparison of "without form & void" (tohu & wabohu in Hebrew) with Jeremiah 4:

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

I don't know exactly which period of time Jeremiah was speaking of but he wasn't speaking of a period before Adam and Eve were created, for such a position would demand the existence of death. Death did not exist until Adam sinned. Romans 5:12.

God bless you.


http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNQ/UNQ337/u10191255.jpg



May God be honored and glorified forever!


You make the assumption that death did not exist prior to the sin of Adam. However, that is not stated in scripture. When you say "death," what do you mean? Do you mean Human Death? Animal Death? Plant death? From scripture, you can only conclude that Human death did not exist prior to the sin of Adam. Anything more is opinion that can not be proven with scripture.

I stated I had two problems with Young Earth Creation. Prior to attending Bible College, I believed in a Young Earth. I defended it strongly. Simply put, the support for it in scripture is greatly lacking.

Reynolds357
Jul 18th 2008, 08:44 PM
Genesis clearly states that the earth was created in six literal days. It specifically spells it out by saying "and the evening and the morning were the __ day". It gives the perameter for the day - morning to evening - right in the scripture, over and over again, day after day to make certain it's being clear. Each day is specifically described as " the evening and the morning were the __ day". How much clearer could it be?

There are some big problems with the "gap" theory. First of all, the very basis of it is a rethinking of Creationism by Christians in light of what the scientific community has purported as the "fact" of evolution. Some Christians, who have seemingly bought into the propaganda that an evolutionary origin of the species is fact have felt the need to meld the two theories of creationism and evolution together to make Creationism more accepted and more plausible to those who hail evolution. Let's be clear: The Bible is a scientifically accurate book, and as human society grows in scientific knowledge the more the Bible holds to be true. There was a time when the scientific community believed the earth was flat. The Christians who read their Bibles ALWAYS knew the earth was round - Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in..."
AND Proverbs 8:27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep..."

For years it was not known that the deep ocean contained fresh water springs because technology didn't allow for probing of the deep. Yet it states in Job, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked into the recesses of the deep?" Sure enough, springs in the ocean were discovered this last century. For centuries no-one knew the wind blew on a "circuit", as in circles over large areas of land and follow a circular pattern. It wasn't until satellite imagery that we were able to see the circuits of the wind, yet the Bible refers to them clearly: "The wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit". (Ecc. 1:7)
I could go on and on.

My point is this: Because of all the propaganda surrounding evolution and the way it is touted as truth, Christians have "re-thought" the creation account to make it fit into what science has "proven". Evolution is far from science, but a faith based belief system regarding origins that has its own dogma and societal effects. Since the Word of God proves to be right over and over and was written by the One who created the whole thing, I feel no need to make concessions to fit the word of God into a faulty theory that has no Biblical basis or hard scientific evidence for whatsoever. Again, I think it's pretty clear that we're talking 6 literal days from the wording. No-one reading it for the first time without coaching would think otherwise - it reads as 6 literal days to any reader. I'd like to point out one other thing: There was no other reading of it in the past millenia except 6 literal days until the evolution theory began being taught and Christians began to feel silly about 6 days against the billions and billions of years science was coming up with.

One more thing: Genesis states that the plant-life of the entire earth was created on the third day. The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so if the days referred to are actually long gaps then those plants would be waiting a real long time for the sun to come up, don't you think? How could plants survive for any amount of time - even one year! - without sun? I'll tell you - they can't, because they were created to photosynthesize; God planned it that way and set about creating the sun the next day.

Then, you also have the issue of death before Adam which I won't get into for lack of time.

Also, who says the earth has an appearance of great age? That statement is debatable at best. Let's not forget about the worldwide flood that wiped out the entire earth and the effects from that which we still see - like the Grand Canyon basin.

If you closely study the gap theory, you will see that it was not created to reconcile creation to science. It was created to reconcile scriptural contradictions that the young earth theory causes. It is absolutely impossible to place the fall of Satan into the young Earth model. That is where the problem lies. The "evening and the morning" are not support for a literal 24 hour day. The mean the beginning of an era and beginning of the next. Let us look at day 1, 2, and 3. Days 1-3, evening and morning? There is a major problem with that. The sun and moon and stars were told on day 4 to regulate the day and night. You do not even have a literal evening and morning on days 1-3. Your argument about plant life waiting a very long time for the sun is simply not an evidence against Old Earth Creation. It is an evidence against Young Earth Creation. Without the sun, what would the temperature of the Earth be? That is debatable, but it is universally agreed upon that the temperature would be vastly too cold to sustain any plant life we have on this planet for any amount of time. The plants could not have survived any amount of time on day 3 waiting for the creation of the sun on day 4. O.E.C. holds that the sun existed, God merely organized the orbits and rotations to create the 24hour day on day 4. Us old Earth Creationists have light for our plants. You young Earth creationits have no light for your plants.

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 10:09 PM
You make the assumption that death did not exist prior to the sin of Adam. However, that is not stated in scripture. When you say "death," what do you mean? Do you mean Human Death? Animal Death? Plant death? From scripture, you can only conclude that Human death did not exist prior to the sin of Adam. Anything more is opinion that can not be proven with scripture.

I stated I had two problems with Young Earth Creation. Prior to attending Bible College, I believed in a Young Earth. I defended it strongly. Simply put, the support for it in scripture is greatly lacking.

That's too bad. You should not have changed. There is no biblical nor scientific reason for a believer to retreat from faith that God's Word means exactly what it says in Genesis.

Concerning 'death'. The Bible explains that also in Romans 5,

12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses..."

If Moses was a real person (& I assume you believe he was) then how are you to honestly conclude that Adam was not?

But the matter of death pertains to that which God laid upon the whole of creation after Adam sinned.

That the entire creation was affected by Adam's sin is clear from Romans 8:21-22.

" Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."

We are told in Revelation that in the restoration of all things,

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:4

The perfect world will be restored. The eternal state will be without sin, sickness, disease, or even death. Things will be rejuvenated to a condition like they were before the fall of man in sin.

If you reject this then you put yourself in a quandry, because you won't be able to explain, a priori, the origin and cause of death in the world if indeed it came before Adam or in spite of the teaching of Adam's sin.

The scriptural support for a young earth is not lacking. It is your understanding that is lacking or else you have just outright rejected what the Bible says about it. God only knows.




Lord, give us the key of understanding!

Kate
Jul 18th 2008, 11:18 PM
Since the Pentateuch was given to the Jews it may be useful to consider what the Jews have historically believed over the past 2 thousand years, which was a literal 6 day period.

Yankee Candle
Jul 19th 2008, 01:29 AM
Since the Pentateuch was given to the Jews it may be useful to consider what the Jews have historically believed over the past 2 thousand years, which was a literal 6 day period.

Exactly.


http://www.jewish-art.org/image-files/kiddush-cup-shevach-3233.jpg

Come Quickly, Lord Jesus!

Brendac
Jul 19th 2008, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Prezken : I think what he says is absolutely brilliant!

Interesting responses, i guess since I started this topic I should give my take on the subject. I was a young earth believer until i started studying science. I soon found out that 99% of all scientific evidence pointed to an old earth. So my mind started thinking about the God i read of in the bible. My God was not a God of deception and the scientific evidence is irrefutable, so I was left with only two real options.

1) God created the universe with an appearance of age knowing that we would be able to see this and all scientific evidence would point to billions of years instead of 6000. This meant that God created with deception and the thoughts of that absolutely made me physically ill.

2) God created the universe supernaturally through the big bang and fine tuned our universe through billions of years for the sole purpose of human life. This fit with science, but flied in the face of what I had come to believe the bible said.

So, I fought long and hard over this issue, until I began to study hebrew and everything suddenly became crystal clear. Very soon after beginning my hebrew studies I found out just how horrible a translation that the KJV was as well as most other english translations of the bible. Things were added, removed, and for all appearances certain things were purposefully translated incorrectly.

So, I decided to study genesis from the original hebrew and see what i came up with. Well, it was an eye opener! The first thing that I learned was the word translated as DAY (YOM in hebrew) did not necessarily mean 24 hrs. The word has three literal meanings...12 hrs, 24 hrs, or an unspecified long period of time.

So, AHA i thought I had my answer, but there was this problem of EVENING and MORNING which still had me totally confused. So, that was my next course of study. It turns out the phrase is a jewish idiom simply meaning the beginning and end of a period of time. I learnt that a jewish day was never spoken as evening and morning. A jewish day is always referred to as evening to evening. This phrase is only used one other time in the bible and again it refers to a long period of time.

Finally, i decided since I was studying hebrew I would see what jewish history said about this passage...after all they wrote it and handed it down through centuries so surely they would have an idea of what it meant right?? Well, i found out that the jews have an oral commentary to the OT or as they refer to it Tanakh. This oral commentary is actually referred to as the Oral Law and is said to have been handed down from Moses himself. According to this Oral Law genesis was not to be taken as a literal 24 hrs. I'll give two examples below:

1) Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations BEFORE God created Adam.

2) The midrash states that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bere**** Rabbah 9.

So, i had pretty much solidified in my mind by this time Genesis was to be read as literal ages or epochs of time. So the bible is still inerrant and can be taken literally. Also, i discovered that genesis 1 was basically the outline of creation and genesis 2 was the cliffnotes version so to speak. Genesis 2 makes it pretty clear even in the english translations that the days were much longer than 24 hrs.

Finally, what solidified it beyond any reasonable doubt to me was the picture story behind the word YOM translated as day in genesis. In hebrew every letter has a picture meaning and a numeric value. When you put hte letters together to make a word it also tells a story. Yom (day) is merely Yam (sea) with a Vov in the middle. Yod-Mem(final) means "sea" and it refers to any great expanse (final Mem) of life-energy (Yod). When we put a "pin" or a "spine" in the middle of this living expanse, the expanse begins to rotate about the "pin." The "pin" is the Vov in the middle of the "sea." The "sea" cycles - goes through phases - when it has a pole (a Vov, a pin, a spine) to sPIN around. Thus Yom (Yod-Vov-Memfinal) designates the first cycling. Because the most obvious and primary cycle in daily life is the day/night cycle, Yom comes to mean a "24 hr Day" ONLY when there are humans around to experience it.

So that is my story of how I came to believe in an old universe and an old earth. Recently, I discovered the amazing world of astronomy. Remember when God asked Job if he was there when he made the universe? Well, Astronomers can say yes to that question. Astronomy is the only science that directly views the past...for example when you look at the sun, you actually aren't seeing the sun. What you are seeing is light that was sent from the sun 8 minutes ago. Astronomers have seen all the way back to the big bang itself and have discovered it must have a supernatural cause. Whatever made this universe is transcendent and can operate outside of our universe, dimensions, and laws. So while evolutionists and atheists would tell you there is no God, science actually is showing the exact opposite. It is an amazing time to be alive and to truly see how the heavens declare the glory of God!! Well, i guess i'll shut up now. Sorry this ended up so longwinded. I hope i've at least gotten everybodies mind going and gave you something to think about.

And for interest's sake Solar Sailor says :

6,000 years from Adam to present man.

Old earth, created in 6 stages each of indeterminate length. How else do you account for light from stars that takes billions of light years to reach earth?

Loose approximation:
186,000/mps * 3600/sph * 24/hrs/day * 365/dpy * 1,000,000,000/years = light travels 5,865,696,000,000,000,000,000 miles per each billion years.

SS

mps: miiles per second
sph: seconds per hour
hrs/day: hours per day
dpy: days per year

Athanasius
Jul 19th 2008, 06:02 AM
God creating the cosmos with age is not deception on the part of God. It is simply misunderstanding on the part of man. But... It's 2AM, so I'm going to bed and that's all I'm saying.
I will say though that there are a few problems with your post that I should probably address and forgo this response. I won't, though, being rash.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 19th 2008, 06:10 AM
Since the Pentateuch was given to the Jews it may be useful to consider what the Jews have historically believed over the past 2 thousand years, which was a literal 6 day period.

They've also believed Jesus wasn't the Messiah, that works save us, and that Satan is a good angel that does the deeds of God - not too sure I'd trust their interpretive method or use it as a justification for my own interpretation.

ImmenseDisciple
Jul 19th 2008, 09:40 AM
Our perspective is limited, and our wisdom likewise. If we should happen to interpret our surroundings as appearing to be billions of years old, it really doesn't mean that they are. I personally would never use failure to line up with our understanding as a springboard to re-interpret scripture. Quite the opposite - I re-evaluate my understanding of the world based on God's word.

losthorizon
Jul 19th 2008, 12:38 PM
They've also believed Jesus wasn't the Messiah, that works save us, and that Satan is a good angel that does the deeds of God - not too sure I'd trust their interpretive method or use it as a justification for my own interpretation.
But Jesus (a Jew) who knew who Satan was and who did not teach that man is justified by his own works also taught that Genesis opposes the notion taught by Darwinists today. Jesus, who was there “in the beginning” taught the simple truth that man was not the product of 4,000,000,000 years of “survival of the fittest” – ie – 4 billion years of death and destruction. He clearly taught that man was created “from the beginning…" Are you willing to trust the "interpretive method" of Jesus Christ? Did God create man at the beginning of creation or 4b years later?
"From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

apothanein kerdos
Jul 19th 2008, 02:02 PM
But Jesus (a Jew) who knew who Satan was and who did not teach that man is justified by his own works also taught that Genesis opposes the notion taught by Darwinists today. Jesus, who was there “in the beginning” taught the simple truth that man was not the product of 4,000,000,000 years of “survival of the fittest” – ie – 4 billion years of death and destruction. He clearly taught that man was created “from the beginning…" Are you willing to trust the "interpretive method" of Jesus Christ? Did God create man at the beginning of creation or 4b years later?
"From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

That doesn't even come close to refuting geological evolution. Even under a 6 day creation, if we take "in the beginning" to mean "since the beginning of time," then it is a fallacious statement. It seems more likely that Christ is referring from the beginning of humans, not from the beginning of all of creation (otherwise, yes, Jesus would be wrong - even by a 6 day standard).

crawfish
Jul 19th 2008, 02:57 PM
God creating the cosmos with age is not deception on the part of God. It is simply misunderstanding on the part of man. But... It's 2AM, so I'm going to bed and that's all I'm saying.
I will say though that there are a few problems with your post that I should probably address and forgo this response. I won't, though, being rash.

Perhaps. But if all evidence points to an older creation because God made it that way, then are we wrong to come to those conclusions?

Yankee Candle
Jul 19th 2008, 03:04 PM
That doesn't even come close to refuting geological evolution. Even under a 6 day creation, if we take "in the beginning" to mean "since the beginning of time," then it is a fallacious statement. It seems more likely that Christ is referring from the beginning of humans, not from the beginning of all of creation (otherwise, yes, Jesus would be wrong - even by a 6 day standard).

Oh, yes, but it does. You see Jesus also mentioned Noah and the flood in similar language in Matthew 24:37-39

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Our Lord made it clear in these words in comparing Noah's flood with his literal, visible, 2nd coming that what happened in Genesis actually happened and that it was not an allegory. It is dishonest to say otherwise.

The Lord nor his disciples ever hinted that what Moses wrote in Genesis was anything but literal/actual/historic events.


http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:UOeWuHpzxGN5TM:files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_3_18_2003_22_36_42/atom0.jpgFE06721B-B5C3-4DA3-9D5DDCF34F64CD5F.jpgLarge.jpg

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 19th 2008, 03:13 PM
Oh, yes, but it does. You see Jesus also mentioned Noah and the flood in similar language in Matthew 24:37-39

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Our Lord made it clear in these words in comparing Noah's flood with his literal, visible, 2nd coming that what happened in Genesis actually happened and that it was not an allegory. It is dishonest to say otherwise.

The Lord nor his disciples ever hinted that what Moses wrote in Genesis was anything but literal/actual/historic events.


http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:UOeWuHpzxGN5TM:files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_3_18_2003_22_36_42/atom0.jpgFE06721B-B5C3-4DA3-9D5DDCF34F64CD5F.jpgLarge.jpg

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Once again, what Jesus gives credence to is that men were evil in the days of Noah (no one disagrees). He doesn't go into detail.

Can you explain how a poetic narrative is supposed to be taken literally in every aspect? Historically it is true - hardly any orthodox Christians doubt this - how it is true or how it occurred, however, is up for grabs. Even the genealogies aren't literal/chronological.

Look, I have no problem with people who choose to believe a 6 day creation. It is possible that God created the world in 6 days and we're just deceiving ourselves. At the same time, I'm merely asking that people drop the haughty attitudes against those of us that happen to disagree with an interpretation of Genesis (not with Genesis itself).

Yankee Candle
Jul 19th 2008, 03:22 PM
Perhaps. But if all evidence points to an older creation because God made it that way, then are we wrong to come to those conclusions?

The evidence doesn't point to an older creation.

I would urge the other readers to obtain "Thousands, Not Millions or Billions" by Dr. Don DeYoung. But the nonsense that evolutionists purport that demands a much older earth than the Bible indicates is shown to be silly in just the following example:

Take Mount St. Helens, where scientists radiometrically dated some of the brand-new rocks just created by the volcano's eruptions in the 1980s. And they came out hundreds of thousands to millions of years old -- on rocks that we know are just a few years old. So you see, Mount St. Helens demonstrated that radiometric dating gives ages that are much older than the true age. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/242131.aspx

Yankee Candle
Jul 19th 2008, 03:49 PM
Once again, what Jesus gives credence to is that men were evil in the days of Noah (no one disagrees). He doesn't go into detail.

Can you explain how a poetic narrative is supposed to be taken literally in every aspect? Historically it is true - hardly any orthodox Christians doubt this - how it is true or how it occurred, however, is up for grabs. Even the genealogies aren't literal/chronological.

Look, I have no problem with people who choose to believe a 6 day creation. It is possible that God created the world in 6 days and we're just deceiving ourselves. At the same time, I'm merely asking that people drop the haughty attitudes against those of us that happen to disagree with an interpretation of Genesis (not with Genesis itself).

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is 'haughty'. I get it.

It is not a poetic expression. It is history. You are wrong about the chronologies. Those chronologies and family lineages eventually concern Christ the king. They are the most legitimate and established chronolgies on earth because they were inspried by the Holy Spirit. The chronologies that Moses gave us in chapters 5 & 10 and then repeated centuries later by the writer of Chronicles should make that clear to every honest reader of the Bible. Those two inspired writers did not mix actual/literal/historical characters with mere symbolic/allegorical characters. It would be insane to take such a position.

You may not have a problem with those who believe in a six-day creation but I won't say that about professing Christians who believe that evolution has any credibility whatsoever.

"Once again, what Jesus gives credence to is that men were evil in the days of Noah (no one disagrees). He doesn't go into detail."

That is an error:

"eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,"

Those are details.

"And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away.."

Those are details.

Now let me show you some other details as mentioned by the writers of the N.T.

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:7

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

We see here that both the writer of Hebrews and Peter believed that Noah and his flood were actual/literal/historical.

But let's not stop there:

"Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD." Ezekiel 14:14.

Tell me, friend, which of the three men mentioned by Ezekiel in this text was not real/actual/literal? Which of them was/were merely part of an allegory?

It is not right to treat God's Word like a spiritual smorgasbord, picking and choosing what we want to be real and actual and letting our prejudices determine who was not real and/or actual.

There are certain things in scripture that help us to distinguish between that which is literal and that which is obviously poetic (Psalms, Song of Solomon, Eccles. etc.). You have been given examples of what determines the literal above.


http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:UOeWuHpzxGN5TM:files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_3_18_2003_22_36_42/atom0.jpgFE06721B-B5C3-4DA3-9D5DDCF34F64CD5F.jpgLarge.jpg

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

BroRog
Jul 19th 2008, 03:50 PM
Looking at Genesis 1, we see that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Now the question is was that six literal days or not? The Hebrew word "yom" can refer to a 24 hour day, but it can also refer to time or a long time, a period of time, but actually means "heat". The Word also tells us that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" to God. Looking at the lexicology and the syntax, to me it was over a long period of time, as with God there is no time, and well we won't go into that... I am doing an assignment for bible school. Our question is that looking at the early chapters of Genesis and the hebrew word "yom" did creation occur in six days or six periods of unspecified duration. Any comments and assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.:pray::bounce::hmm:

As Bible students, when we come across words like "yom", which can be interpreted in a narrow sense, i.e. 24-hour period, or in a broad sense we look for ways in which the author helps us to know which he means. In this case, the author has used the phrase, "Evening and Morning", which seems to suggest a 24-hour period.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 19th 2008, 04:01 PM
I see. So anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is 'haughty'. I get it.

Is what what I said? Of course it's not what I said. What I said was I have no problem with those who disagree, so long as they're not haughty in their opinion (e.g. "Why don't you trust God's Word?").



It is not a poetic expression. It is history.

No it's not. In both Hebrew and English it is structured differently from the rest of Genesis and the first five books. Genesis 1-11 is structured so differently that some have hypothesized that it was written by a different author than Moses. What they forget, however, is that Moses is attempting to get a theological point across (not a scientific one) and the best way to do this in his time was through a poetic or prose structuring.

Furthermore, I never once said it wasn't history. I simply said it is a prose/poetic structuring that tells of a history, but should not be taken literally in every aspect.

Would you like me to go through and show how it is a prose?


You are wrong about the chronologies. Those chronologies and family lineages eventually concern Christ the king. They are the most legitimate and established chronolgies on earth because they were inspried by the Holy Spirit.

If that's the case then the Bible is fallible as there are contradictions between almost all of the genealogies of the Old Testament. The only way to explain the differences is if we look at the fact that chronological genealogies is a Western concept and was not known to the ancient Mid-east.


Those two inspired writers did not mix actual/literal/historical characters with mere symbolic/allegorical characters. It would be insane to take such a position.

Did I say they were allegorical? Did I say they were symbolic?


You may not have a problem with those who believe in a six-day creation but I won't say that about professing Christians who believe that evolution has any credibility whatsoever.

Do you read Hebrew? Do you speak it? Have you studied how the Old Testament is structured? Have you studied the culture of the day? Have you looked at historical interpretations? What makes you any more credible than the next person since you haven't done any of the above?


"Once again, what Jesus gives credence to is that men were evil in the days of Noah (no one disagrees). He doesn't go into detail."

That is an error:

"eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,"

Those are details.

"And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away.."

Those are details.

Now let me show you some other details as mentioned by the writers of the N.T.

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:7

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

We see here that both the writer of Hebrews and Peter believed that Noah and his flood were actual/literal/historical.

When did I say it wasn't historical? I said not every aspect should be taken literally - which neither of the authors do. Neither one validates that it was actually a world-wide flood (though it is very possible this occurred). They merely state that all of humanity was wiped out because of its sin and that Noah was rescued. It is possible that humanity was located in one geological point at that time.


But let's not stop there:

"Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD." Ezekiel 14:14.

Tell me, friend, which of the three men mentioned by Ezekiel in this text was not real/actual/literal? Which of them was/were merely part of an allegory?

When did I implore the use of allegory? When did I say Noah didn't exist? When did I say it wasn't historical?


It is not right to treat God's Word like a spiritual smorgasbord, picking and choosing what we want to be real and actual and letting our prejudices determine who was not real and/or actual.

When did I say it wasn't real? When did I say Adam and Eve weren't real? When did I say Job wasn't real? When did I say Noah wasn't real?


There are certain things in scripture that help us to distinguish between that which is literal and that which is obviously poetic (Psalms, Song of Solomon, Eccles. etc.). You have been given examples of what determines the literal above.

Have you studied the various nuances of poetic literature in the Bible? Have you spent hours researching how to tell the difference? Have you looked at the Hebrew itself to be able to find indicators?

BroRog
Jul 19th 2008, 04:40 PM
No it's not. In both Hebrew and English it is structured differently from the rest of Genesis and the first five books. Genesis 1-11 is structured so differently that some have hypothesized that it was written by a different author than Moses. What they forget, however, is that Moses is attempting to get a theological point across (not a scientific one) and the best way to do this in his time was through a poetic or prose structuring.

This is an excellent point, which Bible students need to hear. We are accustomed to the narrative structure of historical accounts, but we must accept that historians employ other ways to organize historical material other than the narrative.The fact that Genesis 1:1-11 is organized differently doesn't make it any less historical -- any less real.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 19th 2008, 04:43 PM
This is an excellent point, which Bible students need to hear. We are accustomed to the narrative structure of historical accounts, but we must accept that historians employ other ways to organize historical material other than the narrative.The fact that Genesis 1:1-11 is organized differently doesn't make it any less historical -- any less real.

Exactly. It's still historical, the characters still existed, and the main elements did occur (the Garden, the Fall, an actual Adam and Eve, etc). It just means not all of the detail is meant to be a historical description.

We desperately need to remember that the style of history we're used to is an invention of the Enlightenment (with hints and traces in Roman histories). Recording 'just the facts' is a Western - and somewhat modern - way of recording history. Not that it's wrong to do it in this way, just that there have, traditionally, been other styles.

losthorizon
Jul 19th 2008, 05:35 PM
That doesn't even come close to refuting geological evolution. Even under a 6 day creation, if we take "in the beginning" to mean "since the beginning of time," then it is a fallacious statement. It seems more likely that Christ is referring from the beginning of humans, not from the beginning of all of creation (otherwise, yes, Jesus would be wrong - even by a 6 day standard).


I am not trying to refute “geological evolution” whatever that term might mean to you. I think “in the beginning” would logically be a referral to the beginning of creation – ie – “in the beginning God created” and there is nothing that *forces* a 4 billion year period of survival of the fittest resulting in man. Jesus clearly states that man was created from the beginning of creation to be male and female and I think He speaks from first-hand knowledge.


It's still historical, the characters still existed, and the main elements did occur (the Garden, the Fall, an actual Adam and Eve, etc). It just means not all of the detail is meant to be a historical description.
If man and the great apes *historically* had a common ancestor as Darwinian lore states and Adam (“the first man”) was an *historical character* as you admit who/what was Adam’s father - human, mineral or animal - a living soul or no soul? The Bible states the first-man, Adam was made a “living soul” - was Adam's father also a living soul or was he still a drooling knuckle-dragger as depicted in those glossy evolution charts? The Bible is big on ancestral recording – why are we not told who the father of Adam was? Could it be the Holy Spirit (also present at creation - in the beginning) meant exactly what He recorded in the Book - Adam was created from the dust of the earth literally “the first man" – the first “living soul” and he had no father after the flesh? Do you reject that concept?
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45

Yankee Candle
Jul 19th 2008, 05:39 PM
Is what what I said? Of course it's not what I said. What I said was I have no problem with those who disagree, so long as they're not haughty in their opinion (e.g. "Why don't you trust God's Word?").

No it's not. In both Hebrew and English it is structured differently from the rest of Genesis and the first five books. Genesis 1-11 is structured so differently that some have hypothesized that it was written by a different author than Moses. What they forget, however, is that Moses is attempting to get a theological point across (not a scientific one) and the best way to do this in his time was through a poetic or prose structuring.

Furthermore, I never once said it wasn't history. I simply said it is a prose/poetic structuring that tells of a history, but should not be taken literally in every aspect.

Would you like me to go through and show how it is a prose?



If that's the case then the Bible is fallible as there are contradictions between almost all of the genealogies of the Old Testament. The only way to explain the differences is if we look at the fact that chronological genealogies is a Western concept and was not known to the ancient Mid-east.



Did I say they were allegorical? Did I say they were symbolic?



Do you read Hebrew? Do you speak it? Have you studied how the Old Testament is structured? Have you studied the culture of the day? Have you looked at historical interpretations? What makes you any more credible than the next person since you haven't done any of the above?



When did I say it wasn't historical? I said not every aspect should be taken literally - which neither of the authors do. Neither one validates that it was actually a world-wide flood (though it is very possible this occurred). They merely state that all of humanity was wiped out because of its sin and that Noah was rescued. It is possible that humanity was located in one geological point at that time.



When did I implore the use of allegory? When did I say Noah didn't exist? When did I say it wasn't historical?



When did I say it wasn't real? When did I say Adam and Eve weren't real? When did I say Job wasn't real? When did I say Noah wasn't real?



Have you studied the various nuances of poetic literature in the Bible? Have you spent hours researching how to tell the difference? Have you looked at the Hebrew itself to be able to find indicators?

You remain in error. Genesis is history, and it being poetic in nature is neither here nor there as far as its veractiy or accuracy is concerned. Friend, I quoted several passages in the N.T. that reveal that the writers of scripture believed that the account in Genesis actually happened as historical events and they placed nothing of those recorded events in some shadow of doubt as to their reality in the past.

The 'theological point' that Moses was expressing was that the world was made by God by special creation, ex-nihilo and that he took what we commonly observe now as six literal days to make that world. He stated this on purpose and He was not obscure or ambiguous about it. He even repeated this great truth in the ten commandments:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

The Jews followed suit by working six literal days and resting on the seventh. There was never a question among them that God had created the world in a similar time frame.

"If that's the case then the Bible is fallible as there are contradictions between almost all of the genealogies of the Old Testament. The only way to explain the differences is if we look at the fact that chronological genealogies is a Western concept and was not known to the ancient Mid-east."

Oh, so the Holy Spirit was in error. So we don't really have God's inspired, infallible Word after all? Should I take my magic marker or my scissors and cut out John 10:35, I Timothy 3:16, I Peter 1:21-22, etc. just because Christians of your persuasion perceive errors in the Bible?

Adam is mentioned in Jesus family tree in Luke 3. How can you possibly justify a position which denies the literal nature of Genesis with that being the case? I have studied the so-called 'contradictions' in the chronolgies. I don't accept that. Good men answered those 'problems' long ago.

Nope. I trust that God gave us a written account that is inspired and without error.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away". Well, His Word is from Genesis to Revelation. I believe Him, not those of your way of thinking.

I do not read Greek or Hebrew but I have studied both for nearly forty years. I make the comparisons and look up the definitions constantly in my research.

"Did I say they were allegorical? Did I say they were symbolic?"

This is what you said,

"and the best way to do this in his time was through a poetic or prose structuring."

Definition: Poetic - adj. Abbr. poet. Of or relating to poetry. Having a quality or style characteristic of poetry. Characterized by romantic imagery.

Genesis is foundational to the Christian faith. It is far more than mere romantic imagery. Romantic imagery/poetry is what we find in Song of Solomon, not Genesis.

You also said, "When did I say it wasn't historical? I said not every aspect should be taken literally - which neither of the authors do."

Which means that if not every aspect is literal/historical then one can pick and choose which parts he believes actually happened and which parts did not happen. How convenient, but the writers of the New Testament did not leave us with that option. They each listed the characters of Genesis 1-11 as actual people who performed the deeds and experienced the facts that Moses listed.

You believe that there was more than one writer of Genesis. That also is error. Jesus said that Moses wrote Genesis (i.e. the Pentateuch),

He said, " 3 What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (Mark 10:3-7)

Here Jesus quotes both Genesis and Exodus and Moses was the writer of both. I will believe Jesus, my friend, and not your opinion in this matter.

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:27.

He also scolded his disciples for not believing all that Moses and the prophets said,

"These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44.

"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." Luke 24:25.

No dual authorship of Genesis is ever mentioned by the Lord or by any other writer of scripture.

"Have you studied the various nuances of poetic literature in the Bible? Have you spent hours researching how to tell the difference? Have you looked at the Hebrew itself to be able to find indicators?"

It is not the poetic nature of Genesis that is at issue here. It is the arbitrary assigning of the literal events mentioned in chapters 1-11 as being/doing/experiencing anything less than what the plain text says.

The Holy Spirit is the greatest 'poet' of all, but what He wrote in Genesis was actual and He gave us a number of reasons to believe that each and every event actually happened.

1Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Paul was of the persuasion that the creation account was entirely true as were all the other writers of scripture.

For instance: "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Hebrews 11:5

Jude 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints"

So both the writer of Hebrews and Jude believed that Enoch and the story about his life were also literal and something that is to be taken seriously as historical.

The matter is either/or and nothing in between. No one can rightfully or honestly declare that the characters, events, and chronologies are not what the plain text says that they are with any biblical or historical justification.

"What I said was I have no problem with those who disagree, so long as they're not haughty in their opinion (e.g. "Why don't you trust God's Word?"

But you see, that makes me 'haughty' in your mind for I do believe that you should trust the writers of scripture (more accurately the infallible Holy Spirit) and not opinions that place question in God's Word.

I bid you good day.


http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:UOeWuHpzxGN5TM:files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_3_18_2003_22_36_42/atom0.jpgFE06721B-B5C3-4DA3-9D5DDCF34F64CD5F.jpgLarge.jpg

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Kate
Jul 20th 2008, 01:38 AM
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, charity.

However, if I may make a suggestion: when reading Genesis or any other scriptures, pray for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of it. As far as I can tell, reducing Moses' historical account of creation to symbolism has its motives in trying to fit creationism into the theory of evolution which I find terribly sad.

To compare the prophetic imagery of Revelation to the historical text of Genesis is extremely ridiculous. We're talking two completely different types of books. Revelation is a prophecy book and was written by John as a result of divine vision in the spirit, much like parts of Daniel and Ezekiel. Genesis is a historical account, as is the rest of the pentateuch. With your logic are we also to believe that the rest of Genesis is symbolic imagery as well? Were the twelve sons of Jacob real people? Heck, for that matter, was Abraham a real man? How far are you willing to take it, and if you're not willing to take the rest of Genesis there, then why not? This is a slippery slope.

As for Revelation: the scenes that John describes are described in the way that he saw them. He saw Jesus with a sword coming out of His mouth, literally. The sword symbolizes something, yes, but he described it as he saw it.

Reynolds357
Jul 20th 2008, 01:55 AM
That's too bad. You should not have changed. There is no biblical nor scientific reason for a believer to retreat from faith that God's Word means exactly what it says in Genesis.

Concerning 'death'. The Bible explains that also in Romans 5,

12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses..."

If Moses was a real person (& I assume you believe he was) then how are you to honestly conclude that Adam was not?

But the matter of death pertains to that which God laid upon the whole of creation after Adam sinned.

That the entire creation was affected by Adam's sin is clear from Romans 8:21-22.

" Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."

We are told in Revelation that in the restoration of all things,

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:4

The perfect world will be restored. The eternal state will be without sin, sickness, disease, or even death. Things will be rejuvenated to a condition like they were before the fall of man in sin.

If you reject this then you put yourself in a quandry, because you won't be able to explain, a priori, the origin and cause of death in the world if indeed it came before Adam or in spite of the teaching of Adam's sin.

The scriptural support for a young earth is not lacking. It is your understanding that is lacking or else you have just outright rejected what the Bible says about it. God only knows.


http://s62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/th_Jan26560.jpg



Lord, give us the key of understanding!


When did I say Adam was not a literal man? Please refresh my memory of when I said that. As Romans says, death entered the world through the sin of Adam. That passage is plainly speaking of Spiritual Death. Did you not read what you quoted? Sin and death. Is there no correlation there to you? Sin cased spiritual death. That spiritual death was passed to all.

Revelation 21 is referring to human death. Death in the plant kingdom is essential to life in the animal kingdom.

Reynolds357
Jul 20th 2008, 01:59 AM
As Bible students, when we come across words like "yom", which can be interpreted in a narrow sense, i.e. 24-hour period, or in a broad sense we look for ways in which the author helps us to know which he means. In this case, the author has used the phrase, "Evening and Morning", which seems to suggest a 24-hour period.

You must follow the rules of Hebrew language to see what the author meant. Evening and morning means ending of an age and beginning of the next age. Why do we know this? Evening and morning was used for day 1,2, and 3. A literal evening and morning was not created until day 4. When interpreting Hebrew, "Context is king." You lose context, you lose understanding. Had the sun regulated the 24 hour day on day 1, you might have a point. The fact that the sun did not create the literal day until day 4 is absolute proof that the evening and morning reference beginning at day 3 is a symbolic reference.

Athanasius
Jul 20th 2008, 05:35 AM
This is an excellent point, which Bible students need to hear. We are accustomed to the narrative structure of historical accounts, but we must accept that historians employ other ways to organize historical material other than the narrative.The fact that Genesis 1:1-11 is organized differently doesn't make it any less historical -- any less real.

We are, since when? ;}

Athanasius
Jul 20th 2008, 05:36 AM
Perhaps. But if all evidence points to an older creation because God made it that way, then are we wrong to come to those conclusions?

Don't see why not.

Yankee Candle
Jul 20th 2008, 12:42 PM
When did I say Adam was not a literal man? Please refresh my memory of when I said that. As Romans says, death entered the world through the sin of Adam. That passage is plainly speaking of Spiritual Death. Did you not read what you quoted? Sin and death. Is there no correlation there to you? Sin cased spiritual death. That spiritual death was passed to all.

Revelation 21 is referring to human death. Death in the plant kingdom is essential to life in the animal kingdom.

No, it is not speaking of just spiritual death, it speaks of 'death' period. There was no death in the world before Adam and no one can demonstrate from scripture that it existed before his sin. Adam died on the day that he sinned...that is his body began to die. If Adam died a spiritual death the day he sinned it affected his body and that body also died over 900 years later. Both the spirit and the body died, but one after the other.

"Death in the plant kingdom is essential to life in the animal kingdom."

Maybe after Adam's sin but not before.

The origin of all death in the world is with Adam's sin. That should be plainly evident from Romand that the whole of creation is in pain and agony from Adam until now.


http://www.jewish-art.org/image-files/kiddush-cup-shevach-3233.jpg

Come Quickly, Lord Jesus!

ImmenseDisciple
Jul 20th 2008, 01:29 PM
You must follow the rules of Hebrew language to see what the author meant. Evening and morning means ending of an age and beginning of the next age. Why do we know this? Evening and morning was used for day 1,2, and 3. A literal evening and morning was not created until day 4. When interpreting Hebrew, "Context is king." You lose context, you lose understanding. Had the sun regulated the 24 hour day on day 1, you might have a point. The fact that the sun did not create the literal day until day 4 is absolute proof that the evening and morning reference beginning at day 3 is a symbolic reference.

I've been reading and evaluating myself recently, and something struck me as so odd that I wondered why I hadn't seen it mentioned on the forums. I've heard the point you're making made several times - that because there wasn't a sun, the evening and the day could not be literal. But then, it's not actually the sun which makes the evening and the day, is it? The sun and the moon rule over the day and night, but it's the light and dark which actually define the two. The Book says that the light was divided from the dark, the light was the day and the dark was the night. It seems to suggest that when the world was created, the light and dark which God created were in no sense "bound" - the light was there, the dark was there, the light was born of nothing but God's words, and needed no sun from which to be cast. How do you make sense of the text suggesting that light was created and defined the day before there was any sun, as we would recognise as the source of the light which defines our day?

That's an open question, not just to Reynolds :)

And as a side note - steady with the claims of "absolute proof" there...

Context is vital when understanding any language whatsoever. If I were to say "The day of the horse and cart is gone." it would be immediately clear that I wasn't referring to a single day. If someone asked me what I did on my holidays and I said "On the first day..." It would be just as clear that I was talking about a literal day.

What happened when the world was created, then?

God created the world. He created light. He seperated the light from the dark, the light was called day, and the dark was called night. The evening and the morning were the first day.

I can understand not accepting Genesis as literal, but to suggest that the context in which "day" is used somehow lends weight to it being taken figuratively is kinda daft, to my mind...

crawfish
Jul 20th 2008, 01:51 PM
I've been reading and evaluating myself recently, and something struck me as so odd that I wondered why I hadn't seen it mentioned on the forums. I've heard the point you're making made several times - that because there wasn't a sun, the evening and the day could not be literal. But then, it's not actually the sun which makes the evening and the day, is it? The sun and the moon rule over the day and night, but it's the light and dark which actually define the two. The Book says that the light was divided from the dark, the light was the day and the dark was the night. It seems to suggest that when the world was created, the light and dark which God created were in no sense "bound" - the light was there, the dark was there, the light was born of nothing but God's words, and needed no sun from which to be cast. How do you make sense of the text suggesting that light was created and defined the day before there was any sun, as we would recognise as the source of the light which defines our day?

We learn that the ancient people of the Mesopotamian area, through extra-biblical reading, had no concept that the sun (and moon) producing light; they simply considered them objects that belonged to "day" and "night". Which begs the question: God knew that both the sun produced our light and that the people of the time believed otherwise; why would He write His account in a way that would confuse the two? Why the potential ambiguity? Why would He not make it clear that the others were wrong?

Unless, of course, the existence of light before the sun was simply to put things into a way that the ancient Israelite could understand?

losthorizon
Jul 20th 2008, 02:13 PM
We learn that the ancient people of the Mesopotamian area, through extra-biblical reading, had no concept that the sun (and moon) producing light; they simply considered them objects that belonged to "day" and "night". Which begs the question: God knew that both the sun produced our light and that the people of the time believed otherwise; why would He write His account in a way that would confuse the two? Why the potential ambiguity? Why would He not make it clear that the others were wrong?

Unless, of course, the existence of light before the sun was simply to put things into a way that the ancient Israelite could understand?
Where is your citation for the assertion regarding Mesopotamian beliefs (not that it is incorrect)?
“I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy - solar physicist and astronomer

ImmenseDisciple
Jul 20th 2008, 02:29 PM
We learn that the ancient people of the Mesopotamian area, through extra-biblical reading, had no concept that the sun (and moon) producing light; they simply considered them objects that belonged to "day" and "night". Which begs the question: God knew that both the sun produced our light and that the people of the time believed otherwise; why would He write His account in a way that would confuse the two? Why the potential ambiguity? Why would He not make it clear that the others were wrong?

Unless, of course, the existence of light before the sun was simply to put things into a way that the ancient Israelite could understand?I'm confused - a couple of verses later He calls the sun a great light, to provide light for the earth... This would suggest quite the opposite, that the ancient Israelites recognised the sun as the source of light which it is. Was there some debate on the issue, then? :lol:

crawfish
Jul 20th 2008, 03:53 PM
I'm confused - a couple of verses later He calls the sun a great light, to provide light for the earth... This would suggest quite the opposite, that the ancient Israelites recognised the sun as the source of light which it is. Was there some debate on the issue, then? :lol:

He also gives the moon (and stars, and planets) the same distinction. So, either we have to accept that the bible made a glaring scientific error as the moon and planets do not produce their own light, or that it should be read in a different way.

Essentially, they are objects to "govern" the day and night. Darkness is the native state of the chaotic universe; light is the element of creation God introduced (thus, only light is good v2). There is little question that the ancient Israelites and their neighbors understood that the sun, moon and stars "deliver" light to the earth, and the sun delivers more light than the others; but it was not viewed as the ultimate source of light, just a conduit through which God (or the gods) delivered light.

Subtle distinction, but the text supports it.

Brendac
Jul 22nd 2008, 05:56 AM
I've been reading and evaluating myself recently, and something struck me as so odd that I wondered why I hadn't seen it mentioned on the forums. I've heard the point you're making made several times - that because there wasn't a sun, the evening and the day could not be literal. But then, it's not actually the sun which makes the evening and the day, is it? The sun and the moon rule over the day and night, but it's the light and dark which actually define the two. The Book says that the light was divided from the dark, the light was the day and the dark was the night. It seems to suggest that when the world was created, the light and dark which God created were in no sense "bound" - the light was there, the dark was there, the light was born of nothing but God's words, and needed no sun from which to be cast. How do you make sense of the text suggesting that light was created and defined the day before there was any sun, as we would recognise as the source of the light which defines our day?

That's an open question, not just to Reynolds :)

And as a side note - steady with the claims of "absolute proof" there...

Context is vital when understanding any language whatsoever. If I were to say "The day of the horse and cart is gone." it would be immediately clear that I wasn't referring to a single day. If someone asked me what I did on my holidays and I said "On the first day..." It would be just as clear that I was talking about a literal day.

What happened when the world was created, then?

God created the world. He created light. He seperated the light from the dark, the light was called day, and the dark was called night. The evening and the morning were the first day.

I can understand not accepting Genesis as literal, but to suggest that the context in which "day" is used somehow lends weight to it being taken figuratively is kinda daft, to my mind...

We are talking about God’s time, not our earthly time. God is not limited to our time.

Looking at Genesis 1, in the Hebrew it doesn’t say the first day, second day etc, rather it says “evening took place and morning took place, day one”.

Gleason L Archer says that “looking at the Hebrew text where it talks of evening and morning, it turns out the phrase is a Jewish idiom simply meaning the beginning and end of a period of time. A Jewish day was never spoken of as evening and morning; a Jewish day is always referred to as evening to evening. This phrase is only used one other time in the bible and again it refers to a long period of time.”

From information that was gathered it all goes around the word “yom” and the number after it – i.e. yom ehad (day one), yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this kind, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite;

Genesis 1 (Darby Bible translation)
6 (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-6.htm) And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division between waters and waters. 7 (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-7.htm) And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so. 8 (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-8.htm) And God called the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning a second day.

Genesis 1:8
… was a second sheniy (shay-nee') = double, i.e. second; also adverbially, again -- again, either (of them), (an-)other, second (time).

Then if we look at the second chapter of Genesis :

Genesis 2:4 (Darby Bible Translation)
These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,

We could perhaps say here “at the time” that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens…
Prezken in Bibleforums as well as “Jewish views on evolution say the following :

“1) Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations BEFORE God created Adam.

2) The midrash states that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bere**** Rabbah 9.”

3) In Psalms it says "A thousand years is like a day in Your sight" (Psalm 90:4)
It says 1000 years is LIKE a day; it is not saying that it is a day.

“Finally, what solidified it beyond any reasonable doubt to me was the picture story behind the word YOM translated as day in genesis. In Hebrew every letter has a picture meaning and a numeric value. When you put the letters together to make a word it also tells a story. Yom (day) is merely Yam (sea) with a Vov in the middle. Yod-Mem(final) means "sea" and it refers to any great expanse (final Mem) of life-energy (Yod). When we put a "pin" or a "spine" in the middle of this living expanse, the expanse begins to rotate about the "pin." The "pin" is the Vov in the middle of the "sea." The "sea" cycles - goes through phases - when it has a pole (a Vov, a pin, a spine) to sPIN around. Thus Yom (Yod-Vov-Memfinal) designates the first cycling. Because the most obvious and primary cycle in daily life is the day/night cycle, Yom comes to mean a "24 hr Day" ONLY when there are humans around to experience it.”

Joe King
Jul 22nd 2008, 06:14 PM
If anyone can create everything in 144 hours, God can.

MD101
Jul 22nd 2008, 06:40 PM
My friend asked me the other day, something like, "if got is so great/all powerful, why did it take him 6 days to make the universe" Implying he should have been able to make it instantly. Any thoughts?

Joe King
Jul 22nd 2008, 08:11 PM
My friend asked me the other day, something like, "if got is so great/all powerful, why did it take him 6 days to make the universe" Implying he should have been able to make it instantly. Any thoughts?

Because God likes the number 7 and wanted us to live according to a 7 day week.

Reynolds357
Jul 22nd 2008, 08:44 PM
I would like to clear up something that seems to be misunderstood in my earlier posts. I believe in a "literal" Genesis. I believe that God created planet Earth and the entire Universe. I do not believe that He in any way used Evolution or any of the Evolutionary processes to fulfil the Creation. However, I do believe that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. I believe that God has always been and always will be. I do not believe that one day 6 to 10 thousand years ago God decided I should have started creating a univers 5 billion years ago, but I did not get around to it and will do it all in 6 days. I believe that God knew well in advance the maturity or age needed in His universe for it to function perfectly. I believe that He began His creation at that time. I do not believe he created a star 14,000 years ago and also told the star 14,000 years ago to instantly send its light 4.5 billion light years into space. I belive that God created our Universe in a Logical series of eras or days. He created plant species. He then created more plant species, and so on. He then created simple animals. He then created more complex animals. He then created Man. I do not believe he created a rock and told it to instantly age itsself to 400 million years old. If God needed a 400 million year old rock, I believe He would have made it 400 million years ago. I do not believe God created His universe to deceive. I do not believe God created a planet to break the laws of nature that He ordained. I do not believe that God told Isotopes to decay at a certain rate, and then intentionally manipulated His entire creation so that the constant rate of isotopic decay would actually bear false witness against the age of the material being dated. I believe that just as God does not lie, His creation does not lie. I personally believe God's creation accurately attests to its true age. I do not believe God defied the Laws of Nature He ordained so that His Creation would bear false witness of its age.

Pre
Jul 22nd 2008, 09:06 PM
I'm not sure about the age of the Earth, but I am convinced that it was done in six literal days, because in the Bible these days are described as having consisted of a morning and an evening.

crawfish
Jul 23rd 2008, 12:26 AM
If anyone can create everything in 144 hours, God can.

If anyone can create everything in 6 billion years, God can.




See, that works no matter what! ;)

Athanasius
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:27 AM
“1) Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations BEFORE God created Adam.


And Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a gleaned this information from where?

fishbowlsoul
Jul 24th 2008, 02:44 AM
And Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a gleaned this information from where?

Well there are around extra Biblical 28 books(works) referenced in the Old Testament.
Book of Jasher (haiyashar)
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet, Book of Iddo
Book of Nathan
Just to name a few.

And there around 21 other works referenced in the New Testament.

Athanasius
Jul 24th 2008, 02:59 AM
Well there are around extra Biblical 28 books(works) referenced in the Old Testament.
Book of Jasher (haiyashar)
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet, Book of Iddo
Book of Nathan
Just to name a few.

And there around 21 other works referenced in the New Testament.

And...? Where did the previous information come from?

Ron Brown
Jul 24th 2008, 07:02 AM
Moses said it was six days in the ten commandments:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

Then he told the Hebrews in the law that they were to honor God by working six days (literal days) and rest on the seventh.

"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."
Exodus 23:12.

It is important to note that there is no distinction between the Hebrew day "yom" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and 23. They are all the same.

Also, it may be true that a day is as a thousand years to God and a thousand years is as a day to Him, but not to us. A day is still a day and we cannot stretch it into a thousand years no matter what we do. Nor can we force a thousand years to be a single day.

There is no biblical or scientific reason to accept anything other than the literal six day creation of the world by God Almighty.


http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNQ/UNQ337/u10191255.jpg

May His name be forever praised!




This is the short simple correct answer.

Genesis chapter 1 states "The evening and morning were the first day, second day, etc........."

So "yom" clearly means a literal 24 hour day, and the evening and morning representing the days makes it clear.

You can't try to cram millions of years into Genesis in order to try to fit secular man's lies about science into the Bible.

Do you believe Christ has authority over a secular Harvard graduate or not?

Just because an evil man has a science degree, doesn't mean his wicked theory on the Universe and it's life should be crammed into the Bible.

Christ is the creator, and man is the created, and Christ clearly created the Universe and the Earth and all of it's life in 6 24 hour days, no matter what some secular men might say.

Brendac
Jul 25th 2008, 02:07 PM
This is the short simple correct answer.

Genesis chapter 1 states "The evening and morning were the first day, second day, etc........."

So "yom" clearly means a literal 24 hour day, and the evening and morning representing the days makes it clear.

You can't try to cram millions of years into Genesis in order to try to fit secular man's lies about science into the Bible.

Do you believe Christ has authority over a secular Harvard graduate or not?

Just because an evil man has a science degree, doesn't mean his wicked theory on the Universe and it's life should be crammed into the Bible.

Christ is the creator, and man is the created, and Christ clearly created the Universe and the Earth and all of it's life in 6 24 hour days, no matter what some secular men might say.
If you go into Bible.com you will find that it can refer to either. However, one needs to look at the fact the the sun, stars and moon were only created in vs 14. So prior to that there was in fact no morning or evening there was only light and dark. Days as such had not been created prior to that.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 11:57 PM
If you go into Bible.com you will find that it can refer to either. However, one needs to look at the fact the the sun, stars and moon were only created in vs 14. So prior to that there was in fact no morning or evening there was only light and dark. Days as such had not been created prior to that.

Genesis 1:5- "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Right here is where the 24 hour day is established.

Here comes the Hebrew.

light in Hebrew is 'owr and it means "light, light of day, day-break."

darkness in Hebrew is choshek and it means "darkness, obscurity."

night in Hebrew is layil and it means "night, or protective shadow."

evening in the Hebrew is 'ereb and it means "evening, night, sunset."

morning in the Hebrew is boqer and it means "morning, break of day."

one in the Hebrew is 'echad and it means "one(number), once, once for all."

day in the Hebrew is yowm and it means "day, time, year."

I hope I just cleared up any confusion people may have on the Billions to millions of years garbage Charles Darwin has polluted people's brains with over the last century.

You can't cram Darwin's absurd theories into the Bible, and expect it to float and fit with scripture, because it does not. The Hebrew language makes it clear as I have shown. It's six 24 hour days whether Charles Darwin likes it or not.

fishbowlsoul
Jul 28th 2008, 02:57 AM
Genesis 1:5- "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Right here is where the 24 hour day is established.

Here comes the Hebrew.

light in Hebrew is 'owr and it means "light, light of day, day-break."

darkness in Hebrew is choshek and it means "darkness, obscurity."

night in Hebrew is layil and it means "night, or protective shadow."

evening in the Hebrew is 'ereb and it means "evening, night, sunset."

morning in the Hebrew is boqer and it means "morning, break of day."

one in the Hebrew is 'echad and it means "one(number), once, once for all."

day in the Hebrew is yowm and it means "day, time, year."

I hope I just cleared up any confusion people may have on the Billions to millions of years garbage Charles Darwin has polluted people's brains with over the last century.

You can't cram Darwin's absurd theories into the Bible, and expect it to float and fit with scripture, because it does not. The Hebrew language makes it clear as I have shown. It's six 24 hour days whether Charles Darwin likes it or not.

Mmm. Your problem is not with Charles Darwin. His scientific work (theory) was mostly concering biological diversity on earth. Evolution is not the scientific theory dealing with the age of the earth or universe.

Your problem is with
Visto Slipher - measured first Doppler shift
Albert Einstein - Theory of General Relativity
Alexander Friedmann - derived math equations based on General Relativity showing an expanding universe
Edwin Hubble - measurements to the distant nebulae
Georges Demaitre - based on Friedmann's math equations proposed a expanding universe
Edwin Hubble again - discovered correlation between distance and recession velocity (Hubble's law) derived from red shift measurements
Gamow, Alpher, Hermann, etc - cosmic microwave background radiation

In other words the Big Bang theory. And that's just for the age of the universe.

God Bless.

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

Ron Brown
Jul 28th 2008, 06:25 PM
Your problem is with
Visto Slipher - measured first Doppler shift
Albert Einstein - Theory of General Relativity
Alexander Friedmann - derived math equations based on General Relativity showing an expanding universe
Edwin Hubble - measurements to the distant nebulae
Georges Demaitre - based on Friedmann's math equations proposed a expanding universe
Edwin Hubble again - discovered correlation between distance and recession velocity (Hubble's law) derived from red shift measurements
Gamow, Alpher, Hermann, etc - cosmic microwave background radiation


And these guys all have a problem with Christ and his creation. These guys all need a good dose of Ken Ham, Dr. Carl Baugh, and Jonn D. Morris Ph.D.

RJ Mac
Jul 28th 2008, 07:24 PM
I believe the universe, all of creation, to be just under 10,000 yrs old.
On day one God created the day, 24 hrs, because He separated the light
from the darkness, which means He started the world spinning, we measure
a day, 24 hrs, by the time it takes for one complete revolution of the earth.

God did not deceive us creating the world and universe with age, in fact
if He created the world over the billions of years, I would say that would
be the deception because He said He did it in 6 days. If He took billions of
years why wouldn't He say so. The world OLAM in Hebrew means age or period
of time. And why the sun on Day 4 if in fact it was day 1. No the idea of
deception falls in the camp of those who believe in the billions of years.

If one can't believe in 6 literal days, because of scientists, can one believe
in judgment day, in which the universe entirely will be destroyed, all
elements will melt, then all the dead and living will be judged and sent to
their eternal reward. No way is a scientist going to accept judgment day,
absolutely impossible, but it will happen, whether they believe it or not.

God said He did it in 6 days, I believe Him. He has done the impossible and
in the future will do the impossible again, which I look forward to seeing.

RJ

crawfish
Jul 28th 2008, 10:16 PM
If one can't believe in 6 literal days...can one believe in judgment day?

Not wanting to argue, but...

yes.

Ron Brown
Jul 28th 2008, 10:28 PM
God said He did it in 6 days, I believe Him. He has done the impossible and
in the future will do the impossible again, which I look forward to seeing.

RJ

:eek:

Are you saying that God is powerful enough to be able to create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days? You mean modern secular scientists have it all wrong? Are you bucking the current secular educational system trends that are alive and well in church theology today? How dare you give god this much power, modern secular science says you are wrong pal.

Don't you know that modern secular science has already proved that Moses way lying when he wrote the book of Genesis? Moses used primitive science when he wrote the book of Genesis, and therefore he can't be trusted to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote the literal 24 hour, six day creation event in Genesis.

I thing Darwin and his secular contemporaries know a little more about the creation of the Universe, then Moses and the holy Spirit know about it. Wouldn't you agree?

Are you going to believe Moses or Karl Marx?

crawfish
Jul 29th 2008, 12:33 AM
Are you going to believe Moses or Karl Marx?

Wow. I'm used to false dichotomies around here, but that one takes it to an entirely new level. :eek:

Ron Brown
Jul 29th 2008, 12:50 AM
Wow. I'm used to false dichotomies around here, but that one takes it to an entirely new level. :eek:

I was right on with what I said. No false dichotomies with me.

fishbowlsoul
Jul 29th 2008, 01:38 AM
:eek:

Are you saying that God is powerful enough to be able to create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days? You mean modern secular scientists have it all wrong? Are you bucking the current secular educational system trends that are alive and well in church theology today? How dare you give god this much power, modern secular science says you are wrong pal.

Don't you know that modern secular science has already proved that Moses way lying when he wrote the book of Genesis? Moses used primitive science when he wrote the book of Genesis, and therefore he can't be trusted to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote the literal 24 hour, six day creation event in Genesis.

I thing Darwin and his secular contemporaries know a little more about the creation of the Universe, then Moses and the holy Spirit know about it. Wouldn't you agree?

Are you going to believe Moses or Karl Marx?

Yeah. Who do these scientists think they are? They have got some nerve to actually study and observe the universe and earth and come to a different conclusion than the earth and whole universe is only 6000 years old. To actually agree with nearly all Protestant churches and the Catholic Church.

And speaking of Karl Marx. You know why Hubble called it the "red shift"?
Huh? huh? Coincidence? I think not.

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Jul 29th 2008, 02:29 AM
Yeah. Who do these scientists think they are? They have got some nerve to actually study and observe the universe and earth and come to a different conclusion than the earth and whole universe is only 6000 years old. To actually agree with nearly all Protestant churches and the Catholic Church.


Yeah - those crazy scientists - what are they thinking - especially those who "think" outside the box...
“I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy - Solar Physicist/Astronomer

fishbowlsoul
Jul 29th 2008, 02:59 AM
Yeah - those crazy scientists - what are they thinking - especially those who "think" outside the box...

“I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy - Solar Physicist/Astronomer


That quote is from a 1979 abstract that was never published. And the data in the abstract was disproved with the new astronimical measurements made in the 1980s and 90s. Like the Solar Disk Sextant project. Just like the the 11 year sunspot cycle. the sun's luminosity oscillates on cycles. This is a suspected cause of ice ages.

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

God Bless

losthorizon
Jul 29th 2008, 03:42 AM
That quote is from a 1979 abstract that was never published. And the data in the abstract was disproved with the new astronimical measurements made in the 1980s and 90s. Like the Solar Disk Sextant project.


It doesn’t matter if his paper was not published and it doesn’t matter if there is or is not shrinkage in the Sun’s diameter - the simple point the professor made is valid – there is not much seen by way of “observational evidence” that requires our sun to be 4.5b. And for the record Eddy was not a “creationist” as the word is pejoratively used by your Darwinist crowd today. He was a respected scientist who had many peer-reviewed papers published. Maybe you can expand and expound on the Solar Disk Sextant in relationship to the evidence that can be observed and why it requires 4.5b.

fishbowlsoul
Jul 29th 2008, 04:48 AM
It doesn’t matter if his paper was not published and it doesn’t matter if there is or is not shrinkage in the Sun’s diameter - the simple point the professor made is valid – there is not much seen by way of “observational evidence” that requires our sun to be 4.5b. And for the record Eddy was not a “creationist” as the word is pejoratively used by your Darwinist crowd today. He was a respected scientist who had many peer-reviewed papers published. Maybe you can expand and expound on the Solar Disk Sextant in relationship to the evidence that can be observed and why it requires 4.5b.

Apparently it didn't matter to Dr Eddy either. He never followed up on that abstract with further proposals to support that hypothesis.
I thought finding shrinkage in the sun did matter to creation science. It would mean that the sun would have to be very young.

Stellar evolution model - observing different stages of other stars provide a model on the life cycle of the sun.
Nucleocosmochronology - I know a mouthful. In other words measuring the abundance of radioactive nuclides in the sun.

Respected scientists are sometimes wrong. Like Hoyle and Newton and Pasteur. Trial and error are a part of scientific discovery.

The Solar Disk Sextant project actually measured that the diameter of the sun increased during several years in the 1980s and 1990s. There is no uniform shrinkage in the diameter of the sun.

http://hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov/Public/Ground_based/sextant/sextant.html

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

Ron Brown
Jul 29th 2008, 05:15 AM
Yeah - those crazy scientists - what are they thinking - especially those who "think" outside the box...

You think outside the box, and I'll stick with what Moses said through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21 clearly states that all scripture was written through the Holy Spirit, and that none of it was of man's own interpretation or origin.

I trust what Peter said, over what some modern day secular scientist says.

Athanasius
Jul 29th 2008, 05:39 AM
:eek:

Are you saying that God is powerful enough to be able to create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days? You mean modern secular scientists have it all wrong? Are you bucking the current secular educational system trends that are alive and well in church theology today? How dare you give god this much power, modern secular science says you are wrong pal.

Don't you know that modern secular science has already proved that Moses way lying when he wrote the book of Genesis? Moses used primitive science when he wrote the book of Genesis, and therefore he can't be trusted to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote the literal 24 hour, six day creation event in Genesis.

I thing Darwin and his secular contemporaries know a little more about the creation of the Universe, then Moses and the holy Spirit know about it. Wouldn't you agree?

Are you going to believe Moses or Karl Marx?

What? Where did this come from, lol?

Ron Brown
Jul 29th 2008, 06:07 AM
What? Where did this come from, lol?

It's my attempt at sarcasm, to those who don't believe in what Moses wrote about creation, and instead believe what modern secular scientists say about creation. I guess Peter was wrong as well about Moses being inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Genesis, when Peter wrote 2 Peter 1:19-21?

Why did Moses and Peter lie to us?:B

Athanasius
Jul 29th 2008, 06:19 AM
It's my attempt at sarcasm, to those who don't believe in what Moses wrote about creation, and instead believe what modern secular scientists say about creation. I guess Peter was wrong as well about Moses being inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Genesis, when Peter wrote 2 Peter 1:19-21?

Why did Moses and Peter lie to us?:B

Because they wanted a bit of fun :P

DadBurnett
Jul 29th 2008, 07:07 AM
Creation in six days, that’s what it says. What does it matter if those were six twenty-four hour days as we currently reckon time or if perhaps each day was as a thousand years or even a million years, or more? The length of the days alluded to in Genesis is of no real consequence … it does not affect my faith in God or my relationship with Christ Jesus. The length of the day and the age of the planet, does not impact my salvation or in any way constrain the reality of God and God’s grace.

losthorizon
Jul 29th 2008, 12:33 PM
The Solar Disk Sextant project actually measured that the diameter of the sun increased during several years in the 1980s and 1990s. There is no uniform shrinkage in the diameter of the sun.


So there is nothing fundamental in the Disk Sextant project that requires the sun to be 4.5b? Would I be going too far to say that you and I could agree with John Eddy that we suspect the sun to be of great age but “given some new and unexpected results to the contrary” we could live with a much younger age for our solar system because there is “not much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that”?

fishbowlsoul
Jul 30th 2008, 02:36 AM
So there is nothing fundamental in the Disk Sextant project that requires the sun to be 4.5b? Would I be going too far to say that you and I could agree with John Eddy that we suspect the sun to be of great age but “given some new and unexpected results to the contrary” we could live with a much younger age for our solar system because there is “not much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that”?

No. The Disk Sextant project just disproved that there is uniform shrinkage in the diameter of the sun (hence a 6000 year old sun) which is one of many things creation science has tried to hang its hat on time and again.

Yes I agree if "new and unexpected results" came up to suggest a 6000 year old solar system then science would have to consider them. Test it as a hypothesis. See if it was able to be faslified. See if it had predictiveness. Then accept it as a legitimate alternative theory to the Big Bang. But . . . . . no alternative results yet. Until then all we have is the observational evidence of red shifting, cosmic microwave background, abundance of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium in the early universe, why quasars are so far away and not close by, etc etc etc.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Jul 30th 2008, 03:49 AM
No. The Disk Sextant project just disproved that there is uniform shrinkage in the diameter of the sun (hence a 6000 year old sun) which is one of many things creation science has tried to hang its hat on time and again.


But the Disk Sextant does not disprove that some amount of shrinkage at some time in the past has not taken place. Scientists are not even sure how the sun was formed – there is speculation (philosophy) but such speculation easily goes outside the realm of science.


Yes I agree if "new and unexpected results" came up to suggest a 6000 year old solar system then science would have to consider them.
I am glad we can agree to think outside the box. It is estimated that 95% of the matter in the universe (dark mattter) is yet undiscovered - today's theory can easily become tomorrows discarded theory. Regarding the Big Bang, science historian - Ernst-Peter Fischer wrote these interesting words (1993),
…a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.

fishbowlsoul
Jul 30th 2008, 04:40 AM
But the Disk Sextant does not disprove that some amount of shrinkage at some time in the past has not taken place. Scientists are not even sure how the sun was formed – there is speculation (philosophy) but such speculation easily goes outside the realm of science.


I am glad we can agree to think outside the box. It is estimated that 95% of the matter in the universe (dark mattter) is yet undiscovered - today's theory can easily become tomorrows discarded theory. Regarding the Big Bang, science historian - Ernst-Peter Fischer wrote these interesting words (1993),

…a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.


Yes shrinkages have taken place in the past as well as increases. The sun seems to operate on cycles, sunspots, luminosity, etc. Again there is no uniform shrinkage to support a young sun hypothesis.
As for the formation of the sun. There is the stellar evolution model. Plus observations of molecular clouds like the one in the Orion nebula. Stars from gravitational instability within molecular clouds usually after a supernova. Little more than "speculation" there. Sounds like omigosh . . .a theory.

Thinking outside the box is good if there is some observations outside the box to build a theory on.
Fischer is one of the few remaining Steady State guys. Steady State has not had any predictive value for awhile plus all the observations point to an expanding universe instead of a static one.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Jul 30th 2008, 11:20 PM
Yes shrinkages have taken place in the past as well as increases. The sun seems to operate on cycles, sunspots, luminosity, etc. Again there is no uniform shrinkage to support a young sun hypothesis.


Are you saying that variations in the Sun's radius must remain *uniform* to support a younger sun hypothesis - please explain?



As for the formation of the sun. There is the stellar evolution model. Plus observations of molecular clouds like the one in the Orion nebula. Stars from gravitational instability within molecular clouds usually after a supernova. Little more than "speculation" there. Sounds like omigosh . . .a theory.
But my point was that such theories are philosophical in nature would you not agree?


Thinking outside the box is good if there is some observations outside the box to build a theory on.
Fischer is one of the few remaining Steady State guys. Steady State has not had any predictive value for awhile plus all the observations point to an expanding universe instead of a static one.
Do you have support to back up your statement above? There has always been a minority of astronomers who question the majority paradigm of universal expansion - are you saying you *know* the minority is wrong?

crawfish
Jul 31st 2008, 12:32 AM
Do you have support to back up your statement above? There has always been a minority of astronomers who question the majority paradigm of universal expansion - are you saying you *know* the minority is wrong?

Would you agree that the burden of proof must be on the minority view to prove its case in order that the majority view be changed? Just because somebody thinks outside the box doesn't mean they're not out of their mind. There are very good reasons a majority view becomes accepted, and the only reason it should be rejected is because a minority view is proven to be more solid.

It's like the guy who discovered the cause of ulcers to be a bacteria. He was ridiculed and rejected multiple times, yet he kept coming back with more and more evidence until the establishment could no longer disagree with him. That is actually good science; it acts as a filter against just any crackpot theory being put forth, and forces new ideas to be explored in depth before they're taken seriously.

losthorizon
Jul 31st 2008, 01:53 AM
Would you agree that the burden of proof must be on the minority view to prove its case in order that the majority view be changed?


I do believe you misunderstand what a theory is, brother – a theory is always a "provisional" endeavor that can never be “proven” in the sense you use the term – theories are simply speculations which at the present time are unverifiable but they must be falsifiable. Do you believe the “majority” paradigm is always the best paradigm?


There are very good reasons a majority view becomes accepted, and the only reason it should be rejected is because a minority view is proven to be more solid.
What do you mean by “more solid”? Do you know of any past “majority theories” that are considered today to be “crackpot theories”? Do you know of a “majority” scientific theory today that is considered to be dubious by hundreds of PhD scientists who caution the general public to exam that theory carefully before accepting it as a "viable theory"? Are some theories more *convincing* than other? Are all theories *viable*?
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory." ~ A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

crawfish
Jul 31st 2008, 02:32 AM
I do believe you misunderstand what a theory is, brother – a theory is always a "provisional" endeavor that can never be “proven” in the sense you use the term – theories are simply speculations which at the present time are unverifiable but they must be falsifiable. Do you believe the “majority” paradigm is always the best paradigm?

I know exactly what a theory is. My use of the word "prove" does not imply that the theory becomes proven, only that it "proves itself" by providing enough evidence to be taken seriously. In other words, it must survive challenges put forth by the scientific community without being falsified.



What do you mean by “more solid”? Do you know of any past “majority theories” that are considered today to be “crackpot theories”? Do you know of a “majority” scientific theory today that is considered to be dubious by hundreds of PhD scientists who caution the general public to exam that theory carefully before accepting it as a "viable theory"? Are some theories more *convincing* than other? Are all theories *viable*?
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory." ~ A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Sure, all majority views that are falsified are from then on crackpot theories. Solid-state universe used to be widely accepted, but no longer. However, they were the best theory given the evidence at the time.

Some theories have more supporting evidence than others. Some have thousands of scientists supporting it, some merely hundreds. The sample I gave up simply says that if your minority theory can gather enough evidence to be taken seriously, it eventually will be. If creationists want their theory to be taken seriously, then they'll gather evidence and solidify their theory; when they simply try to discredit the other side through the media and other non-scientific means, they end up implying that their evidence is too weak to stand on its own.

The evidence for biological evolution far outnumbers and outclasses the evidence for alternative theories. True, that does not imply its absolute truth; but it does place it at the forefront of possibilities. The evidence against it casts some serious questions, but can hardly be said to be falsifying.

losthorizon
Jul 31st 2008, 03:37 AM
I know exactly what a theory is. My use of the word "prove" does not imply that the theory becomes proven, only that it "proves itself" by providing enough evidence to be taken seriously. In other words, it must survive challenges put forth by the scientific community without being falsified.


Does a theory really "prove itself? Terminology is important when discussing science. I do appreciate your clarification – I thought maybe you misunderstood the nature of physical theory, refutability, and the word “proven” as it is applied to physical theory.


Sure, all majority views that are falsified are from then on crackpot theories. Solid-state universe used to be widely accepted, but no longer. However, they were the best theory given the evidence at the time.
Are you confusing “Solid-state universe” with Steady State Theory (aka Infinite Universe theory) as presented by Fred Hoyle et al in the late 1940s? Please clarify so we can stay on the same page. If you are referring to Infinite Universe theory (an alternative theory for Big Bang) are you suggesting it has been falsified?


The evidence for biological evolution far outnumbers and outclasses the evidence for alternative theories. True, that does not imply its absolute truth; but it does place it at the forefront of possibilities. The evidence against it casts some serious questions, but can hardly be said to be falsifying.
Again – please clarify your terminology so we can stay on the same page – what do you mean by “biological evolution”? The scientists who are signatories to the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” paper do not have a problem with "biological evolution" (science) they are specifically dissenting from the Darwinian notion of molecules-to-man evolution through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection (metaphysics). You do make the distinction between science and metaphysics – right?

Can you provide examples for your boast that the evidence for Darwinism (molecules-to-man evolution) "outnumbers and outclasses the evidence for alternative theories"? I collect such "evidence" and would be interested to read what you have to offer.

crawfish
Jul 31st 2008, 02:26 PM
Does a theory really "prove itself? Terminology is important when discussing science. I do appreciate your clarification – I thought maybe you misunderstood the nature of physical theory, refutability, and the word “proven” as it is applied to physical theory

The explanation of evidence strengthens a theory. It is never "proven", per se, just justified.


Are you confusing “Solid-state universe” with Steady State Theory (aka Infinite Universe theory) as presented by Fred Hoyle et al in the late 1940s? Please clarify so we can stay on the same page. If you are referring to Infinite Universe theory (an alternative theory for Big Bang) are you suggesting it has been falsified?I'm suggesting it's no longer the majority view.



Again – please clarify your terminology so we can stay on the same page – what do you mean by “biological evolution”? The scientists who are signatories to the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” paper do not have a problem with "biological evolution" (science) they are specifically dissenting from the Darwinian notion of molecules-to-man evolution through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection (metaphysics). You do make the distinction between science and metaphysics – right?

I don't make the distinction the way you do between metaphysics and science, and I was never able to get a clear delineation from you before between the two. Yes, I am talking about common descent.

You remember my pointing you to "project steve"? Basically, creating the same type of paper as you mention above, but in support of common descent, and limited to just scientists named "Steve". They have 3-4 times the number of signatories as what you mention above. The truth is, the numbers you tout are simply insignificant in themselves.


Can you provide examples for your boast that the evidence for Darwinism (molecules-to-man evolution) "outnumbers and outclasses the evidence for alternative theories"? I collect such "evidence" and would be interested to read what you have to offer.I seem to remember getting into this with you before, and you reject any evidence from sites you have personal disagreements with, such as TalkOrigins. There is a wealth of information on that site and many more (such as this one (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoEvidence.html)). Literally hundreds of evidences mentioned, from many dspirate fields of science, all coming to essentially the same conclusions. A web search for "evidences for evolution" brings up pages with much of the same arguments, the vast majority scientific. On a web search for "evidences against evolution", the first few pages bring up sites that list the evidences; the longest list was 11, and most of its contents were not scientific. I think it's clear who is standing on more solid ground here scientifically.

losthorizon
Aug 1st 2008, 01:05 AM
I'm suggesting it's no longer the majority view.


Then we can agree it has never been falsified and remains a viable theory. For the record, I think the evidence is against steady-state and the big-bang fits the biblical record much better – "in the beginning God created" – ex nihilo - "out of nothing".


I don't make the distinction the way you do between metaphysics and science, and I was never able to get a clear delineation from you before between the two. Yes, I am talking about common descent.
And therein lies your error – you fail to distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics) – you blend the two into a term you erroneously call “science”.
Science - general truths obtained and tested through the scientific method.

Metaphysics - "after the physics" – ie - a philosophical program.

You remember my pointing you to "project steve"? Basically, creating the same type of paper as you mention above, but in support of common descent, and limited to just scientists named "Steve". They have 3-4 times the number of signatories as what you mention above. The truth is, the numbers you tout are simply insignificant in themselves.
And likewise you remember me explaining the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal to numbers) where one amusingly attempts to prove something to be true by how many people believe it to be true but logically majority belief does not make a scientific theory true. The majority of the “learned” at one time believed and taught heliocentrism.

There is no doubt in my mind that 100% of Darwinists name “Steve” believe Darwinism is correct but it logically follows that all of those so-named Steve’s could be wrong. You have never adequately explained why hundreds of PhD scientists publically express their skepticism that Darwinian macroevolution is a viable theory. We certainly do not see hundreds of PhD scientists expressing such doubts about the general theory of relativity. Why do they single out macroevolution?


I seem to remember getting into this with you before, and you reject any evidence from sites you have personal disagreements with, such as TalkOrigins.
The problem I have with such Darwinian websites is they all have one thing in common – they operate under the same circular argument (just as you do) that Darwinism is correct because Darwinists say Darwinism is correct. You keep making statements like “there is a wealth of information” that proves Darwinism true but you overlook one thing – you never present such information/evidence. I have read enough of your posts to know you are a well-educated and articulate person. I certainly believe you have the capacity to present and defend your Darwinian view but thus far you have not even presented a mediocre defense - all of which leads me to believe you do not have such an argument to present. I am sorry but the circular reasoning you have presented does not really do anything for me on an intellectual level.


I think it's clear who is standing on more solid ground here scientifically.
LOL – that’s an interesting assertion since you have presented absolutely no evidence to support macroevolution – what ground do you claim to stand on, exactly? The begging question remains – can you present and defend Darwinism on this thread – you are obviously a “true believer” in that philosophical worldview. What is the difference between your Darwinism and the atheistic Darwinism of the Dawkins crowd? Remember those folks do not allow “god-talk”.

fishbowlsoul
Aug 1st 2008, 02:55 AM
Are you saying that variations in the Sun's radius must remain *uniform* to support a younger sun hypothesis - please explain?



But my point was that such theories are philosophical in nature would you not agree?


Do you have support to back up your statement above? There has always been a minority of astronomers who question the majority paradigm of universal expansion - are you saying you *know* the minority is wrong?

No but the uniform shrinkage argument is something that young earthers have been using ever since that quote was mined. I saw a youtube video recently with young guy using this argument for a young earth view even though uniform shrinkage has been discredited for over a decade.

No I really cannot agree. Theories in science ask how. Theories in philosophy ask why or why not. What in the Big Bang do you feel is philosophical?

Well I posted the support in previous responses. Red shifts, cosmic microwave background, location of quasars, etc. Just as the majority is not always right, holding the minority view does make you always right either. What I know is that the observations and evidence support Big Bang theory rather than Steady State.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Aug 1st 2008, 03:51 AM
No I really cannot agree. Theories in science ask how. Theories in philosophy ask why or why not. What in the Big Bang do you feel is philosophical?


You would agree would you not that the big bang theory has metaphysical implications – ie – it has philosophical and religious consequences? Would you also agree that whatever goes beyond the realm of *empirical evidence* becomes philosophy? I would submit that the big bang as it is presented today is nothing less than science mixed with naturalism and naturalism is a metaphysical (philosophical) program. Science tells us that the universe was formed by strictly naturalistic processes (no God involved) and that my friend is philosophy – ie – it is an assumption that goes beyond the realm of empirical evidence.


What I know is that the observations and evidence support Big Bang theory rather than Steady State.
You can read my last post where I stated -
For the record, I think the evidence is against steady-state and the big-bang fits the biblical record much better – "in the beginning God created" – ex nihilo - "out of nothing".

fishbowlsoul
Aug 1st 2008, 04:45 AM
You would agree would you not that the big bang theory has metaphysical implications – ie – it has philosophical and religious consequences? Would you also agree that whatever goes beyond the realm of *empirical evidence* becomes philosophy? I would submit that the big bang as it is presented today is nothing less than science mixed with naturalism and naturalism is a metaphysical (philosophical) program. Science tells us that the universe was formed by strictly naturalistic processes (no God involved) and that my friend is philosophy – ie – it is an assumption that goes beyond the realm of empirical evidence.


You can read my last post where I stated -

For the record, I think the evidence is against steady-state and the big-bang fits the biblical record much better – "in the beginning God created" – ex nihilo - "out of nothing".


No I don't agree. What "why question" does Big Bang theory tried answer? none. Big Bang as with any other scientific theory tries to answer how a natural process happened. And to a certain extent the what, when, and where. Can you tell me what about the Big Bang theory you find metaphysical or religious?Science does not say anything one or the other about God. Science is only able to examine what happens in natural processes. There is no way science can test for God. God is extra-natural. Beyond nature. How can science study something beyond nature?God BlessMark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Aug 1st 2008, 11:40 AM
No I don't agree. What "why question" does Big Bang theory tried answer? none. Big Bang as with any other scientific theory tries to answer how a natural process happened. And to a certain extent the what, when, and where. Can you tell me what about the Big Bang theory you find metaphysical or religious?Science does not say anything one or the other about God. Science is only able to examine what happens in natural processes. There is no way science can test for God. God is extra-natural. Beyond nature. How can science study something beyond nature?God BlessMark 2:3-28, 3:1-6
Do you not acknowledge that scientists routinely blend science with naturalism in their “scientific statements” - read a few of the science textbooks on evolution? You do understand what naturalism is – right? What is your definition of metaphysics? Your statement – “Science does not say anything one way or the other about God” is a statement of naivety and would only take place in a perfect world that does not exist. Please review the statements below by two of your fellow Darwinists and tell me if the statements made are statements of science or statements of metaphysics. Also tell me if you agree or disagree with each statement - is man the result of blind, pitiless indifference that did not have him in mind - is that what your Bible states? Do the "scientific" statements below "say anything one way or the other about God"?
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” ~ Richard Dawkins

"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." George Gaylord Simpson

crawfish
Aug 1st 2008, 03:41 PM
Then we can agree it has never been falsified and remains a viable theory. For the record, I think the evidence is against steady-state and the big-bang fits the biblical record much better – "in the beginning God created" – ex nihilo - "out of nothing".

Steady-state cannot explain many of the more modern astronomical evidences (such as the appearance of matter moving away from a common point). If it isn't dead, it's dying.



And therein lies your error – you fail to distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics) – you blend the two into a term you erroneously call “science”.
Science - general truths obtained and tested through the scientific method.

Metaphysics - "after the physics" – ie - a philosophical program.

And I think you're selective is what scientific evidence you'll select. I seem to recall that your view of science is more akin to butterfly collecting than theory, but I could be wrong. I see nothing in common descent that would be considered metaphysical.


And likewise you remember me explaining the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal to numbers) where one amusingly attempts to prove something to be true by how many people believe it to be true but logically majority belief does not make a scientific theory true. The majority of the “learned” at one time believed and taught heliocentrism.

My reply wasn't to laud the numbers from my end - it was to show that the numbers you were touting (hundreds!) were irrelevant. It was you who was committing the logical fallacy. I didn't imply anything from it.



The problem I have with such Darwinian websites is they all have one thing in common – they operate under the same circular argument (just as you do) that Darwinism is correct because Darwinists say Darwinism is correct. You keep making statements like “there is a wealth of information” that proves Darwinism true but you overlook one thing – you never present such information/evidence. I have read enough of your posts to know you are a well-educated and articulate person. I certainly believe you have the capacity to present and defend your Darwinian view but thus far you have not even presented a mediocre defense - all of which leads me to believe you do not have such an argument to present. I am sorry but the circular reasoning you have presented does not really do anything for me on an intellectual level.


Which is why we were at an impasse before, and we are at one now. I'm perfectly fine to separate the idea from the author, and judge it on its content alone; but if you are going to dismiss entire websites because you don't like the authors, then our conversation will go nowhere.


LOL – that’s an interesting assertion since you have presented absolutely no evidence to support macroevolution – what ground do you claim to stand on, exactly? The begging question remains – can you present and defend Darwinism on this thread – you are obviously a “true believer” in that philosophical worldview. What is the difference between your Darwinism and the atheistic Darwinism of the Dawkins crowd? Remember those folks do not allow “god-talk”.

Again, you simply don't want to listen to the evidence, and you've developed a nice scheme for ensuring that you can deny it. No offense intended, but I don't see any profit in going to the trouble to post things when you're going to attack them ad hominem.

The big difference between my belief in ToE and an atheistic view? God.

losthorizon
Aug 1st 2008, 10:40 PM
Steady-state cannot explain many of the more modern astronomical evidences (such as the appearance of matter moving away from a common point). If it isn't dead, it's dying.


Well it has certainly never been falsified as you have already admitted and it states that matter is continually being produced in a universe that continues to expand. Maybe you can expand on your notion that matter moving away from a common point would somehow render steady-state non viable as a scientific theory.


And I think you're selective is what scientific evidence you'll select. I seem to recall that your view of science is more akin to butterfly collecting than theory, but I could be wrong. I see nothing in common descent that would be considered metaphysical.
Yes – once again you are wrong – I have never collected butterflies but I see more empirical evidence associated with that hobby than the mythology used to support Darwinian evolution. I have asked you before to provide evidence that the reptilian dead-end lung morphed into the flow-through avian lung that is required for your common ancestry notion but you drew a blank. Have you found anything yet? I patiently await your “proof”.


My reply wasn't to laud the numbers from my end - it was to show that the numbers you were touting (hundreds!) were irrelevant.
But again you miss the point, partner – why are there even 10 PhD scientists who warn the public against your common ancestry notion? Why would hundreds of scientists from all disciplines reject a “viable” scientific theory? We do not see such sanctions against the theory of relativity. Why common ancestry? Isn’t it because it is so weak scientifically that it should be rejected? You certainly are helpless and hapless to defend it.


Which is why we were at an impasse before, and we are at one now. I'm perfectly fine to separate the idea from the author, and judge it on its content alone; but if you are going to dismiss entire websites because you don't like the authors, then our conversation will go nowhere.
I have reviewed your websites and all I see is circular reasoning mixed with weak science. I am asking you to present a case for your version of Darwinism and defend it – that’s not asking too much is it? You can use anything you find pertinent on your websites just don’t refer me there – I do not debate websites.


Again, you simply don't want to listen to the evidence, and you've developed a nice scheme for ensuring that you can deny it. No offense intended, but I don't see any profit in going to the trouble to post things when you're going to attack them ad hominem.
But you have provided no evidence to listen to – do you have any?


The big difference between my belief in ToE and an atheistic view? God.
But God is not allowed by your atheist colleagues. Do you actually think the American Association for the Advancement of Science allows even a small part for a supernatural being in creating life on earth? Where exactly does God fit into your TE? I would suspect your Darwinism is indistinguishable from the Darwinism of Dawkins.
Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. ~ Richard Dawkins, Darwinist

crawfish
Aug 2nd 2008, 02:19 AM
But again you miss the point, partner – why are there even 10 PhD scientists who warn the public against your common ancestry notion? Why would hundreds of scientists from all disciplines reject a “viable” scientific theory? We do not see such sanctions against the theory of relativity. Why common ancestry? Isn’t it because it is so weak scientifically that it should be rejected? You certainly are helpless and hapless to defend it.

Here's why it's impossible to have a discussion with you: you get onto me for allegedly making an argumentum ad numerum, and you reply by making the opposite logical fallacy: implying that just because a few however qualified scientists doubt it then it must be false. I know quite a few PhD's. Most of them aren't rocket scientists - it takes remarkably little raw brainpower (but lots of determiniation) to get your doctorate. You could probably find 100 to attest that the moon is made of green cheese...

fishbowlsoul
Aug 2nd 2008, 02:42 AM
Do you not acknowledge that scientists routinely blend science with naturalism in their “scientific statements” - read a few of the science textbooks on evolution? You do understand what naturalism is – right? What is your definition of metaphysics? Your statement – “Science does not say anything one way or the other about God” is a statement of naivety and would only take place in a perfect world that does not exist. Please review the statements below by two of your fellow Darwinists and tell me if the statements made are statements of science or statements of metaphysics. Also tell me if you agree or disagree with each statement - is man the result of blind, pitiless indifference that did not have him in mind - is that what your Bible states? Do the "scientific" statements below "say anything one way or the other about God"?

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” ~ Richard Dawkins

"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." George Gaylord Simpson


Yes because science is naturalistic. But as you know there different views of naturalism. Methodological and metaphysical. Dawkins, Simpson, et al make metaphysical like the ones you posted but there is nothing scientific about what they are saying. Just because scientists make metaphysical statements does not make science metaphysical anymore than ministers making scientific statements make God or faith scientific.
Hebrews 11

I take the approach of Francis Collins and Ken Miller. Science in its methodology can only study natural phenomena. As Robert Pennock says "If we could apply natural knowledge to understand supernatural powers, then, by definition, they would not be supernatural."

No I do not believe humanity is the result of blind indifferent processes. Obviously we disagree on God's methodology. For me biblical literalism is a pharisaic trap. Literalism to me puts God in a pharisaic box. I say this not to offend you or anyone who are literalists. This how my salvation works out for me.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Aug 2nd 2008, 03:46 AM
Here's why it's impossible to have a discussion with you: you get onto me for allegedly making an argumentum ad numerum, and you reply by making the opposite logical fallacy: implying that just because a few however qualified scientists doubt it then it must be false.


Okay – that’s your take and here is what I think – I do not think you have an argument to make – if you did you would have made it already. You have decided to buy into the Darwinian worldview – a naturalistic worldview that runs counter to the Judeo-Christian worldview. And it is a worldview based as much on faith as any religion (in fact it is a religion). You have an exaggerated trust in the methods of natural science to explain the diversity of life on this planet (scientism).

Here’s the bottom line, crawfish – you are making extraordinary claims – ie- molecules-to-man evolution and he who makes extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence to support such claims and you have not even presented mediocre evidence – in fact you have provided no evidence. The onus is on your shoulders my friend. :)


I know quite a few PhD's. Most of them aren't rocket scientists - it takes remarkably little raw brainpower (but lots of determination to get your doctorate. You probably find 100 to attest that the moon is made of green cheese...
I see – so your explanation for the hundreds of PhD scientists who reject Darwinism is that they are simpletons who believe the moon is made of cheese. Not a very scientific answer my friend – I had higher hopes for you.

losthorizon
Aug 2nd 2008, 03:53 AM
Yes because science is naturalistic. But as you know there different views of naturalism. Methodological and metaphysical. Dawkins, Simpson, et al make metaphysical like the ones you posted but there is nothing scientific about what they are saying.


Bingo, I think you have it – finally! Yes, scientists make many metaphysical assumptions and pass them off as science – like the myth that reptiles morphed into birds – no science just philosophy based on faith in a naturalistic worldview. Are you also a Darwinist?

Athanasius
Aug 2nd 2008, 04:17 AM
That was a pretty good book... The Metaphysical Presuppositions of Science.

fishbowlsoul
Aug 2nd 2008, 04:55 AM
Bingo, I think you have it – finally! Yes, scientists make many metaphysical assumptions and pass them off as science – like the myth that reptiles morphed into birds – no science just philosophy based on faith in a naturalistic worldview. Are you also a Darwinist?

Ahh. Now who's being metaphyical? You are saying that birds being descended from reptiles is a myth because you are philosophically opposed to it. Certainly not because of any observations or evidence. Within science there is no reasonable doubt that birds are descended from dinosaurs. That is not a metaphysical view. It is based on fossil evidence and comparative anatomy i.e. science. I know that fossil evidence is something that creationists do not accept but it does not make it go away nonetheless.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Aug 2nd 2008, 01:18 PM
Ahh. Now who's being metaphyical? You are saying that birds being descended from reptiles is a myth because you are philosophically opposed to it. Certainly not because of any observations or evidence. Within science there is no reasonable doubt that birds are descended from dinosaurs. That is not a metaphysical view. It is based on fossil evidence and comparative anatomy i.e. science. I know that fossil evidence is something that creationists do not accept but it does not make it go away nonetheless.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6
You speak as one who knows enough about science to be dangerous. I would suggest you might want to do a bit of research before you embarrass yourself further. Go on line and review an article in Science (January 1999) titled, "Pulmonary Function and Metabolic Physiology of Theropod Dinosaurs" and see what the author says about the dead-end lung of the theropod and how it relates to the avian flow-through lung and explain to me and the author how the lung of a crocodile can morph into the lung of a falcon – it can’t be done even if the god of Darwinism (time) had 20b years. I have asked this same question to our friend, Crawfish and he has draw another blank - maybe you will have better luck. The same problem of dino-to-bird evolution can be seen in many other publications - ie - see the article, "In Quest of the Origin of Birds" (BioScience) also online in the past. Tests that included ultraviolet light studies of theropod tissue shows that its lungs were not even close to the lungs of a bird - which presents your notion a major big-time problem. As the avian expert, Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina) put it..
"The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century." (New Scientist)Does comparative anatomy suggest *common ancestry* or *common design*? Can you defend your notion of dinosaur to bird evolution on this thread? Are you a "Creationist"? Do you believe God created "in the beginning"? Do you think Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal considered themselves to be "creationists"?
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God...The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." ~ Sir Isaac NewtonWhy do you embrace the name "Darwinist" and hold in contempt the name "creationist"? What do you mean when you pejoratively label people "creationists"?

losthorizon
Aug 2nd 2008, 01:47 PM
That was a pretty good book... The Metaphysical Presuppositions of Science.
I would suggest you read Cornelius G. Hunter’s book, Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
In the eighth chapter Hunter explicitly examines the metaphysical premises on which evolution is founded. He shows that metaphysics has been used to protect and justify evolution, while evolution in turn has influenced metaphysical thought. His point is that the evidence is not important because it will be interpreted in light of whatever system is chosen. Thus, what is important are the presuppositions that comprise a worldview and consequently affect the way that evidence is understood. The metaphysical assumptions behind evolution include materialism and the separation of science and religion. The Darwinist claim that evolution is the best explanation is therefore a case of begging the question. What is needed is not better evidence but an examination of the metaphysical assumptions behind this debate: "Philosophy and science have always been influenced by theology. This is especially true for evolution. The difference is that evolution denies the influence" (p. 160).

The book concludes with responses to Darwinism. Hunter looks at theistic evolutionists who attempt to accommodate evolution with their belief in God, He discusses the case of B. B. Warfield, who was willing to accept the scientific aspect of evolution while rejecting its metaphysical claims. Also considered are Terry Gray and Howard Van Til. Both are seen to have had implicit assumptions about what God would/must do, and this inclined these thinkers to accept evolution as a cosmology. The chapter is called "Blind Presuppositionalism," a seemingly appropriate title given the way that assumptions are not addressed even though they seriously affect the interpretation of evidence.

Darwin's God is an important work for anyone interested in evolutionary theory and the contemporary debate over creation. It makes a substantial contribution to this area of thought by responsibly looking at the proofs advanced for evolution and uncovering the metaphysical assumptions behind them. The contrast between Darwin's view that the world could not have been made by a good/powerful God, and the apostle Paul's claim that the creation reveals the eternal power and divine nature of God, underscores the thesis that there are two radically different worldviews operating in this debate. I found the book to be thought-provoking and hope that it will motivate an increased awareness of the presuppositions behind Darwin's cosmology. As Hunter himself notes, "Meaningful debate between the groups will be possible only when these interpretations are properly acknowledged" (p. 11). ~ Owen Anderson (Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ)

crawfish
Aug 2nd 2008, 01:50 PM
Here’s the bottom line, crawfish – you are making extraordinary claims – ie- molecules-to-man evolution and he who makes extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence to support such claims and you have not even presented mediocre evidence – in fact you have provided no evidence. The onus is on your shoulders my friend. :)

The onus is on your shoulders, and the shoulders of other creationists, because the vast majority of the scientific world accepts common descent. They accept it because it explains the evidence better than any other alternative. That won't change unless you can prove your case. Good luck!

Besides, whatever extraordinary claims I make, do you think they are beyond the capability of God to achieve? Surely creation of man from dust is no less extraordinary?


I see – so your explanation for the hundreds of PhD scientists who reject Darwinism is that they are simpletons who believe the moon is made of cheese. Not a very scientific answer my friend – I had higher hopes for you.

You continue to misunderstand my point. You were suggesting that they should be taken seriously just because a group of hundreds of them exist! I'm saying that you cannot depend on the numbers or the fact that they exist to tell you anything.

losthorizon
Aug 2nd 2008, 02:28 PM
The onus is on your shoulders, and the shoulders of other creationists, because the vast majority of the scientific world accepts common descent.


I think you are incorrect – the majority of evolutionary scientists circularly accept Darwinism as true because Darwinists say Darwinism is true. Do you have statistics that provide proof of your assertion that “the vast majority of the scientific world accepts common descent” or is this just another example of your typical off-the-cuff remarks that do not hold water.

Again, I remind you of the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum as you amusingly attempt to prove something to be true by how many people believe it to be true. Logically, 100% of Darwinists could easily be wrong. You have never adequately explained why hundreds of PhD scientists publically express their skepticism that Darwinian macroevolution is a viable theory. I will continue to understand that you have no explanation.


Besides, whatever extraordinary claims I make, do you think they are beyond the capability of God to achieve? Surely creation of man from dust is no less extraordinary?
But I do not have to scientifically “prove” the truth that God created man from the dust of the earth – I accept His word “by faith” – “without faith it is impossible to please God” - and the Book says He formed the first man from the dust. On the other hand you are the one making an extraordinary scientific claim – the notion that ooze slithered out of the primordial pond and became me and you over a gazillion years – the proof for that *miracle of naturalism* is where the onus remains my friend and that *proof* rests on your shoulders - if only you can deliver?


You continue to misunderstand my point. You were suggesting that they should be taken seriously just because a group of hundreds of them exist! I'm saying that you cannot depend on the numbers or the fact that they exist to tell you anything.
I think you misunderstand you own point and the truth remains – why do hundreds of scientists reject the Darwinian theory – they do not reject other theories? Is it not because common ancestry cannot be supported by real science but must depend completely on the metaphysical premises on which Darwinian evolution was founded in the first place.

crawfish
Aug 2nd 2008, 05:00 PM
I think you are incorrect – the majority of evolutionary scientists circularly accept Darwinism as true because Darwinists say Darwinism is true. Do you have statistics that provide proof of your assertion that “the vast majority of the scientific world accepts common descent” or is this just another example of your typical off-the-cuff remarks that do not hold water.

Will you believe Creation Wiki (http://creationwiki.org/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution)? They fully admit the numbers. I suppose there is something wrong with them, too. :rolleyes:


Again, I remind you of the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum as you amusingly attempt to prove something to be true by how many people believe it to be true. Logically, 100% of Darwinists could easily be wrong. You have never adequately explained why hundreds of PhD scientists publically express their skepticism that Darwinian macroevolution is a viable theory. I will continue to understand that you have no explanation.

Why you continue to blame me for making a logical fallacy (the claim of which I am not making), while making one of your own in the same argument, amazes me. Evolution is a controversial topic, even before you get into the science; it doesn't surprise me that there are a few scientists out there who publicly challenge it. Again, their mere existence and relative numbers are meaningless. You admit that in the note above.


But I do not have to scientifically “prove” the truth that God created man from the dust of the earth – I accept His word “by faith” – “without faith it is impossible to please God” - and the Book says He formed the first man from the dust. On the other hand you are the one making an extraordinary scientific claim – the notion that ooze slithered out of the primordial pond and became me and you over a gazillion years – the proof for that *miracle of naturalism* is where the onus remains my friend and that *proof* rests on your shoulders - if only you can deliver?

But I fully believe God did the latter! Through faith! Surely it would not be impossible with God? I have explained in other posts why I reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-10. Feel free to peruse them. Your mistake is to think that faith somehow constitutes scientific evidence - it doesn't. It has no value to science, only to the individual.


I think you misunderstand you own point and the truth remains – why do hundreds of scientists reject the Darwinian theory – they do not reject other theories? Is it not because common ancestry cannot be supported by real science but must depend completely on the metaphysical premises on which Darwinian evolution was founded in the first place.

Hundreds = argumentum ad numerum. You constantly contradict yourself.

I'm sure you could find hundreds of scientists that reject any theory. It's the way science works. There isn't a lot of money or interest for the general public in those rejections outside of evolution.

losthorizon
Aug 2nd 2008, 11:21 PM
Will you believe Creation Wiki (http://creationwiki.org/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution)? They fully admit the numbers. I suppose there is something wrong with them, too. :rolleyes:


But the Wiki site does not have statistics on how many scientists in the US (or worldwide) believe in the Darwinian notion of *molecules-to-man evolution* that’s what we are discussing here - we are not discussing the science of biological evolution. The article you referenced states that most scientists reject "creation-science" and it further states – “we don’t need a Gallup poll to tell us that a vast majority of scientists accept evolution in this day and age.” I do not accept most of what I have examined regarding *creation-science* – most of what is presented is bad science or metaphysical in nature. I also accept *biological evolution* as science simply because it is science. What I reject and what the scientists who signed the Dissent from Darwinism petition reject is the concept of common ancestry as a scientific reality – ie – it is not a viable scientific theory. I oppose bad science and philosophy passed off as science regardless of its origin – Darwinism or Creationism. Two examples of bad science do not equate to “good science”.


Why you continue to blame me for making a logical fallacy (the claim of which I am not making), while making one of your own in the same argument, amazes me. Evolution is a controversial topic, even before you get into the science; it doesn't surprise me that there are a few scientists out there who publicly challenge it. Again, their mere existence and relative numbers are meaningless. You admit that in the note above.
I think you misunderstand exactly what the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum entails –please let me explain further. It is the fallacy of “appealing to the majority” to prove a position true. The fallacy exists because it fails to logically consider the possibility that the majority can be wrong. I have never appealed to the majority – I have agreed with you many times the hundreds of PhD scientists who reject your notion of common ancestry are by far the minority opinion among life scientists. Thus I do not appeal to the majority – I have not committed the fallacy in question. It is you who appeals to the majority claiming that if the majority of scientists accept something it must be correct – therefore you are committing the fallacy under discussion.



But I fully believe God did the latter! Through faith! Surely it would not be impossible with God? I have explained in other posts why I reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-10. Feel free to peruse them. Your mistake is to think that faith somehow constitutes scientific evidence - it doesn't. It has no value to science, only to the individual.
You are incorrect once again – I always maintain the distinction between my theistic faith that God created in the beginning (metaphysics) and my understanding of biological science. It is you who blends Darwinism (metaphysics), biological evolution (science) and your theistic faith (metaphysics) all of which you label under the umbrella term, “theistic evolution” and your TE is a philosophical notion (not science) opposed by both Creationists and atheistic-Darwinists alike.


Hundreds = argumentum ad numerum. You constantly contradict yourself.
As I have explained above there is no contradiction on my part – I have never once appealed to the majority – such an appeal is a logical fallacy and proves nothing – it is a non-argument. It is you who appeals to the majority.



I'm sure you could find hundreds of scientists that reject any theory. It's the way science works. There isn't a lot of money or interest for the general public in those rejections outside of evolution.
One more time – you have no example of hundreds of scientists representing most disciplines that reject any theory with a public petition. Why Darwinism? I again submit it is done because common ancestry cannot be supported by real science but must depend completely on the metaphysical premises on which Darwinian evolution was founded in the first place. Darwinism from its very inception has functioned as a *secular religion* designed to eliminate God in general and the Christian faith in particular.

fishbowlsoul
Aug 3rd 2008, 02:49 AM
You speak as one who knows enough about science to be dangerous.

Yeah I know I'm dangerous. At least that's what my supervisor says everytime I do a new upgrade to the network.



I would suggest you might want to do a bit of research before you embarrass yourself further. Go on line and review an article in Science (January 1999) titled, "Pulmonary Function and Metabolic Physiology of Theropod Dinosaurs" and see what the author says about the dead-end lung of the theropod and how it relates to the avian flow-through lung and explain to me and the author how the lung of a crocodile can morph into the lung of a falcon – it can’t be done even if the god of Darwinism (time) had 20b years. I have asked this same question to our friend, Crawfish and he has draw another blank - maybe you will have better luck. The same problem of dino-to-bird evolution can be seen in many other publications - ie - see the article, "In Quest of the Origin of Birds" (BioScience) also online in the past. Tests that included ultraviolet light studies of theropod tissue shows that its lungs were not even close to the lungs of a bird - which presents your notion a major big-time problem. As the avian expert, Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina) put it..

"The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century." (New Scientist)


Yes I have read the article. Ruben and the coauthors made their conclusions based on in part on controversial interpretations of various Archaeopteryx specimens and photographs of one of the Sinosauropteryx specimens to reach their conclusions. Ruben proposes that all dinosaurs were ectothermic (cold blooded) therefore unable to form a avian flow lung but recent finds this past decade contradict that idea. Feduccia believes that birds evolved from dinousaurs. His view is that not theropods but archosaurs or some other primitive dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds.

Now recent work and new fossil evidence have reinforced the idea that a group of theropod dinosaurs called dromaeosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds. These dinosaurs had pneumacity (air spaces) in their vertebrae which allows for the develpement of a flow through lung. For example the Majungatholus atopus specimen found in Madgascar plus new finds in the Liaoning province of China. So specimens have been found especially recently show that some theropods could have flow through lung capability. In fact fossilized tissue of a Tyrannosaurus Rex demonstrates that even large theropods had pneumacity in their bones.
(Nature July 2005, Patrick O'Connor and Leon Classens)
www.nsf.gov/new/new_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104299 (http://www.nsf.gov/new/new_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104299)



Does comparative anatomy suggest *common ancestry* or *common design*? Can you defend your notion of dinosaur to bird evolution on this thread? Are you a "Creationist"? Do you believe God created "in the beginning"? Do you think Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal considered themselves to be "creationists"?

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God...The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." ~ Sir Isaac Newton
Why do you embrace the name "Darwinist" and hold in contempt the name "creationist"? What do you mean when you pejoratively label people "creationists"?


You make that same mistake as most creationists do when presented with an unanswered question about a particular hypothesis or theory. "There is no answer found yet so the hypothesis or theory must be false." That is not good science and this appeals to the God of the gaps notion. To me this notion put limits on God and as the gaps in information gets smaller God gets smaller. For me the more we find out about the universe and how it works my awe of God increases.

Yes I do believe God created from in the beginning but in a long and evolving process. So in that vein I am a creationist. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, etc were important scientists and contributed a great deal but they did not know everything especially information that has been revealed since their lifetimes. Paleonotology was practically non existent until the 19th century. Modern genetic began with Mendel also in the 19th century. The statement by Newton is his belief that God created the universe not how he did it or how long the universe has been around.

I don't consider myself a follower of Darwinism or any other ism. To quote the wisdom of Ferris Bueller "a person should not believe in an ism." I believe in God and I believe He created the universe just not 6000 years ago in a literal 6 days. And I have no contempt for creationist or whatever label is used. My only problem with creationists is that they keep trying to distort science to fit a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why? Just say you believe that regardless of any science. No need for cherry picking science or semantic contortions.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

crawfish
Aug 3rd 2008, 03:01 AM
I think you misunderstand exactly what the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum entails –please let me explain further. It is the fallacy of “appealing to the majority” to prove a position true. The fallacy exists because it fails to logically consider the possibility that the majority can be wrong. I have never appealed to the majority – I have agreed with you many times the hundreds of PhD scientists who reject your notion of common ancestry are by far the minority opinion among life scientists. Thus I do not appeal to the majority – I have not committed the fallacy in question. It is you who appeals to the majority claiming that if the majority of scientists accept something it must be correct – therefore you are committing the fallacy under discussion.

Actually, that's wrong. You're more closely defining argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad numerum is simply an appeal to numbers - "the more that support a particular argument, the more valid it is". The latter does not necessarily imply a majority; the former does.

But my argument is not that argumentum ad numerum is valid in this case; I agree that the numbers mean little. I imply only that when you compare your argumentum ad numerum to my argumentum ad numerum, I win. :)

losthorizon
Aug 3rd 2008, 03:54 AM
[FONT=Verdana]You make that same mistake as most creationists do when presented with an unanswered question about a particular hypothesis or theory. "There is no answer found yet so the hypothesis or theory must be false." That is not good science and this appeals to the God of the gaps notion.


But can’t we simply turn the table around and say that when you as a follower of Darwinian mythology run into problems that can’t be answered you simply turn to “evolution of the gaps” – ie – over enough time evolution can do anything? You can’t explain how the dead-end lung of a dinosaur can morph into the flow-through avian lung so you come up with the “gap” that T-Rex may possibly, if the conditions were just right over a long period of time during the late Jurassic period, might have had “pneumacity in their bones” – so presto whammy and a little fairy dust and we have the new and improved flow-through lung. Is that really how science works in the real world? How does “pneumacity in their bones” explain the complexities involved in the “naturalistic miracle” needed to change the dead-end lung to the flow-through – what mechanism of nature can possibly work such a miracle – if we restrict our answers to reality?


My only problem with creationists is that they keep trying to distort science to fit a literal interpretation of Genesis.
But Darwinists rely on metaphysical presuppositions to spin science to fit a worldview that does not include a Creator-God. Do you also have a problem with that concept?

losthorizon
Aug 3rd 2008, 04:06 AM
I agree that the numbers mean little. I imply only that when you compare your argumentum ad numerum to my argumentum ad numerum, I win. :)
But if numbers do not matter as you admit then your “most scientists believe in Darwinism” is a moot point and a non-argument – therefore, your point is invalid and you lose. But it is really not a matter of winning or losing – what matters is whether or not Darwinism is science or a metaphysical religious system and I vote that it is a religion complete with priests and devotees. ;)

crawfish
Aug 3rd 2008, 03:38 PM
But if numbers do not matter as you admit then your “most scientists believe in Darwinism” is a moot point and a non-argument – therefore, your point is invalid and you lose. But it is really not a matter of winning or losing – what matters is whether or not Darwinism is science or a metaphysical religious system and I vote that it is a religion complete with priests and devotees. ;)

Man, it's easy to win arguments when you keep changing the rules to suit yourself.

I halfway believe you're just doing this to frustrate me, so I'm gonna leave before you succeed. :giveup:

losthorizon
Aug 3rd 2008, 05:24 PM
Man, it's easy to win arguments when you keep changing the rules to suit yourself.

I halfway believe you're just doing this to frustrate me, so I'm gonna leave before you succeed. :giveup:
I am not trying to frustrate you at all. I am just trying to get you to think outside the box – you correctly criticize “creation science” but you are oblivious to the fallacies associated with Darwinian mythology that is being passed off as science. No one is saying you must accept a “literal” view of the creation story presented in Genesis; no one is saying you have to be dogmatic about a 6,000 year old earth; what I am trying to get you to think about is the underlying danger associated with Darwinism – the worldview (religion if you will) of “fundamental atheists” used to lure the faithful away from God and the faith of Jesus Christ. It is not about science. God bless. :)

crawfish
Aug 3rd 2008, 10:42 PM
I am not trying to frustrate you at all. I am just trying to get you to think outside the box – you correctly criticize “creation science” but you are oblivious to the fallacies associated with Darwinian mythology that is being passed off as science. No one is saying you must accept a “literal” view of the creation story presented in Genesis; no one is saying you have to be dogmatic about a 6,000 year old earth; what I am trying to get you to think about is the underlying danger associated with Darwinism – the worldview (religion if you will) of “fundamental atheists” used to lure the faithful away from God and the faith of Jesus Christ. It is not about science. God bless. :)

First off, no one turns to "theistic evolution" because they're thinking in a box. We are probably some of the most out-of-the-box thinkers in the world; there are few templates from which to build our particular belief from. Most people who claim to be TE's or EC's (evolutionary creationists) are among the most intelligent, informed and independent of thought. It is not a default view in any sense of the word; it is a place where people who question both faith and science arrive when they open their mind to possibilities.

You have been unsuccessful communicating any reason why I should just reject ToE. Sure, you've brought up a few points - "how did this happen" - but that just implies open issues, not falsification. You try to encourage the thought that just because a collection of scientists are willing to sign a document saying that they feel evolution isn't viable makes it so. As I've explained many times, that is a logical fallacy. Trying to pin "darwinism" as a basis for evil in the world doesn't work, either - there is no evil that has been done using darwin as an excuse that wasn't done before in history without it. It is, like religion, a convenient tool for evil people to use to further their own plans.

Also, once you've accepted that Genesis 1-10 does not have to be literal, then ToE makes absolutely no difference to your spirituality. It becomes a non-issue to Christians. The only reason it can "lure people away from Christ" is because so many Christians reject its possiblity in a world created by God. This is a shame.

It's not the fact that I'm inside some box that bothers you; it's the fact that I'm open. I prefer to let the evidence build and the science work itself out. I prefer for science to work without foregone conclusions (God created things THIS way!). Science makes hypotheses, then works to verify or falsify those hypotheses with evidence. That is the right and proper way for it to work.

SirTanTee
Aug 3rd 2008, 11:40 PM
First off, no one turns to "theistic evolution" because they're thinking in a box. We are probably some of the most out-of-the-box thinkers in the world; there are few templates from which to build our particular belief from. Most people who claim to be TE's or EC's (evolutionary creationists) are among the most intelligent, informed and independent of thought. It is not a default view in any sense of the word; it is a place where people who question both faith and science arrive when they open their mind to possibilities.

You have been unsuccessful communicating any reason why I should just reject ToE. Sure, you've brought up a few points - "how did this happen" - but that just implies open issues, not falsification. You try to encourage the thought that just because a collection of scientists are willing to sign a document saying that they feel evolution isn't viable makes it so. As I've explained many times, that is a logical fallacy. Trying to pin "darwinism" as a basis for evil in the world doesn't work, either - there is no evil that has been done using darwin as an excuse that wasn't done before in history without it. It is, like religion, a convenient tool for evil people to use to further their own plans.

Also, once you've accepted that Genesis 1-10 does not have to be literal, then ToE makes absolutely no difference to your spirituality. It becomes a non-issue to Christians. The only reason it can "lure people away from Christ" is because so many Christians reject its possiblity in a world created by God. This is a shame.

It's not the fact that I'm inside some box that bothers you; it's the fact that I'm open. I prefer to let the evidence build and the science work itself out. I prefer for science to work without foregone conclusions (God created things THIS way!). Science makes hypotheses, then works to verify or falsify those hypotheses with evidence. That is the right and proper way for it to work.

Amen.

The comforting thing about the scientific process is that it is specifically designed to correct its own mistakes through constant testing and peer review. Surprisingly, most scientists will not slit their wrists and cry tears of despair if evolution turns out to be false. If it's wrong, they want to know. In addition, they are not on personal crusades to erase God from the universe. Many leading evolutionary and genetic scientists are believing Christians who find God's amazing power within the scientific support of evolution.

fishbowlsoul
Aug 4th 2008, 04:30 AM
But can’t we simply turn the table around and say that when you as a follower of Darwinian mythology run into problems that can’t be answered you simply turn to “evolution of the gaps” – ie – over enough time evolution can do anything? You can’t explain how the dead-end lung of a dinosaur can morph into the flow-through avian lung so you come up with the “gap” that T-Rex may possibly, if the conditions were just right over a long period of time during the late Jurassic period, might have had “pneumacity in their bones” – so presto whammy and a little fairy dust and we have the new and improved flow-through lung. Is that really how science works in the real world? How does “pneumacity in their bones” explain the complexities involved in the “naturalistic miracle” needed to change the dead-end lung to the flow-through – what mechanism of nature can possibly work such a miracle – if we restrict our answers to reality?


Broadcasting live from California tonight and I am dead tired. Whew!

Well I am not sure what you want. All you wanna say is that Big Bang and Evolution are metaphysical. What about the science of these theories do you feel is metaphysical? Quotes from atheistic or agnostic scientists about purpose or purposelessness does not make the science metaphysical.

Lost you seem want to ignore the references and links I posted for explainations of avian lung changes. So I really don't know what else to say except read about the recent work of Patrick O'Connor and Leon Classens. Also about the Majungatholus specimen.



But Darwinists rely on metaphysical presuppositions to spin science to fit a worldview that does not include a Creator-God. Do you also have a problem with that concept


Very big brush there. I have made my view about my belief in God apparent previously.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

losthorizon
Aug 4th 2008, 10:57 PM
First off, no one turns to "theistic evolution" because they're thinking in a box. We are probably some of the most out-of-the-box thinkers in the world; there are few templates from which to build our particular belief from. Most people who claim to be TE's or EC's (evolutionary creationists) are among the most intelligent, informed and independent of thought. It is not a default view in any sense of the word; it is a place where people who question both faith and science arrive when they open their mind to possibilities.


And I will respectfully have to disagree with you, Crawfish. I have had discussions with many of your persuasion and I would have to say that most do not have the scientific knowledge to distinguish the difference between a fossilized pterosaur egg and an Easter egg. I have found few TE’s who I would consider "informed and independent of thought" – most remain inside your box and tow the Darwinian line with a sprinkling of god-talk thrown in to appease their conscience.


You have been unsuccessful communicating any reason why I should just reject ToE. Sure, you've brought up a few points - "how did this happen" - but that just implies open issues, not falsification. You try to encourage the thought that just because a collection of scientists are willing to sign a document saying that they feel evolution isn't viable makes it so.
You are certainly free to accept the ToE but again I recommend you separate the science from the metaphysical rhetoric. But I do understand that as engrained as you are in that mythology it will not be an easy task. You fail to separate good science from bad science – accepting both good and bad as scientific reality.


Also, once you've accepted that Genesis 1-10 does not have to be literal, then ToE makes absolutely no difference to your spirituality.
I have asked you before but you never answered – let me ask again – Jesus identified Adam as the “first-man” - the one God formed of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life – the one who became a living soul. If we are to take the TE route and spiritualize/mythologize the creation story and Adam was simply the result of 4b years of evolution who was his father? Was his father man, animal or vegetable - was he some “lower” (now extinct) hominid? Was his father a living soul? The Bible places great importance of genealogies – where are Adams parents?


It becomes a non-issue to Christians. The only reason it can "lure people away from Christ" is because so many Christians reject its possiblity in a world created by God.
But the begging question remains - why do many Christians and many scientists (Christian and non-Christian) reject Darwinism? The book of Genesis is certainly not a science textbook and it does not specify the mechanism by which God “formed” man from the elements but why must it be the mechanisms of Darwinism? You do not present any evidence for me to evaluate - nothing to support your notion you call science. I reject Darwinism not because the Bible does not explain the creation mechanism – I reject Darwinism on scientific grounds – there is no compelling verifiable evidence to make me think it is a scientific reality. All you and other Darwinists offer is a philosophy based on circular reasoning. I need more than that – much more. As I have suggested to you already – *extraordinary scientific claims* (Darwinism) require *extraordinary evidence* and you have yet to even supply mediocre evidence. Do you not have anything - give me your best?


It's not the fact that I'm inside some box that bothers you; it's the fact that I'm open.
But it is exactly the box of Darwinism that you have sealed yourself into and that is what I find so sad. Unfortunately, you do not realize Darwinism from its very inception has functioned as a *secular religion* designed to eliminate God. You sit astride two worldviews both based on faith – one based on the faith once delivered to the saints and the other based on the religion of atheistic fundamentalism. Can you have it both ways? I think not. ;)

losthorizon
Aug 4th 2008, 11:20 PM
Lost you seem want to ignore the references and links I posted for explainations of avian lung changes. So I really don't know what else to say except read about the recent work of Patrick O'Connor and Leon Classens. Also about the Majungatholus specimen.


But your references do not explain the “lung-morphing” needed to transform a theropod dinosaur into a canary. Majungatholus was simply a theropod – not a bird.


Very big brush there. I have made my view about my belief in God apparent previously.
It not not your belief in God that I question – it is your belief in Darwinism as science that I question - you fail to distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics).

crawfish
Aug 5th 2008, 12:23 AM
And I will respectfully have to disagree with you, Crawfish. I have had discussions with many of your persuasion and I would have to say that most do not have the scientific knowledge to distinguish the difference between a fossilized pterosaur egg and an Easter egg. I have found few TE’s who I would consider "informed and independent of thought" – most remain inside your box and tow the Darwinian line with a sprinkling of god-talk thrown in to appease their conscience.

Sorry, but that entire line shows how much you misunderstand those who call themselves "TE". You also seem to still equate science with collection. I would challenge that it's YOU that are in the box; you're so biased against evolution and for your particular view that you close yourself off to all other possibilities, searching for data that corroborates your view while ignoring or denying data that disagrees with it.



You are certainly free to accept the ToE but again I recommend you separate the science from the metaphysical rhetoric. But I do understand that as engrained as you are in that mythology it will not be an easy task. You fail to separate good science from bad science – accepting both good and bad as scientific reality.

And I encourage you to understand what true science is. Get out of butterfly collecting mode and accept that science is not concerned with the gathering of facts but the discovering of the nature of the universe.



I have asked you before but you never answered – let me ask again – Jesus identified Adam as the “first-man” - the one God formed of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life – the one who became a living soul. If we are to take the TE route and spiritualize/mythologize the creation story and Adam was simply the result of 4b years of evolution who was his father? Was his father man, animal or vegetable - was he some “lower” (now extinct) hominid? Was his father a living soul? The Bible places great importance of genealogies – where are Adams parents?

Perhaps if you got outside your box you'd figure it out for yourself. :)



But the begging question remains - why do many Christians and many scientists (Christian and non-Christian) reject Darwinism? The book of Genesis is certainly not a science textbook and it does not specify the mechanism by which God “formed” man from the elements but why must it be the mechanisms of Darwinism? You do not present any evidence for me to evaluate - nothing to support your notion you call science. I reject Darwinism not because the Bible does not explain the creation mechanism – I reject Darwinism on scientific grounds – there is no compelling verifiable evidence to make me think it is a scientific reality. All you and other Darwinists offer is a philosophy based on circular reasoning. I need more than that – much more. As I have suggested to you already – *extraordinary scientific claims* (Darwinism) require *extraordinary evidence* and you have yet to even supply mediocre evidence. Do you not have anything - give me your best?

If I can't convince you of the obvious logical fallacy in saying "so-and-so opposes it so it must be untrue", then I'd be wasting my time explaining anything else. You've rejected the evidence I've presented because you don't like it's source. You've closed your mind to certain possibilities. Don't blame me for that.



But it is exactly the box of Darwinism that you have sealed yourself into and that is what I find so sad. Unfortunately, you do not realize Darwinism from its very inception has functioned as a *secular religion* designed to eliminate God. You sit astride two worldviews both based on faith – one based on the faith once delivered to the saints and the other based on the religion of atheistic fundamentalism. Can you have it both ways? I think not. ;)

Honestly, I can either get very annoyed by your bullheadedness or laugh. I'm going to do the latter right now, and just leave the conversation. Before I say something I'll regret.

losthorizon
Aug 5th 2008, 12:39 AM
I would challenge that it's YOU that are in the box; you're so biased against evolution and for your particular view that you close yourself off to all other possibilities, searching for data that corroborates your view while ignoring or denying data that disagrees with it.


But I have already told you on numerous occasions – I accept biological evolution – I do however reject Darwinism for what is…non-science.


Honestly, I can either get very annoyed by your bullheadedness or laugh. I'm going to do the latter right now, and just leave the conversation. Before I say something I'll regret.
There is always that 3rd choice - why don’t you do something original like post some evidence to be evaluated? Defend your position.