PDA

View Full Version : Young Earth/Old Earth - Geocentric/Heliocentric



fishbowlsoul
Dec 11th 2008, 03:45 AM
For those who subscribe to a young earth interpretation of creation.

Do you accept a geocentric model or a heliocentric model? I.e. earth is fixed and unmovable with the sun moon and stars revolving around it or the common accepted model of the earth revolving around the sun etc.?

If you believe in the heliocentric model, what scripture supports this model?

For those who know my posts know that I am a old earth/universe guy.
The reason I pose this question is I don't fully understand the young earth position that accepts anything other than geocentrism since scripture can be found in Joshua, 2 Kings, Psalms, and Isaiah to support that model.

God Bless

crawfish
Dec 11th 2008, 07:01 PM
There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth

Sometimes, God's creation brings light to the God's word, not the other way around. :)

Alaska
Dec 12th 2008, 06:00 AM
Does anyone have any real hard evidence that the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is standing still?
Or is it that they tell us that is how it is without any evidence?



Sometimes, God's creation brings light to the God's word, not the other way around.


Does this mean that every once in a while we need to tell God what he must have meant?

crawfish
Dec 12th 2008, 06:06 PM
Does this mean that every once in a while we need to tell God what he must have meant?

No, we do that most of the time. It's only some of the time that we let Him speak to us. :D

...and I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post. ;)

teddyv
Dec 13th 2008, 04:03 AM
Does anyone have any real hard evidence that the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is standing still?
Or is it that they tell us that is how it is without any evidence?

The fact that we have successfully sent probes to other planets is pretty much confirmation that the current model of the solar system is correct.

ServantofTruth
Dec 13th 2008, 08:31 AM
I just wanted to say i don't like the huge arguements over Genesis and creation. However i appreciate Christians who are science educated bringing light to bare on this area, to assist the rest of us. Thank you, i shall continue to read and listen. SofTy.

mccain22
Dec 14th 2008, 04:59 AM
Does anyone have any real hard evidence that the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is standing still?
Or is it that they tell us that is how it is without any evidence?



Does this mean that every once in a while we need to tell God what he must have meant?

I'm a physics major so this is stuff i like to talk about. Technically they move around each other in accordance with Newtons 3rd law and barycenter motion, but the Earth does move around the sun in a much much quicker rate. But to answer your question, the evidence that I can think of just now off the top of my head is gravity and the equations of Newton who was himself a Bible believing Christian, and also those of Einstein. The more mass an object has the more gravity it has (that means everything including me and you). So the earth haivng less mass would revolve around the sun which has greater mass. Theres no doubt the earth revolves around the sun.

fishbowlsoul,
Why do you not think someone can be a young earth and believe the solar system is heliocentric(As i am)? I don't really see what these two things have to do with each other.

GitRDunn
Dec 14th 2008, 05:05 AM
I just wanted to say i don't like the huge arguements over Genesis and creation. However i appreciate Christians who are science educated bringing light to bare on this area, to assist the rest of us. Thank you, i shall continue to read and listen. SofTy.
Any particular reason you don't like this debate?

fishbowlsoul
Dec 15th 2008, 02:49 AM
I'm a physics major so this is stuff i like to talk about. Technically they move around each other in accordance with Newtons 3rd law and barycenter motion, but the Earth does move around the sun in a much much quicker rate. But to answer your question, the evidence that I can think of just now off the top of my head is gravity and the equations of Newton who was himself a Bible believing Christian, and also those of Einstein. The more mass an object has the more gravity it has (that means everything including me and you). So the earth haivng less mass would revolve around the sun which has greater mass. Theres no doubt the earth revolves around the sun.

fishbowlsoul,
Why do you not think someone can be a young earth and believe the solar system is heliocentric(As i am)? I don't really see what these two things have to do with each other.

It just that I don't understand how a young earth and heliocentric view is consistent if you base your understanding of science on a literal interpretation of biblical scripture. In your response you appeal to science to support heliocentrism even though there is scripture that conflicts with that view. There is no scripture I can find that says the earth and moon and stars revolve around the sun. In other words you trust the science on heliocentrism but not on age of the earth/universe despite all the different scientic dating methods (radiometric, radiocarbon, ice cores, lake varves, red shifting, etc.). Plus there is no scripture that states that the earth/universe is only ~6000 years old.

From the many times I have read this message board, I can only remember one poster who was a young earth/geocentric. Even I disagreed with the poster I thought that view was more consistent given their literal interpretation of the Bible/cosmology.

I know this topic is the dead mule of this message board and I don't mean to add more kicking but I don't see how a young earth view and a heliocentric view are congruent based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

God bless

mccain22
Dec 15th 2008, 03:17 AM
It just that I don't understand how a young earth and heliocentric view is consistent if you base your understanding of science on a literal interpretation of biblical scripture. In your response you appeal to science to support heliocentrism even though there is scripture that conflicts with that view. There is no scripture I can find that says the earth and moon and stars revolve around the sun. In other words you trust the science on heliocentrism but not on age of the earth/universe despite all the different scientic dating methods (radiometric, radiocarbon, ice cores, lake varves, red shifting, etc.). Plus there is no scripture that states that the earth/universe is only ~6000 years old.



God bless

Well, the stars don't revolve around the sun, but.... I believe the science because it is a science without assumptions(which is actually what science is). It is one that is mathmatically testable, and experimentally testable.

Radiometric/carbon dating has built in assumptions and even then it only gives out the desired results(to fit evolution theory) part of the time so it's not reliable. Ice cores(if this is what i think your talking about, when there are alternating colors in artic ice and occur anually), from my research on it this is once again not valid because its common to get many of these rings each year. I haven't done any research on lake varves so i may just ask for a rain check, as for red shift which is cause by the doplar effect, this would be predicted by the Bible because according to the Bible the universe is expanding because God stretched the heavens(Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 51:15, Psalm 104:2).

As for the passages, I've only read one verse that appears to support the geocentric model and its in the psalms i believe. The psalmist writes "the sun runs its circuit" or something like that, and i don't have a problem with this because he is writing from his own view here on earth, which does make it appear that the sun is running a circuit. Remember, Christians invented heliocentrism.:spin:

GitRDunn
Dec 15th 2008, 03:41 AM
Well, the stars don't revolve around the sun, but.... I believe the science because it is a science without assumptions(which is actually what science is). It is one that is mathmatically testable, and experimentally testable.

Radiometric/carbon dating has built in assumptions and even then it only gives out the desired results(to fit evolution theory) part of the time so it's not reliable. Ice cores(if this is what i think your talking about, when there are alternating colors in artic ice and occur anually), from my research on it this is once again not valid because its common to get many of these rings each year. I haven't done any research on lake varves so i may just ask for a rain check, as for red shift which is cause by the doplar effect, this would be predicted by the Bible because according to the Bible the universe is expanding because God stretched the heavens(Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 51:15, Psalm 104:2).

Couldn't "God stretching the Heavens" be proof of an Old Universe and thus an old Earth? Most people who believe in a young Earth also believe in a young Universe and they either argue that God created everything and the science is just flawed or that God created everything with age and thus the science isn't flawed, but we still have a young Earth and young Universe. However, if either of these were true, then how did God "stretch the Heavens"? You could say that he is stretching them now, but it says he stretched them, in which case I would think that means from the start and if that were the case, everything would've started in one point. This corresponds perfectly with the Big Bang and if the Big Bang is true then an Old Universe is true. If an Old Universe is true, then an Old Earth would likely be true too.

mccain22
Dec 15th 2008, 03:58 AM
I would agree gittrdunn, on some points. Scientists discovered the universe was expanding, and suggested that this means everything was together at one point. And over much time they became stars and what not. So therefore since the stars are extremely far away and we are just now getting the light from them then the universe must be extremely old.

But, i would disagree that everything was together at one point and that God created these things, much closer, but then stretched them out(therefore we see can still see their light even though they are now extremely far away), and since then, they have been moving away because space is a vacuum and has no friction to stop them from moving. They would not stop moving because of the newtonian law, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force(such as friction or gravity).

As for the Big bang, the physics of it do not work. Even Einstein said "The math is perfect, but the physics is attrocious(sp)" Physicists are still working on this today, and many in fact don't believe in the big bang as we read it in the text books, but buy into the theory that what created the universe was two "membranes"(parallel universes) colliding together repeatedly. This accounts for all the energy it would take to create a bang, but this has been a dying theory since its conception. If that kind of stuff interests you i recommend picking up some books by Brian Greene, or Michio Kaku. Two great scientists, and writers.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 15th 2008, 04:40 AM
Well, the stars don't revolve around the sun, but.... I believe the science because it is a science without assumptions(which is actually what science is). It is one that is mathmatically testable, and experimentally testable.[QUOTE]

Mmm. Science has assumptions in it. That's what hypotheses are.
In fact most science starts out as assumptions. What is mathematically or experimentally untestable about old earth/universe?

[QUOTE]
Radiometric/carbon dating has built in assumptions and even then it only gives out the desired results(to fit evolution theory) part of the time so it's not reliable. Ice cores(if this is what i think your talking about, when there are alternating colors in artic ice and occur anually), from my research on it this is once again not valid because its common to get many of these rings each year. I haven't done any research on lake varves so i may just ask for a rain check, as for red shift which is cause by the doplar effect, this would be predicted by the Bible because according to the Bible the universe is expanding because God stretched the heavens(Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 51:15, Psalm 104:2). [QUOTE]

Besides a few anolamous examples culled from AIG, what is systemically unreliable about radiometric/carbon dating? There are over forty different radiometric dating methods depending on the type of rock being dated and each support a old earth view. There have been over a thousand rock samples from earth and the moon that have been dated which support a old earth view.

Ice cores are dated by several ways. Counting layers by the seasonal thickness. Measuring the annual temperature signal (heavier hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in summer vs. winter). Measuring dust deposited in summer. Measuring nitric acid deposted in spring. The oldest ice core goes back 760000 years (EPICA core in Greenland)

Yes those verses you mention reference an expanding universe but I am not sure how that point disproves old earth/universe.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html This is a good article by Roger Wiens, a Chrisitan physicist at Los Alamos. He explains dating methods a lot better than I can.

[QUOTE]
As for the passages, I've only read one verse that appears to support the geocentric model and its in the psalms i believe. The psalmist writes "the sun runs its circuit" or something like that, and i don't have a problem with this because he is writing from his own view here on earth, which does make it appear that the sun is running a circuit. Remember, Christians invented heliocentrism.:spin:

Why can't the same be said for the writer of Genesis 1? How is a person in ~1200 BC going to understand singularites, red shifting, galaxies, gravity, physics, etc.?

Here are some other verses that geocentrists use.
Joshua 10:12-13
II Kings 20:10-11
Isaiah 38:8
Psalms 104:5
I Chronicles 16:30
Psalms 119:90

mccain22
Dec 15th 2008, 03:50 PM
A hypotheses is not an assumption. A hypotheses is a guess based on a fact, and it is testable. As for radiometric dating, in all methods i've looked at of radiometric dating they often get two different answer for the same subject. James Dawson, for example who tested the moon rocks, got answers from 2.5 billion to 4.6 billion on the same rock. The verses do not disprove an old universe. I'm not trying to disprove an old universe cause i have no problem with it. Just showing that a young universe is possible. I'm not sure i understand your question about the writer of Genesis 1 and what exactly your asking in relation to the quote. I'll look up those verses and tell you what i think also.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 17th 2008, 05:00 AM
A hypotheses is not an assumption. A hypotheses is a guess based on a fact, and it is testable. As for radiometric dating, in all methods i've looked at of radiometric dating they often get two different answer for the same subject. James Dawson, for example who tested the moon rocks, got answers from 2.5 billion to 4.6 billion on the same rock. The verses do not disprove an old universe. I'm not trying to disprove an old universe cause i have no problem with it. Just showing that a young universe is possible. I'm not sure i understand your question about the writer of Genesis 1 and what exactly your asking in relation to the quote. I'll look up those verses and tell you what i think also.

In all thesauri I have read hypothesis and assumption are synonyms of one another. If assumption is not a guess based on facts then what is its definition. 2.5 billion years is a long way from 6000 years. Plus using dating methods is very particular. The right method has to be used depending on the type of rock or fossil.

God bless

Athanasius
Dec 17th 2008, 06:11 AM
I wonder if hypothesis test assumptions...

GitRDunn
Dec 17th 2008, 02:32 PM
I wonder if hypothesis test assumptions...
Well, considering hypotheses don't test anything then probably not. Experiments are what test things, and an experiment will test a hypothesis (could also be called an assumption).

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 07:18 PM
In all thesauri I have read hypothesis and assumption are synonyms of one another. If assumption is not a guess based on facts then what is its definition. 2.5 billion years is a long way from 6000 years. Plus using dating methods is very particular. The right method has to be used depending on the type of rock or fossil.

HI there,

Jumping in here, young earth believer currently. Just reading here and thinking of assumptions. Most constants in physics are assumed even though they are called constants. Accepted "facts" are relative to discovery and subject to change. I used to do all this math in college.

My example I wanted to point out that if the speed of light is not constant, *as it is assumed by many, and denied by many*, you can throw all the dating methods out the window. Let alone the other "constants" and what accuracy level you do the statistical analysis at. We used to prove the same lake was contaminated or not contaminated by changing a couple of predetermined variables. I love the laws of physics, only a few of them really, theoretical physics and advanced statistics are a bunch of who-haw you can say whatever you want with most of the time I think.

Not much related to the stars revolving around the sun... just some thoughts.

Peace,
Joe

teddyv
Dec 17th 2008, 07:50 PM
HI there,

Jumping in here, young earth believer currently. Just reading here and thinking of assumptions. Most constants in physics are assumed even though they are called constants. Accepted "facts" are relative to discovery and subject to change. I used to do all this math in college.

My example I wanted to point out that if the speed of light is not constant, *as it is assumed by many, and denied by many*, you can throw all the dating methods out the window. Let alone the other "constants" and what accuracy level you do the statistical analysis at. We used to prove the same lake was contaminated or not contaminated by changing a couple of predetermined variables. I love the laws of physics, only a few of them really, theoretical physics and advanced statistics are a bunch of who-haw you can say whatever you want with most of the time I think.

Not much related to the starts revolving around the sun... just some thoughts.

Peace,
Joe
Why would a non-constant speed of light have an effect on radioactive decay rates?

Romber
Dec 17th 2008, 08:19 PM
May I ask Why do you believe in an old earth? And where do you attribute the millions of years?

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 09:21 PM
Why would a non-constant speed of light have an effect on radioactive decay rates?
Hi,

Exponential Decay Formula: A = A0* 2^(-t/k)

the "t" is time. Based on observable evidence in labs since they started physically observing the decay of isotopes. If the speed of light was faster, and everything "vibrated" faster. Throwing off neutrons faster. It is not a constant method.

That's the short answer, not much for proof I know... but the same goes for the other side as I see it. Too many assumptions.

Peace,
Joe

mikebr
Dec 17th 2008, 11:04 PM
For those who subscribe to a young earth interpretation of creation.

Do you accept a geocentric model or a heliocentric model? I.e. earth is fixed and unmovable with the sun moon and stars revolving around it or the common accepted model of the earth revolving around the sun etc.?

If you believe in the heliocentric model, what scripture supports this model?

For those who know my posts know that I am a old earth/universe guy.
The reason I pose this question is I don't fully understand the young earth position that accepts anything other than geocentrism since scripture can be found in Joshua, 2 Kings, Psalms, and Isaiah to support that model.

God Bless

I don't see why you think that a person with a young earth understanding would have to have a geocentric position.

By the way I used to be passionate about this whole debate now I don't give a flip. God was doing something for the trillions of years before he created men.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 18th 2008, 01:22 AM
May I ask Why do you believe in an old earth? And where do you attribute the millions of years?

Well I do not find any scripture in the Bible that states explicity that the earth is ~6000 years old. The science that has been done since Copernicus continually points to the earth/universe being billions of years old. All the different dating methods consistently date the earth to be being much older than 6000 years old.
40+ radiometric dating methods
radiocarbon dating
ice cores
lake varves
dendrochronology


Hi,

Exponential Decay Formula: A = A0* 2^(-t/k)

the "t" is time. Based on observable evidence in labs since they started physically observing the decay of isotopes. If the speed of light was faster, and everything "vibrated" faster. Throwing off neutrons faster. It is not a constant method.

That's the short answer, not much for proof I know... but the same goes for the other side as I see it. Too many assumptions.

Peace,
Joe

How do explain observations of quasars over 13 billion light years away? How are those observations not proof? Changing the speed of light in a formula to support an IF statement is easy but without observation or predictability to back it up then you have nothing.


I don't see why you think that a person with a young earth understanding would have to have a geocentric position.

By the way I used to be passionate about this whole debate now I don't give a flip. God was doing something for the trillions of years before he created men.

If you say "I am going to use the Bible as a science textbook and I interpret scipture as saying the earth/universe is only ~6000 years old.", then how you do account for the scriptures that support a geocentric model. Especially since there is no scripture to support a heliocentric model. None that I can find at least. Why believe in one and not the other?

Thanks
God Bless

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 02:20 AM
How do explain observations of quasars over 13 billion light years away? How long/fast is a light year 5998 years ago if the speed of light is not constant but logarithmically slowing?
How are those observations not proof?'They are still based on assumption.
Changing the speed of light in a formula to support an IF statement is easy but without observation or predictability to back it up then you have nothing. I never claimed I had anything. Though you could investigate how there are observations that show the speed of light is slowing. Google it for fun maybe. Making the speed of light a constant with only a few years of observation (maybe 60 years? less?) gives you nothing but assumption either as I see it. That was my point. Not trying to be confrontational here... just sharing my thoughts eh. :)

Peace,
Joe

fishbowlsoul
Dec 18th 2008, 03:46 AM
How long/fast is a light year 5998 years ago if the speed of light is not constant but logarithmically slowing?[QUOTE]

No problem man. No confrontation here either. I am just not sure where your support is that the speed of light is logarithmically slowing?

[QUOTE]They are still based on assumption.

So the quasars are not really there? The observation is an assumption?



I never claimed I had anything. Though you could investigate how there are observations that show the speed of light is slowing. Google it for fun maybe. Making the speed of light a constant with only a few years of observation (maybe 60 years? less?) gives you nothing but assumption either as I see it. That was my point. Not trying to be confrontational here... just sharing my thoughts eh. :)

Peace,
Joe


I have read some proposals that the speed of light is slowing down or is not relatively constant. I read some of Barry Setterfield's work on c decay. I did not see anything in Setterfield's work that was supportable nor in any other work. Especially his assertion that the speed of light was slowing down until 1960 then all of sudden it started to remain constant since then. Measuring the speed of light started in 1676 by Ole Christensen Romer by studying the motion of Io around Jupiter. Several scientists kept improving the measurement until the culmination of James Maxwell's work in electromagnetic field theory in 1865 established what exactly what the speed of light is in a vacuum.

GitRDunn
Dec 18th 2008, 03:48 AM
How long/fast is a light year 5998 years ago if the speed of light is not constant but logarithmically slowing?They are still based on assumption. I never claimed I had anything. Though you could investigate how there are observations that show the speed of light is slowing. Google it for fun maybe. Making the speed of light a constant with only a few years of observation (maybe 60 years? less?) gives you nothing but assumption either as I see it. That was my point. Not trying to be confrontational here... just sharing my thoughts eh. :)

Peace,
Joe
The "slowing" of the speed of light is still rather debatable and has a lot of evidence against it. I personally don't think there is nearly enough evidence to say that the speed of light isn't constant and there are a lot of assumptions on the part of saying it isn't constant as well.

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 04:36 AM
No problem man. No confrontation here either. I am just not sure where your support is that the speed of light is logarithmically slowing?Not much support, some physicists through my college professor. Hard to get published when you are going against the grain. For sure an unproven theory, just like the theory of relativity, even though they just call it relativity these days. That was my point more than trying to prove it true.
So the quasars are not really there? The observation is an assumption?I am thinking you mean the nature of a quasar having a history rather than how far away the quasar is? Could have been a misunderstanding on my point. Right now my conviction is the “created with a history” stance. Sounds like a cop out to many I know *shrug* but I am enjoying the thinking in this thread. Always open too.

To me the glaciations of the earth and the chatter marks on the exposed igneous rock are a far better arguments for age then concentrating on theoretical physics. Unless you have a government grant and get paid to theorize ;) Geology was my diploma.
I have read some proposals that the speed of light is slowing down or is not relatively constant. I read some of Barry Setterfield's work on c decay. I did not see anything in Setterfield's work that was supportable nor in any other work. Especially his assertion that the speed of light was slowing down until 1960 then all of sudden it started to remain constant since then. Measuring the speed of light started in 1676 by Ole Christensen Romer by studying the motion of Io around Jupiter. Several scientists kept improving the measurement until the culmination of James Maxwell's work in electromagnetic field theory in 1865 established what exactly what the speed of light is in a vacuum. Thanks for the correction. I should be kicking myself for forgetting when Michael Faraday lived… Electromagnetism was my thing. Finding out he was a Christian and learning of his testimony was one of the things that got me looking into the bible. But I digress, again this was part of my point, based on assumption, constant or not, we don’t really know.

Though I muse on what it would mean if it is slowing. Makes room for billions of our years to fit into 6000 revolutions around the sun. Think of how much could have happened that first day if it is logarithmically slowing. Again, just musing.

Nice to use the science side of my brain again, been a while ;)

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 04:47 AM
The "slowing" of the speed of light is still rather debatable and has a lot of evidence against it. I personally don't think there is nearly enough evidence to say that the speed of light isn't constant and there are a lot of assumptions on the part of saying it isn't constant as well.

That was my point, if the theory of relativity is just that, why keep building on a shaky foundation kind of thing. The number of theories that stand on other theories so they can theorize something else I think is nuts. That's me. I think it should be for fun and not something taught as true or used to prove or disprove something.

The mass of the earth is used in some equations... if that is not kind of crazy to think you can pin down what else are they assuming these days. Really I was not trying to prove some theory of mine, just making that point about assumptions.

Peace,
Joe

Romber
Dec 18th 2008, 11:54 AM
Well I do not find any scripture in the Bible that states explicity that the earth is ~6000 years old. The science that has been done since Copernicus continually points to the earth/universe being billions of years old. All the different dating methods consistently date the earth to be being much older than 6000 years old.
40+ radiometric dating methods
radiocarbon dating
ice cores
lake varves
dendrochronology

Ok, another question. If you don't have any scripture to believe that Earth is old, what makes you want to believe it is old. I know you listed the dating methods and such, but that is only evidence for your reasoning. Why do you specifically think that the Earth is that old? For what purpose?

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 01:47 PM
I was thinking about why I probably am seeming so contradictory here. I said I was a young earth guy. That comes with a specific box in a way I guess. I should have said I currently believe the earth is young with evidence of a history who for fun ponders about a “grand unified law” that would explain some of the assumed, smaller “time discrepancies”. Who thinks theories should be fun and not taught as truth or proof. Exampled by the teaching of the "scientific community" at one time that the sun revolved around the earth.

Joe :crazy:

crawfish
Dec 18th 2008, 06:30 PM
Ok, another question. If you don't have any scripture to believe that Earth is old, what makes you want to believe it is old. I know you listed the dating methods and such, but that is only evidence for your reasoning. Why do you specifically think that the Earth is that old? For what purpose?

Scripture provides no inclination that human flight or space travel is possible; so what makes us want to believe they are?

The quest for knowledge of God's creation is enough reason, I think. Exploring the nature of what He created opens the doors to discovering more of His work, and the practical implications thereof.

Romber
Dec 18th 2008, 08:04 PM
So the belief in Old Earth is purely for knowledge?

crawfish
Dec 18th 2008, 09:41 PM
So the belief in Old Earth is purely for knowledge?

No, but the acceptance of evidence that indicates an old earth is.

if God created the universe and earth "in process", as if it was old, then the appearance of that age would indicate that the same laws of nature we have today were in effect then. Since there is utility in studying such things, it can only help us to let that evidence lead our conclusions.

Romber
Dec 19th 2008, 01:37 AM
But I don't understand. If you accept it just because of the evidence, then isn't that purely for knowledge? Like there is no other reason to believe the Earth is old except for that's what the evidence says?

fishbowlsoul
Dec 19th 2008, 01:50 AM
Not much support, some physicists through my college professor. Hard to get published when you are going against the grain. For sure an unproven theory, just like the theory of relativity, even though they just call it relativity these days. That was my point more than trying to prove it true.

There is no such thing as a proven theory in science. Once a theory is proven it becomes a law. A theory is a concept supported by facts (i.e. physical evidence, observation, predictability, etc). What I have read on the hypothesis that the speed of light is slowing down or has slowed down is to me speculation to support a conclusion. No evidence. No observation. No predictability. No facts.

[quote]I am thinking you mean the nature of a quasar having a history rather than how far away the quasar is? Could have been a misunderstanding on my point. Right now my conviction is the “created with a history” stance. Sounds like a cop out to many I know *shrug* but I am enjoying the thinking in this thread. Always open too.

If you believe "creation with age/history" then more power to ya. If you honestly look at the science and still come away with that conclusion then I have no issue with that. I don't understand your conclusion but sobeit.



Thanks for the correction. I should be kicking myself for forgetting when Michael Faraday lived… Electromagnetism was my thing. Finding out he was a Christian and learning of his testimony was one of the things that got me looking into the bible. But I digress, again this was part of my point, based on assumption, constant or not, we don’t really know.

Though I muse on what it would mean if it is slowing. Makes room for billions of our years to fit into 6000 revolutions around the sun. Think of how much could have happened that first day if it is logarithmically slowing. Again, just musing.


Musing about the speed of light not being constant makes a good hypothesis but not a good theory. BTW James Maxwell was also a very devout Christian.

God bless

fishbowlsoul
Dec 19th 2008, 02:04 AM
But I don't understand. If you accept it just because of the evidence, then isn't that purely for knowledge? Like there is no other reason to believe the Earth is old except for that's what the evidence says?

But the evidence is all we have. The Bible does not explicity speak to how old the earth/universe is. What other reason or evidence is there to believe otherwise?

The purpose is discovery. Knowledge is the end result. The instinct to discover how things work, how things came to be, how will things change, etc is something that God put in us. If all we do is say God makes it work, God causes it to be, God makes things change then we are just mindless robots which means we are not in His image.

God bless

Romber
Dec 19th 2008, 12:16 PM
But the evidence is all we have. The Bible does not explicity speak to how old the earth/universe is. What other reason or evidence is there to believe otherwise?

Ok, that was all I was wondering. I don't necessarily agree with you (in terms of the age of earth), but I agree with what the bible explicitly says and such.


If all we do is say God makes it work, God causes it to be, God makes things change then we are just mindless robots which means we are not in His image.

Very good point. Christians as a whole have been ignorant for to long. They are to quick to just say God did it (God did do it, but we can explain it through science how God did it and not just "He did just cuz"). Science is reaching a level where many of God's laws are testable and Christians need to start proving the Bible through science-it is quite possible.

Walstib
Dec 19th 2008, 02:46 PM
There is no such thing as a proven theory in science. Once a theory is proven it becomes a law. A theory is a concept supported by facts (i.e. physical evidence, observation, predictability, etc). What I have read on the hypothesis that the speed of light is slowing down or has slowed down is to me speculation to support a conclusion. No evidence. No observation. No predictability. No facts. Yes, yes, thanks for clarifying my words for everyone. Forgive my not taking the time to qualify everything properly. What I have read on the speed of light being constant is speculation to support a conclusion, little evidence, short time of observation, no guarantee of predictability. I mean if gravity can bend it and black holes can hold it…. and we still can’t even say if it is a wave or a particle, or a wavicle? We don’t really need to get into that. Facts were used to show the sun revolved around the earth.
Still my point was that using theory to prove something is shaky ground. Agree?
If you believe "creation with age/history" then more power to ya. If you honestly look at the science and still come away with that conclusion then I have no issue with that. I don't understand your conclusion but sobeit. I think of geologic Uniformitarianism. The concept is solid and I have a hard time arguing against a history. And what I would say is the irreducible complexity in everything shows the creation. I put the two together and I get a in process creation. Not that you need to understand from that. ;) Do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?


Musing about the speed of light not being constant makes a good hypothesis but not a good theory. BTW James Maxwell was also a very devout Christian. I understand, and thanks for the recommended reading. :)

Peace,
Joe

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 20th 2008, 12:07 AM
Doesn't creation with age mean that God is deceptive? Why time stamp a creation with a false date in just the way our brains could perceive? I'm pretty sure God was able to connect the dots about how all this would look to us.

As to a changing speed of light, the evidence for is minimal and, at best, indicates a very very slight change nowhere near the degree needed to throw off dating methods to the extent young earth models require. Additionally, I'm fairly certain there are a few other constants that might get screwed up if you start tampering with the speed of light that might be noticable - interestingly enough we see none. God didn't give us eyes just to dismiss what we see.

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 12:48 AM
Doesn't creation with age mean that God is deceptive? Why time stamp a creation with a false date in just the way our brains could perceive? I'm pretty sure God was able to connect the dots about how all this would look to us.

I guess you could say Jesus turning water into wine was deceptive. Creating something with a history. I don't think it was. How would it look? Miraculous, I think that's the point.

As for the light thing, I think I explained the point I was making above already. Not trying to prove anything.

Peace,
Joe

fishbowlsoul
Dec 20th 2008, 03:36 AM
Yes, yes, thanks for clarifying my words for everyone. Forgive my not taking the time to qualify everything properly. What I have read on the speed of light being constant is speculation to support a conclusion, little evidence, short time of observation, no guarantee of predictability. I mean if gravity can bend it and black holes can hold it…. and we still can’t even say if it is a wave or a particle, or a wavicle? We don’t really need to get into that. Facts were used to show the sun revolved around the earth.
Still my point was that using theory to prove something is shaky ground. Agree?I think of geologic Uniformitarianism. The concept is solid and I have a hard time arguing against a history. And what I would say is the irreducible complexity in everything shows the creation. I put the two together and I get a in process creation. Not that you need to understand from that. ;) Do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?

I understand, and thanks for the recommended reading. :)

Peace,
Joe

The scientific definition of light is that it is electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths.

Using one theory to support another theory is suspect. However the facts that support one theory can be used to support another. The speed of light is not a theory and is very much established in science. And so is the age of the earth and to a lesser extent the universe. These facts are used to support the Big Bang theory, inflationary theory, etc.

Yes I believe Jesus turned water into wine.

God bless

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 20th 2008, 05:21 AM
I guess you could say Jesus turning water into wine was deceptive. Creating something with a history. I don't think it was. How would it look? Miraculous, I think that's the point.


The comparison would only be applicable if we managed to find the actual remains of the jars of water turned to wine, were somehow able to confirm that these were the exact jars in question, and found no traces of wine. . .only water.

And yes, creating something with a history is deceptive. It would be like me building a house and telling you that I built it in two days then showing you a time stamped home video of me taking two months to finish it. Would you consider me honest after this?

That history isn't just an image, it tells a story either of geological or astronomical events that didn't actually take place if a "created with a history" view is taken.

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 02:54 PM
The scientific definition of light is that it is electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths.Yet a particle is not a wave. "Our" current definition does not yet include all the characteristics we observe. I think that is fair to say. Einstein hoped toward a "grand unified law" no one has described as of yet, I think.
Using one theory to support another theory is suspect. However the facts that support one theory can be used to support another. The speed of light is not a theory and is very much established in science. And so is the age of the earth and to a lesser extent the universe. These facts are used to support the Big Bang theory, inflationary theory, etc.That light has a speed is established I would say. And this can be used to look into lots of things. Fully agree. Lots of cool stuff there. I just am very careful not having all the facts to teach something as full and complete truth. This goes for bible doctrine as well as science. We can take a few verses and create a false teaching that does not have the full truth. I see a parallel. Really I've been blessed through this conversation seeing that parallel.
Yes I believe Jesus turned water into wine.

That is why I have no problem with something being created with a history.

Thanks eh,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 03:12 PM
The comparison would only be applicable if we managed to find the actual remains of the jars of water turned to wine, were somehow able to confirm that these were the exact jars in question, and found no traces of wine. . .only water. The history of the wine that came into being is the point, not the jars or the water. What my intention is in the comparison anyway.
And yes, creating something with a history is deceptive. It would be like me building a house and telling you that I built it in two days then showing you a time stamped home video of me taking two months to finish it. Would you consider me honest after this? Now if Jesus created a house for me when I blinked, I guess I don't consider that as dishonest.
That history isn't just an image, it tells a story either of geological or astronomical events that didn't actually take place if a "created with a history" view is taken. Did the grapes not need to grow on the vine and be havested and fermented......the wine has a story. I feel as I have sidetracked this thread. Would it be ok if we left it here? Make any points you want and I will leave in peace?

Joe

fishbowlsoul
Dec 20th 2008, 03:47 PM
I feel as I have sidetracked this thread. Would it be ok if we left it here? Make any points you want and I will leave in peace?

Don't go Joe. You have brought up some good points even if they are somewhat crazy. ;)


That light has a speed is established I would say. And this can be used to look into lots of things. Fully agree. Lots of cool stuff there. I just am very careful not having all the facts to teach something as full and complete truth. This goes for bible doctrine as well as science. We can take a few verses and create a false teaching that does not have the full truth. I see a parallel. Really I've been blessed through this conversation seeing that parallel.


Finding full and complete truth in science is going to be difficult. Each time a question is answered in science it usually produces more questions.

I agree cherry pickin scripture from the Bible can lead to deception. That is why it is important to read the Bible as a whole complete work rather than in parts. And to read it as the purpose it was intended. Not as a science textbook but as a book showing God's plan for redemption.

God bless

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 11:20 PM
Finding full and complete truth in science is going to be difficult. Each time a question is answered in science it usually produces more questions. Finding full and complete truth in scripture is going to be impossible. Each time a question is answered in scripture it usually produces more questions.
I agree cherry pickin scripture from the Bible can lead to deception. That is why it is important to read the Bible as a whole complete work rather than in parts. And to read it as the purpose it was intended. I agree cherry pickin evidence about the creation can lead to deception. That is why it is important to look at the creation as a whole complete work rather than in parts. And to see it for the purpose it was intended.

I hope you can see the humour in the way I did that.:P
Not as a science textbook but as a book showing God's plan for redemption.

Sure I’ll stick around, here is what I got thinking about today considering this thread. I trust what the bible says is accurate. Testimony of honest men telling the truth. We don’t need the bible to have a personal relationship with Jesus, granted, but the bible can tell us a lot about that personal relationship and history as well.

The history, well if I believe Jesus would not deceive me, and he was talking with Abraham and talking of him like a real dude, and saying the OT scriptures spoke of him. I’m going to say I can trust Abraham was a real man in history, because Jesus said so. Grandson of Noah even, Jesus talks of him and the flood. Mat 24:38. Can we trust that Matthew heard Jesus say this and was telling the truth. There is history right there in the evidence if we believe it or not. We got a book all the evidence says a dude named Matthew wrote, about what Jesus Himself said. And Jesus agreeing that the books of Moses were written by the Moses himself in another man’s book. John 5:46.

So I think I can trust the bible is accurate history on Jesus’ authority. As long as we trust the bible records what he said. His plan of redemption, I think, so intricate that not only does it manifest in or spiritual lives but also is preserved in His Word to us. Living and written.

So I do see the Bible as a part science/history textbook in a way. What a great honour and privilege we have with many translations at our fingertips and we can read and investigate what Father/Jesus/Holy Spirit says happened. And use that as our lens to understand the creation. And in turn see in the creation the need for God the creator. As through time we have come to understand more workings of the creation *science*, through time the physical part of the redemptive plan has been recorded.

So while I agree with you, I think there is more to the bible than just the Way, also the why. And men like Faraday and Maxwell gave the Glory to the sovereign God for blessing them with understanding, rather than thinking they discovered something. As the bible records God grants understanding. Both in science

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship. (Exo 31:1-5 NKJV)

And in spiritual understanding.

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. (Luk 24:44-48 NKJV)

But that’s just what I was thinking about… What would you like to talk about? :)

Peace,
Joe

fishbowlsoul
Dec 21st 2008, 04:30 AM
[quote]Finding full and complete truth in scripture is going to be impossible. Each time a question is answered in scripture it usually produces more questions.

Agree and disagree. There are passages in the Bible that are not easily understood. Especially some of the books of Prophecy. But I think
the complete truth of God's redemption plan through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus is something that is easily comprehended which I believe you would agree.



I agree cherry pickin evidence about the creation can lead to deception. That is why it is important to look at the creation as a whole complete work rather than in parts. And to see it for the purpose it was intended.

I hope you can see the humour in the way I did that.:P


Ha ha you so clever.:cool: That is true about most everything. Especially with statistics.



Sure I’ll stick around, here is what I got thinking about today considering this thread. I trust what the bible says is accurate. Testimony of honest men telling the truth. We don’t need the bible to have a personal relationship with Jesus, granted, but the bible can tell us a lot about that personal relationship and history as well.

The history, well if I believe Jesus would not deceive me, and he was talking with Abraham and talking of him like a real dude, and saying the OT scriptures spoke of him. I’m going to say I can trust Abraham was a real man in history, because Jesus said so. Grandson of Noah even, Jesus talks of him and the flood. Mat 24:38. Can we trust that Matthew heard Jesus say this and was telling the truth. There is history right there in the evidence if we believe it or not. We got a book all the evidence says a dude named Matthew wrote, about what Jesus Himself said. And Jesus agreeing that the books of Moses were written by the Moses himself in another man’s book. John 5:46.

So I think I can trust the bible is accurate history on Jesus’ authority. As long as we trust the bible records what he said. His plan of redemption, I think, so intricate that not only does it manifest in or spiritual lives but also is preserved in His Word to us. Living and written.

So I do see the Bible as a part science/history textbook in a way. What a great honour and privilege we have with many translations at our fingertips and we can read and investigate what Father/Jesus/Holy Spirit says happened. And use that as our lens to understand the creation. And in turn see in the creation the need for God the creator. As through time we have come to understand more workings of the creation *science*, through time the physical part of the redemptive plan has been recorded.

So while I agree with you, I think there is more to the bible than just the Way, also the why. And men like Faraday and Maxwell gave the Glory to the sovereign God for blessing them with understanding, rather than thinking they discovered something. As the bible records God grants understanding. Both in science

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship. (Exo 31:1-5 NKJV)

And in spiritual understanding.

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. (Luk 24:44-48 NKJV)

But that’s just what I was thinking about… What would you like to talk about? :)

Peace,
Joe


You bring up some good points here but not sure how these verses would support a young earth hypothesis.

Walstib
Dec 21st 2008, 12:38 PM
You bring up some good points here but not sure how these verses would support a young earth hypothesis.
Hi,

They don't. Thought they are part of the "if then therefore" way my brain works. I'll go through a couple examples that kept me awake this morning.

I believe the bible speaks of the end of time as we know it with a new heaven and a new earth coming. Looking how "all this" ends, part of the whole of this creation, may show us of the beginning as well.

The end is said to come with the elements themselves melting away into nothing. (2 pet 3:10-12) To conclude this would be a perverbial big crunch a few billion years from now does not fit the context I think. Nor does needing a few billion years to big bang a new earth I think. So If God can destroy the earth in a few trumpets time, He can form the earth is a few days time. We use the same evidence to make conclusions about the future of the creation, hence the "theory" of the big crunch. What is so different about the past? If we trust the day of the Lord is coming all this will end, why not trust a week in the past all this started?

Or going to what I was writing about in the last post. If we trust the bible holds the words of Jesus, and Jesus is God. Then we can trust what is recorded Jesus said. If Jesus said Moses wrote the books accredited to him, and quoted from them, then we can trust what these books say. If Moses called the mother of all living people Eve, then we can trust there were no female humans before Eve. If we trust Moses said Adam was formed with a history, that is a grown man, we can trust he did not evolve but was formed. If Abraham's grandfather was Noah, and Jesus talked about both of them, then we can know they were real dudes. If Noah was only 10 generations from Adam, and If Adam lived close to 1000 years, Something like Noah's grandfather or great grandfather could have heard the stories of the Garden from the man who walked there. So if we can conclude Jesus is saying these were real men then can trust man was formed by God himself and not built up slowly through time, as Adam and eve had no ancestors. If God created a human with a history then a whole universe with a history first so he has a place to be is no big stretch.

Or what of the spiritual itself? Heaven is part of the creation I think. If we know heaven exists, that should be a foundation block for our exploration of the creation. Looking at it as a whole instead or concentration on one part. What part of the big bang could have formed something spiritual where souls can be without their carnal bodies? What about the "fish bowl" for our souls....:rolleyes:

Well those are three points we could talk on. :)

Peace
Joe

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:50 AM
The history of the wine that came into being is the point, not the jars or the water. What my intention is in the comparison anyway. Now if Jesus created a house for me when I blinked, I guess I don't consider that as dishonest.Did the grapes not need to grow on the vine and be havested and fermented......the wine has a story. I feel as I have sidetracked this thread. Would it be ok if we left it here? Make any points you want and I will leave in peace?

Joe

I suppose the difference between the water to wine and creation is that with creation we actually have the wine. We can look at this particular miraculous claim whereas we cannot look at the wine to determine if it, too, told a story.

Psalm127
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:43 AM
I like the idea of studying it out, personally I believe in a young earth; however, frustrating the brain cells and not putting the energy into fulfilling the Great Commission isn't what is necessary.

On topic though, the Hebrew word used for day in the days of creation is a literal 24 hour period. To postulate a gap in between 1:1 and 1:2 of Genesis is also a disservice to the scriptures. I like to believe that God made things the way He wanted like we can take a lump of clay and make things the way our minds see it. Makes God as strong as He really is. Just my idea on the topic, don't hold it against me.

In Him,

His servant

GitRDunn
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:05 AM
I like the idea of studying it out, personally I believe in a young earth; however, frustrating the brain cells and not putting the energy into fulfilling the Great Commission isn't what is necessary.

On topic though, the Hebrew word used for day in the days of creation is a literal 24 hour period. To postulate a gap in between 1:1 and 1:2 of Genesis is also a disservice to the scriptures. I like to believe that God made things the way He wanted like we can take a lump of clay and make things the way our minds see it. Makes God as strong as He really is. Just my idea on the topic, don't hold it against me.

In Him,

His servant
What makes God any less strong if he created the universe and the Big Bang is true and evolution is true, thus we have an old universe and Earth? I don't see how that is any less miraculous. Couldn't he have made things the way he wanted while still making everything over a longer period of time and utilizing evolution?

P.S.- Sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping you because I'm not, it is a serious question.

teddyv
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:18 AM
What makes God any less strong if he created the universe and the Big Band is true and evolution is true, thus we have an old universe and Earth? I don't see how that is any less miraculous. Couldn't he have made things the way he wanted while still making everything over a longer period of time and utilizing evolution?
Just had to quote and highlight - that is a great typo!:lol:

GitRDunn
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:17 AM
Just had to quote and highlight - that is a great typo!:lol:
Thanks for the heads up, I guess that does change the meaning a little bit, doesn't it?:hmm: lol
:lol:

Romber
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:45 PM
What makes God any less strong if he created the universe and the Big Bang is true and evolution is true, thus we have an old universe and Earth? I don't see how that is any less miraculous. Couldn't he have made things the way he wanted while still making everything over a longer period of time and utilizing evolution?

I wonder why exactly you believe in Evolution. Scripturally you have virtually no backing, and for Empirical evidence, well you have nothing either.

If Evolution was true, God would seem like a being who is not omnipotent.

The atheistic evolution formula is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

The theistic-evolution formula is: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

All you have done is simply add God to a system that strives on random, chancy mutations through natural selection and death. Apparently God did not know what his species would create. Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+32:4&version=9;) must not be true then. Evolution thrives for the perfection of a species through time and death. God apparently made each individual species ever created to ensure his work is perfect. This becomes a form of progressive creation which truly does not belong to either side of the debate. It also would be very hard to believe that God made each species but made them in such a way to suggest evolution. This does not seem very logical, or maybe a way to test your faith?

Belief in Evolution also undermines very fundamental ideas. If you take the idea of creation as merely allegorical, even though Genesis is a history account, then you are opening the door for all kinds of allegories to pop up when you find out science and scripture are in conflict. Exodus 20:8-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exo+20:8-11&version=9;) states quite clearly how long the Earth took to make and throughout the bible there is no indication of taking the Creation account any differently than how it is written.

Evolution negates some specific creation concepts mentioned in the bible such as God created matter from nothing and the sequence of creation conflicts starkly with the theory of Cosmic Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Such contradictions challenges God's omnipotence.

The Bible states mans specific purposes thoroughly throughout it. For example: Genesis 1:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+1:27-28&version=9;), Isaiah 53:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa+53:5&version=9;), 1 John 4:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John+4:9&version=9;), Titus 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3:7&version=9;), 1 Peter 1:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter+1:4&version=9;).

However, Evolutionary principles state there is no such purposeful plan. Species evolve to survive, not have a purpose. If this is true, then heaven must be something of a dream. What could possibly evolve into something that we can't see no matter how strong of equipment we have.

This last point is a bit of a stretch, but I think it is important as times are changing very rapidly. Evolution is taught more and more as a religion than a science. It is a fact that is drilled into childrens heads from day one stating "Evolution is clear, concise fact". Any opposition to this claim, merely stating you are a non-believer of Evolution severely limits any job possibilities (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp) in any field of science! A creationist trying to publish an article in a secular Journal would have better chances of finding a needle in a haystack, even if the article has nothing to do with their beliefs! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp) Such stark opposition to the other theory is ridiculous considering science just changes theories to better accommodate the evidence. No, Evolution is an ideology. Look! (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3421,n,n) They even have a place in religion classes now.

I don't know why you would believe in Evolution at all. It is not supported scripturally, and I didn't even say a thing about the "evidence" for evolution itself. I don't know about you, but I think I would rather trust scripture over a theory that is not observable, not testable, nor falsifiable.

Walstib
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:31 PM
What makes God any less strong if he created the universe and the Big Bang is true and evolution is true, thus we have an old universe and Earth? I don't see how that is any less miraculous. I agree you are right that no matter what God did, or does, can make Him any less strong, almighty and powerful. He is who He is no matter what we believe. For sure my reasoning is not based on my perception of how miraculous something is. I believed in evolution and old stuff for a long time and did not change my belief because of that concept.
Couldn't he have made things the way he wanted while still making everything over a longer period of time and utilizing evolution? God can do anything He wants to, hard to argue against that point. A question I find past that is did He tell us what He did, and will do.

Peace,
Joe

crawfish
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:27 PM
I wonder why exactly you believe in Evolution. Scripturally you have virtually no backing, and for Empirical evidence, well you have nothing either.

Nobody accepts evolution because of scriptural backing. We regard it as we regard most of the modern sciences - things that God chose not to reveal through His word.


If Evolution was true, God would seem like a being who is not omnipotent.

The atheistic evolution formula is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

The theistic-evolution formula is: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

TE's believe the same thing that you do - that God is responsible for all of Creation, and man is a deliberate creation of God. The term "random" is a bit misleading - what seems random to us is only random because we do not understand all of the underlying forces. God, as ultimate creator and designer, understand these forces all to well and uses them to guide His will into being. We do not believe in a "God plus" creation...we believe in a God fully responsible for creation using the tools that are revealed through study of nature. The same way that you do not believe in a "God plus dust" creation.


All you have done is simply add God to a system that strives on random, chancy mutations through natural selection and death. Apparently God did not know what his species would create. Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+32:4&version=9;) must not be true then. Evolution thrives for the perfection of a species through time and death. God apparently made each individual species ever created to ensure his work is perfect. This becomes a form of progressive creation which truly does not belong to either side of the debate. It also would be very hard to believe that God made each species but made them in such a way to suggest evolution. This does not seem very logical, or maybe a way to test your faith?

Actually, we see God as an incredibly powerful, knowledgable and subtle Creator. Think about how powerful a being would have to be to see the billions - trillions - of factors necessary to start with a simple spark of life and produce a human being with which He could instill His image. The sheer complexity of such a feat is awe-inspiring, and every bit as miraculous as forming a human being from dust.

None of this invalidates the scripture above. God's works are perfect in the same way they are just; ways that are not readily apparent to us in our limited perspectives as humans. Just as we have to trust that God is just when things don't readily seem that way, we also have to trust in the perfection of His creation - a creation that fulfills His will perfectly.


Belief in Evolution also undermines very fundamental ideas. If you take the idea of creation as merely allegorical, even though Genesis is a history account, then you are opening the door for all kinds of allegories to pop up when you find out science and scripture are in conflict. Exodus 20:8-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exo+20:8-11&version=9;) states quite clearly how long the Earth took to make and throughout the bible there is no indication of taking the Creation account any differently than how it is written.

I would say that we, as modern Christians, have already accepted other parts of scripture as allegorical or symbolic that once we did not. If such a path is a slippery slope then we all are well down it. They key to discovering the purpose of scripture is to work to divine its intended meaning; I fully believe that the intended meaning of Genesis 1-11 is other than to provide a blow-by-blow description of how God created. It implies scientific proof no more than it implies God needed a literal day of rest following it. When you look at it allegorically it still contains the meaning God intended. Likewise, the passage in Exodus was used to help tie the allegorical creation week to our very real work week, causing the Israelites to keep God on their minds in a very real way and setting them apart from the neigboring nations.



Evolution negates some specific creation concepts mentioned in the bible such as God created matter from nothing and the sequence of creation conflicts starkly with the theory of Cosmic Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Such contradictions challenges God's omnipotence.


Again, I ask, why does it challenge God's omnipotence? At some point, matter was created from nonmatter. Our only difference is a matter of timing. I believe this thinking also belies the scriptural creation account which indicates that after the initial creation event, God used existing matter to create. For instance, man was created from dust. God told the land to produce vegetation. God told the land to produce living creatures. Does God using intermediary materials challenge His omnipotence?



The Bible states mans specific purposes thoroughly throughout it. For example: Genesis 1:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+1:27-28&version=9;), Isaiah 53:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa+53:5&version=9;), 1 John 4:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John+4:9&version=9;), Titus 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3:7&version=9;), 1 Peter 1:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter+1:4&version=9;).

However, Evolutionary principles state there is no such purposeful plan. Species evolve to survive, not have a purpose. If this is true, then heaven must be something of a dream. What could possibly evolve into something that we can't see no matter how strong of equipment we have.

Nothing we believe suggests that God could not or did not have a plan with His creation. In fact, we believe that God had the same plan you believe He did; the same redemptive plan and the same heavenly reward. We are not "evolving" into heaven; I don't know anybody who believes that.


This last point is a bit of a stretch, but I think it is important as times are changing very rapidly. Evolution is taught more and more as a religion than a science. It is a fact that is drilled into childrens heads from day one stating "Evolution is clear, concise fact". Any opposition to this claim, merely stating you are a non-believer of Evolution severely limits any job possibilities (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp) in any field of science! A creationist trying to publish an article in a secular Journal would have better chances of finding a needle in a haystack, even if the article has nothing to do with their beliefs! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp) Such stark opposition to the other theory is ridiculous considering science just changes theories to better accommodate the evidence. No, Evolution is an ideology. Look! (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3421,n,n) They even have a place in religion classes now.

Regardless of how some people present evolution, it is supported by enough empirical evidence and explains observation so well that it is tough to deny. What tends to kill the job possibilities of many creationists is the unwillingness to have an open mind to the scientific process; to derive theory from conclusions rather than let observation and evidence lead to theory. And if there was evidence that proved evolution was false, then no doubt secular science would jump all over it. The scientific method would make it impossible for any scientist to continue to push a disproven theory, regardless of the theological beliefs of the scientists involved. So far, creationism has been wholly unsuccessful in doing this; the best they can do is reveal what science has been unable as of yet to uncover.



I don't know why you would believe in Evolution at all. It is not supported scripturally, and I didn't even say a thing about the "evidence" for evolution itself. I don't know about you, but I think I would rather trust scripture over a theory that is not observable, not testable, nor falsifiable.

One does not "believe" in evolution. One "accepts" it as being the best explanation of the available data. And, right now, there is simply no other explanation of that data that is even remotely as solid. I fully trust that scripture is as silent on the issue as it is on the subjects of electricity, nuclear physics, microbiology and aeronautics. One does not need scriptural support to believe in such things.

Finally, evolution IS observable, testable and falsifiable. We have observed evolution and speciation in a lab. Evolution, if true, also has very real consequences in a huge number of sciences; while we can't observe a fish evolve into a frog because of the amount of time required for such an event to occur, we can deduce the physical effects of such a change and test to see if those physical effects are present. Over the years, the theory itself has been strengthened considerably because, over and over again, we see the results we expect. It would actually have been very simple to falsify evolution; for instance, the discovery of DNA could have very easily falsified evolution utterly. To the contrary, DNA worked in a way exactly how evolution predicted; it presented an ordered pattern that supported common ancestry.

I have become convinced over the years that evolution is very likely a truth. I have not seen compelling evidence that it is not from apolgists and creationists like Hamm and McDowell, among others. And, more to the point, I have seen an interpretation of scripture that not only allows for something like evolution with God, but seems to me to be a far more honest interpretation that requires less extra-biblical speculation. I see no reason to reject evolution on religious or scientific grounds; thus, its truth or falseness is irrelevant to me. I choose to stay open to it and let the science play out.

crawfish
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:37 PM
A question I find past that is did He tell us what He did, and will do.

Peace,
Joe

I do see your point; however I also see that over the years man has been bad about managing expectations through reading God's word. For instance, the Messiah that came was different than all the Messiahs that were expected by the various Jewish factions. Prophecies were often filled in ways that were unexpected. It is written that "cursed is a man who dies on a tree", and many Jews felt that this indicated that a good man could not be killed on a tree; yet Jesus proved that they were reading this wrong.

Why do we feel that we are any different? Why do we feel that now we have a better grasp on God's true meaning than the ancient Jews did? Are we so much smarter? Why does this verse:

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 “ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

indicate that God works other than science and not that His words sometimes are beyond our current level of understanding?

I trust that God's word will stay vital as we discover the secrets of His creation, even when that discovery makes us re-think the implications of His word.

GitRDunn
Dec 22nd 2008, 06:16 PM
Nobody accepts evolution because of scriptural backing. We regard it as we regard most of the modern sciences - things that God chose not to reveal through His word.



TE's believe the same thing that you do - that God is responsible for all of Creation, and man is a deliberate creation of God. The term "random" is a bit misleading - what seems random to us is only random because we do not understand all of the underlying forces. God, as ultimate creator and designer, understand these forces all to well and uses them to guide His will into being. We do not believe in a "God plus" creation...we believe in a God fully responsible for creation using the tools that are revealed through study of nature. The same way that you do not believe in a "God plus dust" creation.



Actually, we see God as an incredibly powerful, knowledgable and subtle Creator. Think about how powerful a being would have to be to see the billions - trillions - of factors necessary to start with a simple spark of life and produce a human being with which He could instill His image. The sheer complexity of such a feat is awe-inspiring, and every bit as miraculous as forming a human being from dust.

None of this invalidates the scripture above. God's works are perfect in the same way they are just; ways that are not readily apparent to us in our limited perspectives as humans. Just as we have to trust that God is just when things don't readily seem that way, we also have to trust in the perfection of His creation - a creation that fulfills His will perfectly.



I would say that we, as modern Christians, have already accepted other parts of scripture as allegorical or symbolic that once we did not. If such a path is a slippery slope then we all are well down it. They key to discovering the purpose of scripture is to work to divine its intended meaning; I fully believe that the intended meaning of Genesis 1-11 is other than to provide a blow-by-blow description of how God created. It implies scientific proof no more than it implies God needed a literal day of rest following it. When you look at it allegorically it still contains the meaning God intended. Likewise, the passage in Exodus was used to help tie the allegorical creation week to our very real work week, causing the Israelites to keep God on their minds in a very real way and setting them apart from the neigboring nations.




Again, I ask, why does it challenge God's omnipotence? At some point, matter was created from nonmatter. Our only difference is a matter of timing. I believe this thinking also belies the scriptural creation account which indicates that after the initial creation event, God used existing matter to create. For instance, man was created from dust. God told the land to produce vegetation. God told the land to produce living creatures. Does God using intermediary materials challenge His omnipotence?




Nothing we believe suggests that God could not or did not have a plan with His creation. In fact, we believe that God had the same plan you believe He did; the same redemptive plan and the same heavenly reward. We are not "evolving" into heaven; I don't know anybody who believes that.



Regardless of how some people present evolution, it is supported by enough empirical evidence and explains observation so well that it is tough to deny. What tends to kill the job possibilities of many creationists is the unwillingness to have an open mind to the scientific process; to derive theory from conclusions rather than let observation and evidence lead to theory. And if there was evidence that proved evolution was false, then no doubt secular science would jump all over it. The scientific method would make it impossible for any scientist to continue to push a disproven theory, regardless of the theological beliefs of the scientists involved. So far, creationism has been wholly unsuccessful in doing this; the best they can do is reveal what science has been unable as of yet to uncover.




One does not "believe" in evolution. One "accepts" it as being the best explanation of the available data. And, right now, there is simply no other explanation of that data that is even remotely as solid. I fully trust that scripture is as silent on the issue as it is on the subjects of electricity, nuclear physics, microbiology and aeronautics. One does not need scriptural support to believe in such things.

Finally, evolution IS observable, testable and falsifiable. We have observed evolution and speciation in a lab. Evolution, if true, also has very real consequences in a huge number of sciences; while we can't observe a fish evolve into a frog because of the amount of time required for such an event to occur, we can deduce the physical effects of such a change and test to see if those physical effects are present. Over the years, the theory itself has been strengthened considerably because, over and over again, we see the results we expect. It would actually have been very simple to falsify evolution; for instance, the discovery of DNA could have very easily falsified evolution utterly. To the contrary, DNA worked in a way exactly how evolution predicted; it presented an ordered pattern that supported common ancestry.

I have become convinced over the years that evolution is very likely a truth. I have not seen compelling evidence that it is not from apolgists and creationists like Hamm and McDowell, among others. And, more to the point, I have seen an interpretation of scripture that not only allows for something like evolution with God, but seems to me to be a far more honest interpretation that requires less extra-biblical speculation. I see no reason to reject evolution on religious or scientific grounds; thus, its truth or falseness is irrelevant to me. I choose to stay open to it and let the science play out.
I don't have time to respond myself right now, but you said pretty much everything that I wanted to.

Romber
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:09 PM
, and man is a deliberate creation of God.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying man is the only thing God directly created? Everything else is through chance and death?


God, as ultimate creator and designer, understand these forces all to well and uses them to guide His will into being.

What you are suggesting then is that God created all the creatures in the world only through indirect contact. He created and sustains every single other force in the world EXCEPT the creation of perhaps the most important aspect; organisms. I do not see how you can justify God is not simply added to the Evolution formula of death and chance.


We do not believe in a "God plus" creation...we believe in a God fully responsible for creation using the tools that are revealed through study of nature.

It's not what you want to believe in. If you are going to believe in Evolution and the God (hence a TE) you must accept what is known about Evolution. Time, chance, isolation, death and, since you are a TE, God are all part of the sum.


Think about how powerful a being would have to be to see the billions - trillions - of factors necessary to start with a simple spark of life and produce a human being with which He could instill His image

What you seem to be suggesting here is that the Evolution of goo-to-you was guided from an God little by little to guarantee, millions of years later, that man was created in the image of God. Two problems:
1.) Like I said earlier, if you accept Evolution, then you accept the entire theory. Changing the parts you want to reconcile scripture and science peacefully is not really a theory, but just words to get out of trouble with any one group. Evolution is the random mutations that help the species survive overall. If God is guiding these "mutations" then it really isn't evolution anymore and we are debating the wrong points.
2.) If God isn't guiding the mutations and using his previous laws to guide his creation of organisms, then how did he possibly create man in the likeness of God?


None of this invalidates the scripture above. God's works are perfect in the same way they are just; ways that are not readily apparent to us in our limited perspectives as humans. Just as we have to trust that God is just when things don't readily seem that way, we also have to trust in the perfection of His creation - a creation that fulfills His will perfectly.

If all God's works are perfect, then why must a species constantly "evolve" to survive? If his works are perfect at the start, then why is it necessary for them to evolve? Why is it not possible for God to make a species perfect from their conception to now-never evolving, always perfect?


I would say that we, as modern Christians, have already accepted other parts of scripture as allegorical or symbolic that once we did not.

I would have to disagree. There have always been groups that have been a literalist and then groups that are symbolic/allegorical.


I fully believe that the intended meaning of Genesis 1-11 is other than to provide a blow-by-blow description of how God created.

Only the first 11 chapters are allegorical? The rest of Genesis (I'm guessing) you believe is literal? (since there is no conflicts with science and scripture there).


When you look at it allegorically it still contains the meaning God intended

You are making a critical error in knowing what God intended.


Likewise, the passage in Exodus was used to help tie the allegorical creation week to our very real work week, causing the Israelites to keep God on their minds in a very real way and setting them apart from the neigboring nations.

Oh come on, you know the Israelites had plenty of problems with staying true to God. Giving them a bunch of allegorical information would only make things worse for them! (I'm joking lol)


Again, I ask, why does it challenge God's omnipotence?

Evolutionary principles deny the creation acts of the bible for their own ideas on the origin of species.


Nothing we believe suggests that God could not or did not have a plan with His creation.

Again, you are mixing facts from both sides. Guided Evolution is not evolution anymore.


it is supported by enough empirical evidence and explains observation so well that it is tough to deny.

Both sides have the same empirical evidences. It depends on what sort of worldview you have as to what answers you will see from the evidences.


What tends to kill the job possibilities of many creationists is the unwillingness to have an open mind to the scientific process

Wrong. Many creationists are quite scientific and are quite aware of the scientific process. The way you word this does not make you sound to open-minded either as you are telling the opposing side to open up their mind to what you believe.


then no doubt secular science would jump all over it.

I'm not to sure what you mean here. Secular science holds so dear to Evolution that the only way to make people change is for Jesus to come down from heaven and tell them himself. In other words, secular science will die before showing and evidence against their beloved theory. Look at the prejudice creationist face concerning secular journals and such.


So far, creationism has been wholly unsuccessful in doing this; the best they can do is reveal what science has been unable as of yet to uncover.

Woah, woah, hold on. Creationism has had many scientists working on the model for a long time, and have produced an amazing amount of literature and information for people to get a hold of. Of course they don't have the backing of the taxpayers dollar or the hold of public schools systems, but before you write them off, look into it a bit.


One does not need scriptural support to believe in such things.

Very true. However when their is a conflict, you need to follow what the scripture says.


Finally, evolution IS observable, testable and falsifiable. We have observed evolution and speciation in a lab. Evolution, if true, also has very real consequences in a huge number of sciences; while we can't observe a fish evolve into a frog because of the amount of time required for such an event to occur, we can deduce the physical effects of such a change and test to see if those physical effects are present. Over the years, the theory itself has been strengthened considerably because, over and over again, we see the results we expect. It would actually have been very simple to falsify evolution; for instance, the discovery of DNA could have very easily falsified evolution utterly. To the contrary, DNA worked in a way exactly how evolution predicted; it presented an ordered pattern that supported common ancestry.

I really don't want to get into the scientifical grounds to much on Evolution (as I believe that in itself is more of a thread in itself and really, really deviates from what we are talking about, but there are some problems here.)


evolution IS observable

I don't believe we are talking about the same thing (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-B/biological_evolution.html) then.


We have observed evolution and speciation in a lab.

Creationists do believe in speciation.


we can deduce the physical effects of such a change and test to see if those physical effects are present.

This is not the same as facts derived from observation. No one refutes the second law of thermodynamics because it is quite observable for anyone and everyone.


It would actually have been very simple to falsify evolution; for instance, the discovery of DNA could have very easily falsified evolution utterly.

No, it wouldn't. The theory gets changed at a whim to accommodate all evolutionary implications. A good example would be mutations (and how they truly work). Very good deathblow to evolution.

Athanasius
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:33 PM
If Evolution was true, God would seem like a being who is not omnipotent.

The atheistic evolution formula is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

The theistic-evolution formula is: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

I don't understand how your model of theistic-evolution negates God's omnipotence? I can understand where you might raise more valid, theological objections to theistic-evolution, but negating God's omnipotence? This is something theistic-evolution is not guilty of.



All you have done is simply add God to a system that strives on random, chancy mutations through natural selection and death. Apparently God did not know what his species would create.

Likewise, I don't understand how theistic-evolution negates God's omniscience? You seem to be ignoring the role God plays in theistic-evolution in your criticisms of theistic-evolutionary belief.

Also just to state, I'm not a theistic-evolutionist.



1.) Like I said earlier, if you accept Evolution, then you accept the entire theory. Changing the parts you want to reconcile scripture and science peacefully is not really a theory, but just words to get out of trouble with any one group. Evolution is the random mutations that help the species survive overall. If God is guiding these "mutations" then it really isn't evolution anymore and we are debating the wrong points.


I accept with no hesitation the fact of adaptation, or if you would prefer micro-evolution; these are parts of the evolutionary theory. Must I now accept the whole theory lest I be accused of picking and choosing? Not at all, you're simply making wild claims.

Romber
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:00 PM
ikewise, I don't understand how theistic-evolution negates God's omniscience? You seem to be ignoring the role God plays in theistic-evolution in your criticisms of theistic-evolutionary belief.

Perhaps I am missing the point of God in TE a bit too. As I see it, God could not/did not create his creations in one step, but instead had to use indirect laws he created to do so. I just see it as God looking not so omnipotent. If God was able to create all other laws of physics etc., then why can't he create organisms?


I accept with no hesitation the fact of adaptation, or if you would prefer micro-evolution; these are parts of the evolutionary theory.

There you go. Adaptation (micro-evolution) is a independent theory outside of the general concept of evolution (molecules-to-man). According to your logic, accepting the theory of gravity must mean that I believe in evolution, because such a law is needed to keep everything in place. True, micro evolution is a big part of macro evolution, but they are both independent of each other.

What I believe crawfish is doing is nit-picking the individual pieces that make up macro evolution (NOT microevolution) and taking what he likes. Now that is a different story.

crawfish
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:25 PM
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying man is the only thing God directly created? Everything else is through chance and death?

What do you mean by "directly"? My statement was that God created everything, either from nothing or using existing materials, just as scripture implies.


What you are suggesting then is that God created all the creatures in the world only through indirect contact. He created and sustains every single other force in the world EXCEPT the creation of perhaps the most important aspect; organisms. I do not see how you can justify God is not simply added to the Evolution formula of death and chance.

What is indirect contact? If I set up a line of dominoes and knock over only the first, am I directly or indirectly responsible for the last domino falling? Since God created not only the material things but also the laws that governs them, there is no uncreated element involved in the process. It is all directly His doing and intention, even if there are "natural" forces behind it.


It's not what you want to believe in. If you are going to believe in Evolution and the God (hence a TE) you must accept what is known about Evolution. Time, chance, isolation, death and, since you are a TE, God are all part of the sum.

Please don't tell me what I believe in. Time, isolation, death, and yes, even chance, are all tools God deliberately uses to enforce his will. For just a minute, stop listening to what atheists have told you about evolution and try to understand our point of view which is different.



What you seem to be suggesting here is that the Evolution of goo-to-you was guided from an God little by little to guarantee, millions of years later, that man was created in the image of God. Two problems:
1.) Like I said earlier, if you accept Evolution, then you accept the entire theory. Changing the parts you want to reconcile scripture and science peacefully is not really a theory, but just words to get out of trouble with any one group. Evolution is the random mutations that help the species survive overall. If God is guiding these "mutations" then it really isn't evolution anymore and we are debating the wrong points.
2.) If God isn't guiding the mutations and using his previous laws to guide his creation of organisms, then how did he possibly create man in the likeness of God?

Again, please don't try and tell me what I believe - at least try to understand what I am claiming. For God to use natural law through evolution to produce man - and to do so in a deliberate fashion, knowing exactly where natural law will lead - implies a God of incredible complexity. A God incredibly intimate with the very fundamentals of what makes our universe tick. I admit, it's much easier to comprehend a "poof" God who simply wills things into existence from nothing, but as we discover more about God's creation we must realize that there is nothing simple about what He has done.


If all God's works are perfect, then why must a species constantly "evolve" to survive? If his works are perfect at the start, then why is it necessary for them to evolve? Why is it not possible for God to make a species perfect from their conception to now-never evolving, always perfect?

Give me a biblical basis for what "perfect" means. What does it mean to God? Then I'll answer you.


I would have to disagree. There have always been groups that have been a literalist and then groups that are symbolic/allegorical.


Do you believe there is a mountain where you could get up high enough to see all of the kingdoms of the earth in 30 A.D.? Do you believe that God stopped the sun from circling the earth, or stopped the earth from rotating? There are plenty of verses one accepted as presenting a literal meaning that are now seen as more symbolic.


Only the first 11 chapters are allegorical? The rest of Genesis (I'm guessing) you believe is literal? (since there is no conflicts with science and scripture there).

The first 11 chapters are written differently than the rest of Genesis, using poetic and literary mechanisms. I've got another thread on this somewhere (perhaps I'll look it up later), but I think there is plenty of evidence that would allow us to see those verses as allegorical/poetic/symbolic rather than literal. Unlike most of the other books of the bible, Genesis is an amalgamation of stories from different sources (and different literary styles) compiled into one account.



You are making a critical error in knowing what God intended.

That is a discussion worthy of its own thread.



Oh come on, you know the Israelites had plenty of problems with staying true to God. Giving them a bunch of allegorical information would only make things worse for them! (I'm joking lol)

On the contrary, the ancient Israelites had a much different view of such things than we do. I do not think it would surprise or bother them to find out that actual events were different than presented, because they would have little trouble separating the spiritual truth from the literal truth. Historical literacy is a product of Western thought, a thoroughly modern phenomena.



Evolutionary principles deny the creation acts of the bible for their own ideas on the origin of species.

Again, you are mixing facts from both sides. Guided Evolution is not evolution anymore.

Again, I don't think you are understanding me. I don't believe in "guided evolution" in the sense that God tweaks each and every instance to reach His goal. I see it more as the falling of dominoes, God created the laws and sees the inevitable path His actions will lead to. The results are guaranteed because God willed it so.



Both sides have the same empirical evidences. It depends on what sort of worldview you have as to what answers you will see from the evidences.


This is the crux of the matter. I have had to study all sides to evaluate which side approaches the evidence more honestly. My observation is that the scientific process (not the scientists themselves) is the most honest evaluator, because it ensures that the overall flow of theory will remain consistent with data as it is discovered. Individual scientists and creationists have agendas - the former, often to discredit religion, the latter to prove it - and those agendas prevent them from being unbiased.


Wrong. Many creationists are quite scientific and are quite aware of the scientific process. The way you word this does not make you sound to open-minded either as you are telling the opposing side to open up their mind to what you believe.


I'm suggesting no such thing. An open mind is open to possibilities; and believe me, I'm open to creationism when it makes sense. There are, in fact, many honest creationists, and I've heard quite a few point out the flaws and holes in their own reasoning. I respect their faith. But they still work within the scientific method, unlike some creationists who use their faith as justification to work around it.



I'm not to sure what you mean here. Secular science holds so dear to Evolution that the only way to make people change is for Jesus to come down from heaven and tell them himself. In other words, secular science will die before showing and evidence against their beloved theory. Look at the prejudice creationist face concerning secular journals and such.


I doubt they would change in that case, either.

Think about this: anything published in a scientific journal is, by its very definition, putting itself up for scrutiny. That is part of the scientific method: if you want a claim to be respected you must release your data, your methods and your results, to be duplicated, critiqued,evaluated and tested by peer scientists. EVERY scientific hypothesis and theory undergoes this process. The scientist responsible must effectively answer those challenges, and if they cannot, the hypothesis or theory is discredited. Why would we want to put matters of faith through this process?



Woah, woah, hold on. Creationism has had many scientists working on the model for a long time, and have produced an amazing amount of literature and information for people to get a hold of. Of course they don't have the backing of the taxpayers dollar or the hold of public schools systems, but before you write them off, look into it a bit.


You're assuming I have not, which would be a bad assumption. And if you assume that money does not flow through creationist's coffers, then you are sadly mistaken. Especially in the last decade or two.


Very true. However when their is a conflict, you need to follow what the scripture says.

Or: you need to study to know if scripture is really saying what you think it is. Human error and lack of perspective does not only infect science, but bible interpretation as well.



I don't believe we are talking about the same thing (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-B/biological_evolution.html) then.

Creationists do believe in speciation.

This is not the same as facts derived from observation. No one refutes the second law of thermodynamics because it is quite observable for anyone and everyone.


Speciation is a part of evolution. What is a large genetic change but hundreds of instances of speciation over a long period of time, anyway?

I understand that we don't want to get into this fully here, but the fact is you are challenging parts of the theory of evolution, not the entire thing.



No, it wouldn't. The theory gets changed at a whim to accommodate all evolutionary implications. A good example would be mutations (and how they truly work). Very good deathblow to evolution.

Rework is a part of the development of a theory. The overall model has never been challenged, although theories about how internal processes happened have been. This is why you have to continue to have an open mind in science - you must be willing to leave an existing hypothesis or theory behind when it no longer works. What creationists view as a weakness or problem with evolution is actually a sign of its health and vitality. When problems arise they are dealt with and the resulting data has only strengthened the overall theory.

crawfish
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:38 PM
Perhaps I am missing the point of God in TE a bit too. As I see it, God could not/did not create his creations in one step, but instead had to use indirect laws he created to do so. I just see it as God looking not so omnipotent. If God was able to create all other laws of physics etc., then why can't he create organisms?

I would never suggest that God could *not* create organisms from nothing, only that the evidence seems to indicate that He didn't. Why are you limiting God to only working within means you can understand?



What I believe crawfish is doing is nit-picking the individual pieces that make up macro evolution (NOT microevolution) and taking what he likes. Now that is a different story.

There is no clear-cut difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Only the time involved.

I'm not picking and choosing bits and pieces of evolutionary theory to fit my opinions. I'm actually coming from a different paradigm than what you are used to. I've accepted that it's a difficult process to communicate, from the fact I've had to explain it quite a few times. :)

Romber
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:08 AM
Hey crawfish,

Before we go any farther, maybe if you could kindly explain exactly what you believe as a TE. I think I am under a different impression of what TE than what you are.

Athanasius
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:17 AM
Perhaps I am missing the point of God in TE a bit too. As I see it, God could not/did not create his creations in one step, but instead had to use indirect laws he created to do so. I just see it as God looking not so omnipotent. If God was able to create all other laws of physics etc., then why can't he create organisms?

Wouldn't this be the same as claiming God isn't omnipotent because it took him "seven" days to create instead of a lesser number of days? If God couldn't create "in one step", as you put it, then I think we would have to look at the logical implications of that, as God can only do what is logically possible. If God choose not to create "in one step" then we have no issue.

I'm more inclined to think that if God create as theistic-evolutionists believe, it would be because that's how God chose to create, not because God couldn't create any other way.



There you go. Adaptation (micro-evolution) is a independent theory outside of the general concept of evolution (molecules-to-man). According to your logic, accepting the theory of gravity must mean that I believe in evolution, because such a law is needed to keep everything in place. True, micro evolution is a big part of macro evolution, but they are both independent of each other.

Adaptation is very much a part of the evolutionary theory, it is not outside the general concept of evolution. Your analogy falls flat.

Walstib
Dec 23rd 2008, 01:12 AM
I do see your point; however I also see that over the years man has been bad about managing expectations through reading God's word. For instance, the Messiah that came was different than all the Messiahs that were expected by the various Jewish factions. Prophecies were often filled in ways that were unexpected. It is written that "cursed is a man who dies on a tree", and many Jews felt that this indicated that a good man could not be killed on a tree; yet Jesus proved that they were reading this wrong. I get what you are saying. But I do think God always had His remnant of people thought all that time that worshiped Him for who He is, not falling prey to all the divisions. Why would we trust any single part of the OT knowing how often the nation ran after other gods for hundreds of years? My answer gives me faith in Gods written word.
Why do we feel that we are any different? Why do we feel that now we have a better grasp on God's true meaning than the ancient Jews did? Are we so much smarter? Having the teachings of God Himself as man on earth. His fulfilling and explaining of prophecy. The indwelling of Mr. Holy Spirit Himself and the letters written by the apostles whom Jesus promised to intimately reveal the truth. Gives us deeper revelation than the ancients I think. But we have the ability to twist it just as easily as they did the revelation given to them.
Why does this verse: Isaiah 55:8-9


indicate that God works other than science and not that His words sometimes are beyond our current level of understanding? Both science and a personal relationship with Jesus, include things that will always be outside our ability to understand I think.
I trust that God's word will stay vital as we discover the secrets of His creation, even when that discovery makes us re-think the implications of His word. I trust that God’s creation will stay vital as we discover the secrets of His Word, even when that discovery makes us re-think the implications of His creation.

Man I am enjoying this parallel between studying the creation and the scriptures. But seriously, I’ll stop doing that now. :P

Peace,
Joe

crawfish
Dec 23rd 2008, 01:43 AM
Hey crawfish,

Before we go any farther, maybe if you could kindly explain exactly what you believe as a TE. I think I am under a different impression of what TE than what you are.

Theologically, I am mostly a normal evangelical. I believe in the sovereignty of God, of Jesus' birth, life and death on the cross, of his resurrection in the third day, of heaven and hell and salvation. I'm fairly conservative from that point of view.

However, I do accept that certain parts of scripture are not written with a literal intent, and that includes Genesis 1-11. The reasons are varied; I do not believe you can take a scripture allegorically carte blanche, there has to be good supporting evidence that it can be. I explained some of that in an earlier thread on the subject, why I feel it is justified.

On evolution, I believe that the evidence points very strongly to its truth. And by "evolution", I mean the common descent of all life from a common ancestor. I believe that it works much the same as secular science claims; that it is adaptations to nature and "random occurrences" that drive it. However, I believe that "random" only means "undetectable"; God so intimately knows His creation that what seems random to us is fully predictable to Him. The universe itself was designed from the get-go to produce us. When the big bang banged ( ;) ), it was inevitable that we'd show up.

I believe that God works with His creation in two basic ways. First is the natural; He implemented a natural law that is consistent, that we can rely on, plan for, test, and discover. Second, is the supernatural; he can circumvent His natural law at will to do things that are impossible to recreate or test. When He does this, it is typically done through a human interceder to a human audience (only two miraculous events in scripture break this rule, and one is creation). The why of this is simple; the miracle is for the glory of God to His people, to show His love and power. Miracles that happen outside of the observation of humans are like a tree falling in the forest; it has a sound but no discernable effect on the free-willed heart of people.

However, to God there is really no difference between the natural and supernatural. It is simply the manifestation He chooses with which to accomplish His will. The mysteries of creation, if they are supernatural, must remain mysteries because they cannot be tested for. If, on the other hand, they are natural, then God has provided a method by which we can discover His methods.

That is a long-winded explanation, and probably not at all what you were looking for. Sorry if that's the case. :)

Romber
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:44 AM
No, you answered it well. Actually you mentioned it in the first line paragraph. I guess I am so use to Atheistic evolution argument, that I forget the purpose of why I am even doing it.

Most forums I visit are quite secular, so when the whole "Evolution vs. Creationism" argument comes up (which it inevitably does) then I always feel like it is a great time to try and evangelize. However, I realize that this situation is different. Regardless of what we believe in relation to creation, we are headed in one direction(overall).

After I realized this, my whole reason for even arguing this was kind of negated at a forum like this so I was just arguing just to argue, which I definitely don't think is a great idea. Thus, this whole topic came up more out of bitterness than anything else. So I am sorry for that.

While we don't agree exactly on creation, we do agree on the main (important) parts, and that's all that really matters here. It's not good to have fruitless arguments with a Brother.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 23rd 2008, 03:43 AM
No, you answered it well. Actually you mentioned it in the first line paragraph. I guess I am so use to Atheistic evolution argument, that I forget the purpose of why I am even doing it.

Most forums I visit are quite secular, so when the whole "Evolution vs. Creationism" argument comes up (which it inevitably does) then I always feel like it is a great time to try and evangelize. However, I realize that this situation is different. Regardless of what we believe in relation to creation, we are headed in one direction(overall).

After I realized this, my whole reason for even arguing this was kind of negated at a forum like this so I was just arguing just to argue, which I definitely don't think is a great idea. Thus, this whole topic came up more out of bitterness than anything else. So I am sorry for that.

While we don't agree exactly on creation, we do agree on the main (important) parts, and that's all that really matters here. It's not good to have fruitless arguments with a Brother.

Amen brother.

Even though I did not intend for my original post to be a debate on evolution vs. creation, I knew it might veer off in that direction which brings me back to my original question. If I am to accept Genesis 1 to be literal then what do I do with the scripture that supports that earth is fixed with the sun and moon and stars revolving around it?

God bless

crawfish
Dec 23rd 2008, 03:56 AM
No, you answered it well. Actually you mentioned it in the first line paragraph. I guess I am so use to Atheistic evolution argument, that I forget the purpose of why I am even doing it.

Most forums I visit are quite secular, so when the whole "Evolution vs. Creationism" argument comes up (which it inevitably does) then I always feel like it is a great time to try and evangelize. However, I realize that this situation is different. Regardless of what we believe in relation to creation, we are headed in one direction(overall).

After I realized this, my whole reason for even arguing this was kind of negated at a forum like this so I was just arguing just to argue, which I definitely don't think is a great idea. Thus, this whole topic came up more out of bitterness than anything else. So I am sorry for that.

While we don't agree exactly on creation, we do agree on the main (important) parts, and that's all that really matters here. It's not good to have fruitless arguments with a Brother.

No problem. I'm really not seeking agreement, just understanding. :)

Walstib
Dec 24th 2008, 02:18 PM
Feels kind of lonely in here…

Feel like as long I as was talking about crazy light theories I was just a little nuts, now that I believe the bible has trustable history in it I’m a complete nutjob.

Want to go back to taking about something like... light slowing when going through an Einstein-Bose Concentrate? That and the freeze dried woolly mammoths in the Arctic?

I find it interesting that it seems easy for some to have trust that God can guide the whole “evolutionary process”, atom by atom through time. Then seem to have issues with trusting in the bible, like God could did not guide it word for word with preserved history as well.

I know it sounds unfair, not trying to box people up here. I’m trying to understand why scientific assumption is better proof than the bible?


fishbowlsoul,

Why would one have to take Gen 1 literal? I take it as something I can't understand fully, literally or allegorically, yet with God's order of creation preserved. That order does not match a big bang order.

Peace,
Joe

fishbowlsoul
Dec 24th 2008, 03:55 PM
Feels kind of lonely in here…

Feel like as long I as was talking about crazy light theories I was just a little nuts, now that I believe the bible has trustable history in it I’m a complete nutjob.

Want to go back to taking about something like... light slowing when going through an Einstein-Bose Concentrate? That and the freeze dried woolly mammoths in the Arctic?

I find it interesting that it seems easy for some to have trust that God can guide the whole “evolutionary process”, atom by atom through time. Then seem to have issues with trusting in the bible, like God could did not guide it word for word with preserved history as well.

I know it sounds unfair, not trying to box people up here. I’m trying to understand why scientific assumption is better proof than the bible?


fishbowlsoul,

Why would one have to take Gen 1 literal? I take it as something I can't understand fully, literally or allegorically, yet with God's order of creation preserved. That order does not match a big bang order.

Peace,
Joe


Your point goes back to my original question. If one believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 then why not a literal interpretation of the scriptures in Joshua, in Psalms, in Isaiah that support that the earth is fixed and ths sun revolves around it? Why do nearly all young earthers don't trust the science on age of earth but do trust the science on heliocentrism?

You mentioned evolutionary processes. I don't think the age of the earth/universe would be hardly debated if the theory of evolution was not around. Evolution needs a old earth/universe for it to work. In a old earth/universe evolution is not that relevant.



Want to go back to taking about something like... light slowing when going through an Einstein-Bose Concentrate? That and the freeze dried woolly mammoths in the Arctic?


I guess you mean the Bose-Einstein Condensate? Yeah the condensate has some weird properties when frozen at absolute zero like the slowing of light through it.

As for freeze dried mammoths. There are in the true sense no freeze dried mammoths. They look freeze dried and remarkably intact but you can't eat the meat after you thaw it out. Might be kinda tough after 20 or 30 thousands years. Plus there signs of prefrozen decay like dessication and remains of fly pupae.

God bless

Alaska
Dec 26th 2008, 01:01 AM
Your point goes back to my original question. If one believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 then why not a literal interpretation of the scriptures in Joshua, in Psalms, in Isaiah that support that the earth is fixed and ths sun revolves around it? Why do nearly all young earthers don't trust the science on age of earth but do trust the science on heliocentrism?


I agree.
I think it is because, while they can see the absolute idiocity in the non scientific manipulation of evidence used to support the folly of macroevolution, they have not been educated that the so called facts supporting heliocentricism are equally manipulated.
Heliocentricism cannot be proven to be the actual model of the positioning of the heavenly bodies.
But it is drummed into our heads as if it is absolutely proven and factual and we walk the ignorance plank to our own hurt.

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 27th 2008, 07:56 PM
I agree.
I think it is because, while they can see the absolute idiocity in the non scientific manipulation of evidence used to support the folly of macroevolution, they have not been educated that the so called facts supporting heliocentricism are equally manipulated.
Heliocentricism cannot be proven to be the actual model of the positioning of the heavenly bodies.
But it is drummed into our heads as if it is absolutely proven and factual and we walk the ignorance plank to our own hurt.

Yeah, those derned heliocentrists with their math that makes sense, pictures, and consistent observations!


Essentially the problem is this - we should be able to trust what we see. The entire doctrine of the universal culpability of sin rests on mankind's ability to observe the nature of god apart from revelation. If we take that away with claims that God made a deceptive universe can we still hold to such doctrines?

Alaska
Dec 27th 2008, 08:48 PM
Yeah, those derned heliocentrists with their math that makes sense, pictures, and consistent observations!

Essentially the problem is this - we should be able to trust what we see. The entire doctrine of the universal culpability of sin rests on mankind's ability to observe the nature of god apart from revelation. If we take that away with claims that God made a deceptive universe can we still hold to such doctrines?

Yeah, like those evolutionists whose explanations of the evidence makes sense until scrutinized under a more objective and freer thinking model that accomodates more of the available evidence instead of making that evidence continue to be suppressed.
God didn't make a deceptive universe. The reason why it does not appear that the earth is moving but it rather appears that the sun is moving is because that is what it must be doing.
The mathematics work either way, the same for the consistant observations, all of which are from the earth or so close so as to be unproveable of claiming that what is happening is contrary to what our God given senses are telling us.
And pictures?
Please provide a picture proving the sun is not going around the earth.

Alaska
Dec 27th 2008, 09:59 PM
Essentially the problem is this - we should be able to trust what we see. The entire doctrine of the universal culpability of sin rests on mankind's ability to observe the nature of god apart from revelation. If we take that away with claims that God made a deceptive universe can we still hold to such doctrines?


I am trying to understand this statement.
Sin and thereby death originated from a literal Adam and Eve in the literal garden as the result of literally eating a literal fruit from a literal tree in disobedience to a literal command to not eat of that fruit, which assured them that they would die if they in fact did eat of it.



The entire doctrine of the universal culpability of sin rests on mankind's ability to observe the nature of god apart from revelation. If we take that away with claims that God made a deceptive universe can we still hold to such doctrines?


Do you mean that once an alleged scientifically imperically observed fact contradicts the Bibles claim, (let's say, that the sun does in fact move around the earth) then that means anything else that seems literally spoken in the scriptures, (let's say the origin of sin) cannot therefore continue to be understood to be literally true?

Are you saying that this is the crux of the issue and hence the importance of this thread: that Christians should realize that if they cave in on the movement of the sun, they should be able to see that everything else they understand to be literal, (such as the appearance of a "last Adam" to rectify what the first Adam did) also needs to be reviewed by scientific criteria to determine whether or not those long held beliefs are valid?

Well, if that is what you mean, then I would agree that you have a point concerning the Christians choice of ultimate authority.
If they are to put their faith in the Son of God who had to come as the result of a literal man's sin who thereby introduced death, then it makes sense for them to believe that Son of Man who declared Genesis to be true and that the scriptures are true.
The earth was here complete with plant life and water before any other celestial body was miraculously placed in the heavens.
That would support the practical conclusion that it makes sense that the sun goes around the earth in agreement with our God given senses that agree with that.

To be consistent; if Christians allow so called science to relegate Bible claims as contrary to absolute factual evidence, then yes, why should they try to simultaneously please two diametrically opposing masters claiming authority?

Didn't Lucifer challenge God's authority?
Isn't that what the master deceiver is doing even in this point of conflict between man's words versus God's word?

I understand those holding to heliocentricism to have been masterfully deceived.

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 28th 2008, 02:55 AM
I am trying to understand this statement.
Sin and thereby death originated from a literal Adam and Eve in the literal garden as the result of literally eating a literal fruit from a literal tree in disobedience to a literal command to not eat of that fruit, which assured them that they would die if they in fact did eat of it.


Yes, that is the literal view of the doctrine of original sin.




Do you mean that once an alleged scientifically imperically observed fact contradicts the Bibles claim, (let's say, that the sun does in fact move around the earth) then that means anything else that seems literally spoken in the scriptures, (let's say the origin of sin) cannot therefore continue to be understood to be literally true?
No, I mean that once Christians start explaining inconsistencies between a young earth view and observations to the contrary with a deceptive creation you run into some pretty problematic implications. Paul writes in Romans that

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

That's a pretty foundational doctrine, and it is based on us being able to learn truth from what has "been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." But when you start claiming that what has been made does not reflect truth or is deceptive you contradict a pretty clear scriptural directive about us being able to garner truth through observation even if we had never encountered revelation.



Are you saying that this is the crux of the issue and hence the importance of this thread: that Christians should realize that if they cave in on the movement of the sun, they should be able to see that everything else they understand to be literal, (such as the appearance of a "last Adam" to rectify what the first Adam did) also needs to be reviewed by scientific criteria to determine whether or not those long held beliefs are valid?
No, I mean claiming that God created a deceptive universe in theologically inconsistent and directly contradicts this doctrine.



The earth was here complete with plant life and water before any other celestial body was miraculously placed in the heavens.
That would support the practical conclusion that it makes sense that the sun goes around the earth in agreement with our God given senses that agree with that.
I hate to break it to you but there's this thing called gravity that's kind of related to mass. . .you should probably look into that.



To be consistent; if Christians allow so called science to relegate Bible claims as contrary to absolute factual evidence, then yes, why should they try to simultaneously please two diametrically opposing masters claiming authority?
Please explain which biblical doctrine states that we should choose to ignore observation in favor of interpretation?

Walstib
Dec 28th 2008, 02:01 PM
Your point goes back to my original question. If one believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 then why not a literal interpretation of the scriptures in Joshua, in Psalms, in Isaiah that support that the earth is fixed and ths sun revolves around it? Why do nearly all young earthers don't trust the science on age of earth but do trust the science on heliocentrism? The set up in the question is the one that makes it difficult. There are conclusions about people in the question. The problem comes with it lumping all those who see a young earth as pure literalists. That most “young earthers” understand that not all sentences in the bible are completely literal, well this I think answers your question.
You mentioned evolutionary processes. I don't think the age of the earth/universe would be hardly debated if the theory of evolution was not around. Evolution needs a old earth/universe for it to work. In a old earth/universe evolution is not that relevant. To me it is still relevant as I believe man has no common ancestor regardless of how old the earth is.
I guess you mean the Bose-Einstein Condensate? Yeah the condensate has some weird properties when frozen at absolute zero like the slowing of light through it.

As for freeze dried mammoths. There are in the true sense no freeze dried mammoths. They look freeze dried and remarkably intact but you can't eat the meat after you thaw it out. Might be kinda tough after 20 or 30 thousands years. Plus there signs of prefrozen decay like dessication and remains of fly pupae. I brought those up as an attempt at humour rather than from a desire to discuss them as evidence toward the root of our discussion. An extreme to show the futility of discussing things like that compared to agreeing on what the bible itself is. The direction I was going with the three points that had no response.

Peace,
Joe

fishbowlsoul
Dec 28th 2008, 08:05 PM
The set up in the question is the one that makes it difficult. There are conclusions about people in the question. The problem comes with it lumping all those who see a young earth as pure literalists. That most “young earthers” understand that not all sentences in the bible are completely literal, well this I think answers your question.


Thanks Joe. I think you have made my point.

God Bless

Alaska
Dec 29th 2008, 12:16 AM
Yes, that is the literal view of the doctrine of original sin.


No, I mean that once Christians start explaining inconsistencies between a young earth view and observations to the contrary with a deceptive creation you run into some pretty problematic implications. Paul writes in Romans that

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

That's a pretty foundational doctrine, and it is based on us being able to learn truth from what has "been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." But when you start claiming that what has been made does not reflect truth or is deceptive you contradict a pretty clear scriptural directive about us being able to garner truth through observation even if we had never encountered revelation.

No, I mean claiming that God created a deceptive universe in theologically inconsistent and directly contradicts this doctrine.

I hate to break it to you but there's this thing called gravity that's kind of related to mass. . .you should probably look into that.

Please explain which biblical doctrine states that we should choose to ignore observation in favor of interpretation?

Your claim (as though absolutely true and proven thus) is your basis for the assumption that real observation (your view) contradicts the bible.
This is a circular reasoniing as if the heliocentric model cannot be false and therefore cannot be challenged.
I say that it is false and can in fact be challenged. Hence the bibles apparent reference to the sun moving is valid and should not be seen as anything other than literal.
Do you suppose there is no scientific and valid argument concerning the properties of gravity in space as if it is a no-brainer that of course the dogma shoved down the publics throat cannot be false?

Walstib
Dec 29th 2008, 02:24 AM
Thanks Joe. I think you have made my point.

Great! Thanks for the conversation in the middle. ;)

Peace,
Joe

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 29th 2008, 02:59 AM
Do you suppose there is no scientific and valid argument concerning the properties of gravity in space as if it is a no-brainer that of course the dogma shoved down the publics throat cannot be false?

Nope, there is no valid argument that the sun revolves around the earth. You can't wish away Earth's equatorial bulge, starlight aberrations, or the coriolis effect.

It's simple observation. Gravity is determined by mass, the sun is more than a million times more massive than the earth therefore the sun generates more gravity. Even if you somehow claimed this wasn't true, look around. . .do we see massive objects orbiting small ones anywhere else in the universe? Do we orbit the moon?

Take it a step further, if the earth is stationary that means that the visible universe whips around us every 24 hours which would mean that anything beyond 4.1 billion kilometers should be moving faster than the speed of light. Even the sun would be wizzing around somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light and would display measurable relativistic length contraction. Curiously, we should have expected the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft to have accelerated beyond the speed of light a while ago if the universe is truly flying around a stationary earth. . .isn't it kind of odd that we see no evidence of this?

Yankee Candle
Dec 30th 2008, 07:12 PM
"I find it interesting that it seems easy for some to have trust that God can guide the whole “evolutionary process”, atom by atom through time. Then seem to have issues with trusting in the bible, like God could did not guide it word for word with preserved history as well."

Wow! What a point! I wish I had said that.

You aren't alone in your feelings on this, fella. The lack of trust in God's Word that theistic evolutionists display in their beliefs is astonishing to me. Well, I was one of them long ago so I guess I should not be.

Well put, friend. Very well put!

Yankee Candle
Dec 30th 2008, 09:15 PM
"No, I mean claiming that God created a deceptive universe in theologically inconsistent and directly contradicts this doctrine"

This idea is purely an unsubstantiated opinion.

Question: What could God possibly create that would not have the appearance of age? How old did Adam look when he was ten seconds old? Even if he were an infant he would still have the appearance of being older than he actually was. Does that condemn God for making something that appears one way to man when in fact it is quite another?:confused

But who really determines how OLD something appears to be? Isn't that a subjective matter? I have a wife that is so beautiful even at age 54 that she is often mistaken as being 33!

Secondly, the distance of the light from stars taking supposedly millions of yrs may work out mathematically and be correct and yet the reality of it be completely different than what the time travel of light from star to earth is demanded by physics. If indeed God 'stretched out' the heavens as we are told in Isaiah then the stars and galaxies were much closer to earth in Adam's time than it is now and the reason behind the 'red shift' is apparent.

I reject the notion that one must conclude that God created a 'deceptive' universe/world if the six day creation position is true. Those who take that position do not take things to the bottom line. But in the end of all things it will be discovered that the 'bottom line' is ...guess what(?) the Word of God.

Isa 42:5 ¶ Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 31st 2008, 06:02 AM
"I find it interesting that it seems easy for some to have trust that God can guide the whole “evolutionary process”, atom by atom through time. Then seem to have issues with trusting in the bible, like God could did not guide it word for word with preserved history as well."

Wow! What a point! I wish I had said that.

You aren't alone in your feelings on this, fella. The lack of trust in God's Word that theistic evolutionists display in their beliefs is astonishing to me. Well, I was one of them long ago so I guess I should not be.

Well put, friend. Very well put!

I don't have a lack of trust in God's Word just your interpretation of it.

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 31st 2008, 01:53 PM
"No, I mean claiming that God created a deceptive universe in theologically inconsistent and directly contradicts this doctrine"

This idea is purely an unsubstantiated opinion.


No, this is a claim based on scripture which claims that human beings can learn about God because the nature of God ". . .have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made." Romans 1:20

Well, God chose to have a universe with a history so obviously we can learn about God by studying that history. If that history is false what does this tell us about God?



Question: What could God possibly create that would not have the appearance of age?


Anything he wanted. He is the one who established all these natural laws which lead us to these conclusions remember? He is the one who made the claim that we could learn about Him by following those conclusions? Are you saying God was limited in how he could have created the world? Is that a statement supported by scripture?



But who really determines how OLD something appears to be? Isn't that a subjective matter? I have a wife that is so beautiful even at age 54 that she is often mistaken as being 33!


Age is not subjective, your wife is still 54. If I put a pizza in the oven and think it doesn't look quite done after 20 minutes is that going to change when it starts burning? No, my opinions about how it looks isn't going to change anything except the degree of trouble I get into later for either burning the pizza or scorching the inside of the oven.



Secondly, the distance of the light from stars taking supposedly millions of yrs may work out mathematically and be correct and yet the reality of it be completely different than what the time travel of light from star to earth is demanded by physics. If indeed God 'stretched out' the heavens as we are told in Isaiah then the stars and galaxies were much closer to earth in Adam's time than it is now and the reason behind the 'red shift' is apparent.


No, for this to be true events we can observe occurring in distant starlight did not actually occur. That is not consistent with a truthful God claiming we will learn more about him by learning about his creation.



I reject the notion that one must conclude that God created a 'deceptive' universe/world if the six day creation position is true. Those who take that position do not take things to the bottom line. But in the end of all things it will be discovered that the 'bottom line' is ...guess what(?) the Word of God.


Actually. . .no that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is the condition of your soul based on your beliefs about Christ and, theoretically, even absent of the knowledge of Christ. Even if we accept that that the Bible is the end all argument for every matter, according to scripture I am justified in following the observable evidence. Paul clearly supports the notion that we can learn about God through observation so. . .what now?

Yankee Candle
Jan 1st 2009, 09:43 PM
I don't have a lack of trust in God's Word just your interpretation of it.

I don't think so.

I believe God's Word in its most plain spoken manner of delivery and I do not seek to allegorize what Jesus and His disciples said was literal/historical. To do so is to deny the legitimacy of the foundations of real faith that the Creator God can do anything and that He tells the truth about everything.

I don't believe it is an 'interpretation' of scripture to deny that Genesis is literal about the first six days, the existence of Adam and Eve, the fall of man, or that the flood of Noah actually happened. That is not a differing interpretation, that is a denial. The clincher for even the honest skeptic should be the history that Luke gave us of Jesus family lineage in his gospel, chapter three which lists all of Christ's family back 77 names to Adam. Unless each and every name in that lineage is a real person then the account Luke wrote is worthless.

Please answer this.

Yankee Candle
Jan 1st 2009, 10:04 PM
No, this is a claim based on scripture which claims that human beings can learn about God because the nature of God ". . .have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made." Romans 1:20

Well, God chose to have a universe with a history so obviously we can learn about God by studying that history. If that history is false what does this tell us about God?



Anything he wanted.

Give an example. Name one thing that He could create instantaneously in the eyes of man that would not have the appearance of age.

He is the one who established all these natural laws which lead us to these conclusions remember?

Natural law matches divine law as it is mentioned in scripture, not that of evlutionary principles. If you hadn't been wrongly educated about this then you would know better than to come to a conclusion like that.

He is the one who made the claim that we could learn about Him by following those conclusions? Are you saying God was limited in how he could have created the world? Is that a statement supported by scripture?

God is limited only by what He decides and what He decides is His Word. What He told us about the creation He would not change and nature reflects the truth of what He said.

Age is not subjective, your wife is still 54. If I put a pizza in the oven and think it doesn't look quite done after 20 minutes is that going to change when it starts burning? No, my opinions about how it looks isn't going to change anything except the degree of trouble I get into later for either burning the pizza or scorching the inside of the oven.

You're not getting it. You don't wish to get it. We are talking about the 'appearance of age' not actual age. The stars appear to be much older and further away than would our physics permit in a 6,000 yr time frame. We all know that. But Isaiah in particular solves that problem for us and we have a good answer to the red shift in astronomy. Your position on the matter is in error because at bottom line, you trust astronomers and physicists in determining the length of time the world has existed rather than God's Word. I admit their physics is correct but I have faith that the Lord did not give us empty words in Isaiah 40, 45, etc.



No, for this to be true events we can observe occurring in distant starlight did not actually occur. That is not consistent with a truthful God claiming we will learn more about him by learning about his creation.

No, it all did/is actually occurring. I don't deny that for a moment. There is nothing deceptive about it. God told us what He did but you fail to believe Him. I do.

Actually. . .no that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is the condition of your soul based on your beliefs about Christ and, theoretically, even absent of the knowledge of Christ. Even if we accept that that the Bible is the end all argument for every matter, according to scripture I am justified in following the observable evidence. Paul clearly supports the notion that we can learn about God through observation so. . .what now?

I don't know how you can get by with saying a thing like that without being reprimanded by the administrators. We will see.

Nonetheless, simple faith that God means what He says and taking Him at his Word has never been a heresy in the eyes of the Lord. But on a personal level; answer to prayer for 40 yrs, seeing the miraculous on behalf of those I pray for, and seeing others joyfully converted to Jesus Christ and seeing their lives transform by the power of the gospel belies such a notion. I will ignore that charge and move on.

But tell the readers: Was the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 3 legitimate? Were all those family members of the Lord real people all the way back to Adam? God is mentioned after Adam....as His father. We know God is real...now what about Adam? I await your answer.

fishbowlsoul
Jan 1st 2009, 10:50 PM
I don't think so.

I believe God's Word in its most plain spoken manner of delivery and I do not seek to allegorize what Jesus and His disciples said was literal/historical. To do so is to deny the legitimacy of the foundations of real faith that the Creator God can do anything and that He tells the truth about everything.

I don't believe it is an 'interpretation' of scripture to deny that Genesis is literal about the first six days, the existence of Adam and Eve, the fall of man, or that the flood of Noah actually happened. That is not a differing interpretation, that is a denial. The clincher for even the honest skeptic should be the history that Luke gave us of Jesus family lineage in his gospel, chapter three which lists all of Christ's family back 77 names to Adam. Unless each and every name in that lineage is a real person then the account Luke wrote is worthless.

Please answer this.

If you compare the genealogy in Luke 3 with Matthew 1, you notice there are discrepancies between the two especially after you get past David in the list. For example Matthew says that Jesus was descended through Solomon while Luke says Jesus was descended through Nathan. Also there are differences with the geneaolgy in 1 Chronicles 3. Now not being a literalist, this is not a problem for me. I do not believe these genealogies were written to be testament on how old the earth is. They were written to emphasize to the Jews the lineage of Jesus both royal (Matthew) and priestly (Luke) and also to emphasize Jesus came to save the Gentiles too. After all Rahab and Ruth are included in Matthew's geneaology and they were not Jewish.

God bless

Yankee Candle
Jan 1st 2009, 11:14 PM
If you compare the genealogy in Luke 3 with Matthew 1, you notice there are discrepancies between the two especially after you get past David in the list. For example Matthew says that Jesus was descended through Solomon while Luke says Jesus was descended through Nathan. Also there are differences with the geneaolgy in 1 Chronicles 3. Now not being a literalist, this is not a problem for me. I do not believe these genealogies were written to be testament on how old the earth is. They were written to emphasize to the Jews the lineage of Jesus both royal (Matthew) and priestly (Luke) and also to emphasize Jesus came to save the Gentiles too. After all Rahab and Ruth are included in Matthew's geneaology and they were not Jewish.

God bless

You deliberately skirted the issue and avoided the question. Was ADAM a real person in the family line of Jesus Christ or is God's Word in error?

Now, please answer the question.

But to answer what you said (in error). There was no discrepency in the family lineage between Matthew and Luke. They were TWO DIFFERENT accounts...one that pertained to Josephs side of the family and the other pertaining to Mary's side of the family.

There are no errors in God's Word. "The scripture cannot be broken...." Jesus in John 10:35

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 1st 2009, 11:30 PM
Give an example. Name one thing that He could create instantaneously in the eyes of man that would not have the appearance of age.


It's difficult for us to conceptualize because our perceptions are so cluttered by our contexts. . .but is there any particular reason why the laws of physics needed to be established by God the way they are? If God is indeed all powerful it shouldn't have been too hard for him to create things fully formed without the appearance of age. For instance, he could have created the stars closer to earth, he could have created a smaller universe, or possibly one in which the speed of light was not set at it's current level. This would, of course, necessitate a whole new set of physical laws, but being God I'm sure he could manage it.




Natural law matches divine law as it is mentioned in scripture, not that of evlutionary principles. If you hadn't been wrongly educated about this then you would know better than to come to a conclusion like that.


That's what I call "fluff" - flowery spiritualized semantics with nothing concrete behind them. . .abstractions. How does natural law specifically match divine law? How, exactly, does gravity as related to mass match up with the Bible?




God is limited only by what He decides and what He decides is His Word. What He told us about the creation He would not change and nature reflects the truth of what He said.


Right, and what he says about Creation through Paul is that we can learn about him by observing his creation.



You're not getting it. You don't wish to get it. We are talking about the 'appearance of age' not actual age. The stars appear to be much older and further away than would our physics permit in a 6,000 yr time frame. We all know that. But Isaiah in particular solves that problem for us and we have a good answer to the red shift in astronomy.


How, exactly, does red shift support your argument?



Your position on the matter is in error because at bottom line, you trust astronomers and physicists in determining the length of time the world has existed rather than God's Word. I admit their physics is correct but I have faith that the Lord did not give us empty words in Isaiah 40, 45, etc.


If you're going to invoke a supernatural "God did it. . .somehow" argument then just do it. Why waste time trying to prove that observation supports this?



I don't know how you can get by with saying a thing like that without being reprimanded by the administrators. We will see.


Yes, because salvation by faith in Christ alone is a real earth shaking doctrine these days.



Nonetheless, simple faith that God means what He says and taking Him at his Word has never been a heresy in the eyes of the Lord.


What are you talking about?



But on a personal level; answer to prayer for 40 yrs, seeing the miraculous on behalf of those I pray for, and seeing others joyfully converted to Jesus Christ and seeing their lives transform by the power of the gospel belies such a notion. I will ignore that charge and move on.


Charge? Are you sure you're replying to the correct post? I have no idea what you're talking about.



But tell the readers: Was the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 3 legitimate? Were all those family members of the Lord real people all the way back to Adam? God is mentioned after Adam....as His father. We know God is real...now what about Adam? I await your answer.

They probably were all real people, but I don't think they were exactly one after the other.

Yankee Candle
Jan 2nd 2009, 12:11 AM
It's difficult for us to conceptualize because our perceptions are so cluttered by our contexts. . .but is there any particular reason why the laws of physics needed to be established by God the way they are? If God is indeed all powerful it shouldn't have been too hard for him to create things fully formed without the appearance of age. For instance, he could have created the stars closer to earth, he could have created a smaller universe, or possibly one in which the speed of light was not set at it's current level. This would, of course, necessitate a whole new set of physical laws, but being God I'm sure he could manage it.

Thank you for admitting you cannot give an example. Further, is there any reason why we should not take Jesus Christ at his word that Adam and Eve were real people and that sin and death entered the world just the way Paul said it did in Romans 5? And of what use is Romans 5 to us at all if what Paul said is error and death existed for millions of yrs affecting countless organisms before your 'Adam' became the first human to evolve from his ape-like parents?

That's what I call "fluff" - flowery spiritualized semantics with nothing concrete behind them. . .abstractions. How does natural law specifically match divine law? How, exactly, does gravity as related to mass match up with the Bible?

It is your opinions that amount to fluff. The scriptural history of the world according to Moses, the prophets, Paul, Peter, John, and most of all Jesus Christ is actual/real/literal/historical. But to more accurately answer your question: Biogenesis, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the theory of light, and even the eternal truth that Christ holds all things together are seen in Strong nuclear force and in living cells, laminin. Not all physical laws are mentioned in the Bible but I can give scripture for each of the above.


Right, and what he says about Creation through Paul is that we can learn about him by observing his creation.

And what we observe about His creation will be just what His Word says it will be...unless ones thinking has been tainted by evolutionary philosophy. The order of this present world is Biogenesis and entropy (degeneration, death, and decay) not evolution.

How, exactly, does red shift support your argument?

An expanding universe. Isaiah "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

If you're going to invoke a supernatural "God did it. . .somehow" argument then just do it. Why waste time trying to prove that observation supports this?

Once again, your unbelief surfaces in all of its horrible detail. God didn't 'somehow' do anything. By His Almighty wisdom and power He made the heavens and the earth by speaking them into existence into an elegant order and highly structured, highly organized way. It didn't happen by some big bang. Explosians don't create anything...they disorganize.

Yes, because salvation by faith in Christ alone is a real earth shaking doctrine these days.

I believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Grace through faith in Him who always told the truth and that includes what He said about Genesis. I believe what he said about Genesis. It appears that you don't.

What are you talking about?

?

Charge? Are you sure you're replying to the correct post? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Skip it.

They probably were all real people, but I don't think they were exactly one after the other.

What ones? Was Adam's direct Father God like Luke said in his account of Jesus family line or was his father an ape-like creature?

Did death exist millions of years before Adams sin? If so, what do we do with Romans 5:12, 14? What practical application should a Christ derive from rejecting their literal connotation?

Athanasius
Jan 2nd 2009, 02:37 AM
It's difficult for us to conceptualize because our perceptions are so cluttered by our contexts. . .but is there any particular reason why the laws of physics needed to be established by God the way they are? If God is indeed all powerful it shouldn't have been too hard for him to create things fully formed without the appearance of age. For instance, he could have created the stars closer to earth, he could have created a smaller universe, or possibly one in which the speed of light was not set at it's current level. This would, of course, necessitate a whole new set of physical laws, but being God I'm sure he could manage it.

Do you know what always bothered me about discussions concerning evil, suffering and the state of the cosmos? People would always ask the question, "Why did God make things this way" and the answer to the question is He didn't, we made things this way. I realize that seems some what unrelated but it illustrates what we seem to forget. Creation, at the "time" of creation, was not the same as creation is now; we're comparing two different realities, universes, if you will; one sinless, the other corrupted by sin.

Now I agree with you, our perceptions are "cluttered" (perhaps influenced is the word I would use) by our context. Such as the perception that what we perceive to have age must be accompanied by actual history for that age. If we believe the earth to be 4.5 million years, it better actually have 4.5 million years of history! Heaven forbid God would create something with age but not an actual history to accompany it! Not that I am aware of any logical contradiction involved in God's creating 'X' of age without the accompaniment of an actual history. An Adam created thirty seconds ago might appear to us to be thirty years old, but has God deceived us, especially in an uncorrupted universe? Even in a universe corrupted by sin I would say no, why should it? Does this speak negatively on God's character in relation to Romans 1:20? I suspect only in your mind and the minds of a few others here (though you are wrong). What is the point; that God created according to how you believe He created, or that God created the awesome grandeur of the cosmos? Billions of years old or not? We might as well agree with the serpent in Eden; God lied, Adam and Eve did not die. The point is our understanding compared to God's mind; there is no comparison. I like the way G.K Chesteron put it:

The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wilderness lies in wait. I give one course instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobs of the brain. At last he would take it as law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.
-Orthodoxy, pg. 81-82

Some times things are just the way they are because that's how God chose to make them (I make no qualms that in this sentence I have just admitted to providing the answer, "because that's just how God did it"). Too often the scientific mind demands of God the posture of a Vulcan - like Spock - driven by logic with the occasional tear of emotion; but not where anything important is concerned, for that would be deception.

Coming back to the rest of your reply I must ask you what the point of this is:

but is there any particular reason why the laws of physics needed to be established by God the way they are? If God is indeed all powerful it shouldn't have been too hard for him to create things fully formed without the appearance of age. For instance, he could have created the stars closer to earth, he could have created a smaller universe, or possibly one in which the speed of light was not set at it's current level. This would, of course, necessitate a whole new set of physical laws, but being God I'm sure he could manage it.

It's possible He could have done all these things different than He did, but He didn't, He created the universe this specific way; there's no pointing in asking why God didn't stick legs on planets so that they might run around the sun. I'm sure we would not consider the suggestion absurd had we been created in such a fanciful place. To say, "I don't like your suggestion" and thereby retort with, "because I call into question why God did anything the way He did" is absurd; it is an objection on no rational grounds other than personal preference.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 2nd 2009, 02:55 AM
Does this speak negatively on God's character in relation to Romans 1:20? I suspect only in your mind and the minds of a few others here (though you are wrong). What is the point; that God created according to how you believe He created, or that God created the awesome grandeur of the cosmos? Billions of years old or not?

Some times things are just the way they are because that's how God chose to make them (I make no qualms that in this sentence I have just admitted to providing the answer, "because that's just how God did it").

It's possible He could have done all these things different than He did, but He didn't, He created the universe this specific way; there's no pointing in asking why God didn't stick legs on planets so that they might run around the sun.

That is actually my point. Things are the way they are because that's how God chose to make them. He could have done things differently but He chose not to. He created the universe in a specific way, with a specific set of laws and a specific species of living things who would be able to decipher those laws and read the history he placed in His universe. With all of that in mind I cannot see how honestly following that history could lead one anywhere but to a better understanding of the Creator. Just as reading twelve Ray Bradbury books will bring you closer to understanding that strangest of golden age science fiction writers, just as studying a roof will bring you closer to understanding the qualities of a roofer.

There are stories in that history, accounts of events that occurred thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of years ago. In each of our views it was God who put those stories there. Supernovae, continental uplift, asteroid impacts, volcanic activity on such a scale the mind reals to concieve it. None of this was required to build an instant earth, or an instant universe. . .all of it was required to build an old earth and an old universe. If God does not lie, and God placed those stories there are those stories true? And no, we cannot escape into metaphysical musings of what "truth" meant at the cusp of creation - Scripture makes claims to an absolute nature of truth that does not change, to an unchanging God who does not lie.

Athanasius
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:19 AM
That is actually my point. Things are the way they are because that's how God chose to make them. He could have done things differently but He chose not to. He created the universe in a specific way, with a specific set of laws and a specific species of living things who would be able to decipher those laws and read the history he placed in His universe. With all of that in mind I cannot see how honestly following that history could lead one anywhere but to a better understanding of the Creator. Just as reading twelve Ray Bradbury books will bring you closer to understanding that strangest of golden age science fiction writers, just as studying a roof will bring you closer to understanding the qualities of a roofer.

There are stories in that history, accounts of events that occurred thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of years ago. In each of our views it was God who put those stories there. Supernovae, continental uplift, asteroid impacts, volcanic activity on such a scale the mind reals to concieve it. None of this was required to build an instant earth, or an instant universe. . .all of it was required to build an old earth and an old universe. If God does not lie, and God placed those stories there are those stories true? And no, we cannot escape into metaphysical musings of what "truth" meant at the cusp of creation - Scripture makes claims to an absolute nature of truth that does not change, to an unchanging God who does not lie.

I have made no attempt to delve into "metaphysical musings" regarding truth at the cusp of creation. I must assume you've simply misunderstood at least that part of what I've said. I will also take this opportunity to make clear. I don't necessarily believe God created the cosmos with age. While this might not be a view I myself have adopted (I'm seem very much a coward and enjoy ambiguity, though I will become more specific later on), I know that others here have and there is nothing illogical, inconsistent or deceitful about this view. Perhaps such a view goes against your notion of how God should act, and perhaps you view that as reflecting negatively on the character of God, but this simply isn't so.

Regarding that specificity I alluded to earlier. I hold to the opinion that Genesis is a literal account that happened in space-time. This requires me, necessarily, to believe that God created Adam out of the dust of the ground and that God created Eve out of Adam's rib. Now, even if I were to believe God created Adam without age (as I believe has been suggested), I would still be required to believe that God created Eve with age. From this I'll simply deduce that it is preposterous for God to have created Adam without age, so Adam, like Eve, was created with age (to say otherwise would be silly).

Now imagine God plucked a man out of the 21st century, perhaps, because God has a sense of humor, He plucked Richard Dawkins out of the 21st century and placed him in Eden just after the creation of Adam (we will have to ignore the theological inconsistencies of such a scenario, it is a scenario, after all). After recovering from what is likely the shock of his life, Prof. Dawkins finds himself face to face with Adam. Now we're going to assume Adam is about thirty years old. I don't believe I could show you that in scripture, but it sounds like a good age; Jesus was crucified around the age of thirty, so that's why I choose thirty. So Adam is thirty. Prof. Dawkins begins a very in depth discussion with Adam concerning silly things like, "how did you evolve?" and "where are the rest of the humans?" and is quite impressed with Adam's answers, but still in disbelief; he doesn't like Adam's talk of God and there not being any other humans. You see, Adam hasn't fallen yet and so his intellect has not been corrupted by sin. Prof. Dawkins is talking with the most intelligent person (at the time) alive. After having contained Himself from laughter (though not in mockery), Jesus arrives in Eden and greets Prof. Dawkins personally. Prof. Dawkins has just has his world view shattered (how you can deduce God doesn't exist from the evolutionary theory is beyond me), but this doesn't matter, we just added one God + evolution (so far). Prof. Dawkins has just been introduced to Adam and Jesus. Prof. Dawkins, the astute fellow that he is (I do like his writing, actually), asks Jesus, "Where are the rest of humanity? I was under the impression that 'adam' was not singular, but plural in the Hebrew and afterall, where did Cain get his wife?" Jesus replies, "Oh well I was being quite blunt in my book, I created Adam out of the dust and he's the only one".

Now lets pause there for a minute. I very much doubt Prof. Dawkins next reply would be, "Wait a minute, you created an aged man of 30? How dare you be decietful!" This is however the exact accustation against those who would hold the belief that God created the universe with age. The only question is, is it comparable in relation to the universe, either concerning cosmic events in the universe or geological events in and on the earth. I believe most would say no. But then I would have to think. If I took a literalist approach to Genesis (and I do), and I, arriving in Eden, happened upon a man in his thirties (Adam), I would assume this man to have a history of twenty nine years leading up to his thirtieth year. The same could be said of trees, plants and animals (everything created with age). As it happens, though, this man of thirty was created two minutes prior; my senses tell me he is thirty. If I were to give this man a medical examination, that examination would also tell me he is thirty.

Ah, but I've probably taken this a bit too far. An interesting discussion, though.

Yankee Candle
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:27 PM
Xel'Naga; your answers were good. I agree.

Yankee Candle
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:32 PM
I am going to re-state an earlier question which I regard of great importance. So far unanswered:

"They probably were all real people, but I don't think they were exactly one after the other."

What ones? Was Adam's direct Father God like Luke said in his account of Jesus family line or was his father an ape-like creature?

Did death exist millions of years before Adams sin? If so, what do we do with Romans 5:12, 14? What practical application should a Christian derive from rejecting their literal connotation?

AND...if Lukes list of people in Jesus family lineage is not complete then please give us the names that are missing and why you think that he was in error.

Athanasius
Jan 2nd 2009, 04:55 PM
Xel'Naga; your answers were good. I agree.

There are issues that require more thinking.

Yankee Candle
Jan 2nd 2009, 05:00 PM
There are issues that require more thinking.

Then I hope that the skeptics to biblical creation will so some real thinking about the last four questions I asked on this thread.

Have a nice day.

fishbowlsoul
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:06 AM
I am going to re-state an earlier question which I regard of great importance. So far unanswered:

"They probably were all real people, but I don't think they were exactly one after the other."

What ones? Was Adam's direct Father God like Luke said in his account of Jesus family line or was his father an ape-like creature?

Did death exist millions of years before Adams sin? If so, what do we do with Romans 5:12, 14? What practical application should a Christian derive from rejecting their literal connotation?

AND...if Lukes list of people in Jesus family lineage is not complete then please give us the names that are missing and why you think that he was in error.

I believe Adam to be a literal man. I do not believe Adam to be the first human. Of course I know you do not subscribe to an allegorical reading of Genesis 1-2 but to me there are clearly two different stories commonly referred to as the creation story. In Genesis 1:27 states God created male and female. I believe this to representative of the evolution of humans. In Genesis 2:7 God "breath into his nostrils the breath of life;" The Hebrew word for breath here is neshamah which can be translated also as spirit or soul. So I believe Adam was the first human to be endowed with a soul. The first human with the development to realize a relationship with God. In fact I believed this solves the age old question of where did Cain get his wife? There were other humans around already. Cain did not have to marry his sister. Evolution does not require Adam to have a ape like father.

As for Romans 5:12, 14, to me this is speaking of spiritual death (or separation from God) through sin not physical death. After all Adam did not surely die the day he sinned through disobedience (Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3) but he did spiritually die (was separated from God). That is why Jesus came to die for us - to resurrect us spiritually - to bridge the separation between humanity and God. Jesus did not come to save us from physically dying (Hebrews 9:27).

A comparison between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke and 1 Chronicles 3 shows that they are differences among them.

Now I know you don't buy any of this but this is my belief.

God bless

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:24 AM
I have made no attempt to delve into "metaphysical musings" regarding truth at the cusp of creation. I must assume you've simply misunderstood at least that part of what I've said.


Actually no, that's just me waxing poetic and kind of losing track of what we were talking about. . .for some reason I just really wanted to work "cusp" in somewhere and it kind of got away from me. It happens.



Perhaps such a view goes against your notion of how God should act, and perhaps you view that as reflecting negatively on the character of God, but this simply isn't so.




Now, even if I were to believe God created Adam without age (as I believe has been suggested), I would still be required to believe that God created Eve with age. From this I'll simply deduce that it is preposterous for God to have created Adam without age, so Adam, like Eve, was created with age (to say otherwise would be silly).


You give some wonderfully illustrated points throughout your post but I think this is the essential point. Feel free to correct me, but I find myself responding to more and more people and I simply lose track if I respond to large chunks of text.

Essentially my disagreement remains the same. God is not bound to our expectations but he has chosen to bind Himself to His claims. He has claimed that He can be "understood by what has been made". What has been made is not just the appearence of age required by the laws of physics but also a specific history. It would be like God creating Adam not only with apparent age but an apparent medical history complete with charts, memories, and scars.

In the end it comes down to a simple question; can we trust the story God wrote into the universe? If God is a God of truth then we can.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:36 AM
I am going to re-state an earlier question which I regard of great importance. So far unanswered:

"They probably were all real people, but I don't think they were exactly one after the other."

What ones? Was Adam's direct Father God like Luke said in his account of Jesus family line or was his father an ape-like creature?

Did death exist millions of years before Adams sin? If so, what do we do with Romans 5:12, 14? What practical application should a Christian derive from rejecting their literal connotation?

AND...if Lukes list of people in Jesus family lineage is not complete then please give us the names that are missing and why you think that he was in error.

Honestly? I don't know. I follow the evidence, but all evidence doesn't lend itself to an answer for every question. It's something I'm working on but havn't quite been able to wrap my head around in an internally consistent way.

An exception would be sin before the fall, yes I believe there was a specific choice of an individual who seperated us from God causing our spiritual deaths. But obviously physical death existed as long as physical life. This is borne out both observation, modern and prehistoric creatures were consumers and, as I sum it up for my occasionally horrified students. . .everybody's got to eat. Nor is this view inconsistent with scripture.

BrckBrln
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:05 AM
I believe Adam to be a literal man. I do not believe Adam to be the first human. Of course I know you do not subscribe to an allegorical reading of Genesis 1-2 but to me there are clearly two different stories commonly referred to as the creation story. In Genesis 1:27 states God created male and female. I believe this to representative of the evolution of humans. In Genesis 2:7 God "breath into his nostrils the breath of life;" The Hebrew word for breath here is neshamah which can be translated also as spirit or soul. So I believe Adam was the first human to be endowed with a soul. The first human with the development to realize a relationship with God. In fact I believed this solves the age old question of where did Cain get his wife? There were other humans around already. Cain did not have to marry his sister. Evolution does not require Adam to have a ape like father.

According to you, in what way was Adam made out of the dust of the earth?

Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...Genesis 2:7

Yankee Candle
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:33 AM
"I do not believe Adam to be the first human"

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." I Corinthians 15:45

This verse represents another excellent reason why believers in Christ should reject evolution or any 'old earth' ideas. There is no ambiguity in Paul's language here. The first Adam was made a physical, living being and the last Adam (Jesus) was beyond that in that He was an enlivening Being. Not only so but...the identification of the second man is given to us in vs 47:

1Corinthians 15:47 "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

There was no human being before Adam. There was no death before Adam, neither physical nor spiritual and there isn't a trace of evidence from the scriptures that says such a thing.

"So I believe Adam was the first human to be endowed with a soul."

Does he mean that his parents were apes or ape-like? And if so, does that mean that physical death killed them and all others before them for millions of years even before the sin of Adam? What is the origin of physical death?

Yankee Candle
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:55 AM
"Honestly? I don't know. I follow the evidence, but all evidence doesn't lend itself to an answer for every question. It's something I'm working on but havn't quite been able to wrap my head around in an internally consistent way."

Well, I regard that as an honest answer. The evidence, however, at bottom line...must be God's Word and all other evidence must be held in light of what God said. He was there. We weren't. He knows the truth about what happened, we can only guess. He knows the true date of things, we don't. Unless supreme confidence is given to what God told us is His preserved Word (Pslam 12:6-7) then we can be easily led astray by philosophies pretending to be scientific ideas.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

I reject nearly all the modern dating methods that have been developed because there isn't a single one of them without assumptions. Furthermore, whether one is using radio-carbon, uranium lead, or potassium-argon, the assumption factor is involved in the process and this is perhaps why so many of the same objects have been given such different dates by different scientists.

It all comes back to whether a believer in Christ can trust what God has inspired in the revealed record of scripture. I do. I've seen the power of it and I have the utmost confidence in it's veracity.

"This is borne out both observation, modern and prehistoric creatures..."

There is no such thing as 'pre-historic' creatures.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:11 PM
Well, I regard that as an honest answer. The evidence, however, at bottom line...must be God's Word and all other evidence must be held in light of what God said. He was there. We weren't. He knows the truth about what happened, we can only guess. He knows the true date of things, we don't. Unless supreme confidence is given to what God told us is His preserved Word (Pslam 12:6-7) then we can be easily led astray by philosophies pretending to be scientific ideas.


I agree, but I try not to elevate my interpretation to the same level as revelation. When observation and revelation collide something's got to give; either the science is wrong, the revelation is wrong, or the interpretation is wrong. In most cases I've run into the science obviously is not wrong and I don't believe revelation to be wrong either, so I look at my interpretation.



I reject nearly all the modern dating methods that have been developed because there isn't a single one of them without assumptions. Furthermore, whether one is using radio-carbon, uranium lead, or potassium-argon, the assumption factor is involved in the process and this is perhaps why so many of the same objects have been given such different dates by different scientists.


All predictions contain assumptions of some degree. Even simple one's about gravity. However, the assumptions made by modern dating methods are entirely reasonable and consistent with multiple lines of evidence.


"K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them."

http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html

In the end, we can't knock assumptions TOO much. After all, we make them all the time: God exists, the Bible is His divine revelation, ect. Sure, we have a different order of reasoning for making these assumptions than the scientist conducting testing on a sample, but they are technically assumptions nonetheless.



"This is borne out both observation, modern and prehistoric creatures..."

There is no such thing as 'pre-historic' creatures.

Well, let's put it this way then. There's a lot of organisms no longer around and still around a lot all of them are consumers. Consumers get their energy from consuming other organisms (producers or other consumers). The usually requires that the organism being consumed die.

Yankee Candle
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:52 PM
"When observation and revelation collide something's got to give; either the science is wrong, the revelation is wrong, or the interpretation is wrong."

Nothing needs to give but the theistic evolutionist acceptance of wrong interpretations of scientific facts (a la your assertion that the Delta, Utah shoe prints stepping on trilobites was NOT human, despite the quite visible HEEL MARKS that are seen in the photos).

No Christian who has been born again by God's Spirit should EVER surrender a belief that scripture is in error.

"...the scripture cannot be broken"

"For all scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

"Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away"

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Now, either those words mean something or else we might as well throw the Bible away. There is much more than what I just quoted above. It will be seen in the coming day of judgment where men were wrong in their understanding of the past and God's Word will shine forever more as the real truth about our world and how it came to be.

Evolutionists have been wrong time and time again: (i.e. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Archeoraptor, the Coelacanth, the Tuatara, etc. etc. etc.) and yet they cling to their ludicrous notion that living organisms somehow evolved from one kind to another over millions of years. They didn't.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 4th 2009, 12:31 PM
Nothing needs to give but the theistic evolutionist acceptance of wrong interpretations of scientific facts (a la your assertion that the Delta, Utah shoe prints stepping on trilobites was NOT human, despite the quite visible HEEL MARKS that are seen in the photos).


If that is a fact why is there so much evidence that this was caused by inorganic geological forces? And why do the huge majority of atheist, old earth creationist, and young earth creationist scientists and organizations who've studied literally every piece of evidence you've thrown out disagree with you?



Now, either those words mean something or else we might as well throw the Bible away. There is much more than what I just quoted above. It will be seen in the coming day of judgment where men were wrong in their understanding of the past and God's Word will shine forever more as the real truth about our world and how it came to be.
Well. . .let me ask you this (I might have asked this before, can't remember). Lets say I'm trying to explain an ATM to a pygmy, am I going to be able to use literally correct terms like "credit", "electricity", or "conductor"? Of course not, because he's not going to have any frame of reference to understand what those terms mean. Instead I would have to compare these literally correct terms to things he was familiar with. In the end what you would end up with is a basic overview of the process that would be true while not being literally correct.

Now, if that group of pygmies wrote down that explanation and eventually settled down in a permanent village which grew to a town, which was eventually assimilated by a large city and the descendants of that individual became familiar with all the technical concepts involved with ATM's, should they refuse to believe these technical ideas because they are not exactly the same as my ancient basic overview? Would my initial explanation be "broken" or "wrong"? No, of course not, because literal word for word perfection is not the only form of truth. In the same way I think God explained creation in a way the people of that time could understand. This explanation was a basic overview but was not word for word literally accurate because He chose to relate the creation story in a language His audience could comprehend.



Evolutionists have been wrong time and time again: (i.e. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Archeoraptor, the Coelacanth, the Tuatara, etc. etc. etc.) and yet they cling to their ludicrous notion that living organisms somehow evolved from one kind to another over millions of years. They didn't.Scientists are wrong all the time, but that's kind of the beauty of science - it's largely self correcting. Take your example of Piltdown man, it took a long time but Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax by other scientists precisely because it wasn't consistent with other hominid fossils.
One thing to notice about this hoax, however, is that when it was discovered it was no longer used as evidence. Contrast this to creationist hoaxes where even when they have been thoroughly shown to be either fake or to not support young earth views they are continually recycled over and over and over again.

I've fought your fight before you know, used the same evidence you do to support a young earth against and old earth view. I understand how easy it is to find evidence supporting your view when you only look for one kind of evidence. I would encourage you to use the same critical standards when evaluating evidence that is both for and against your stated position.

fishbowlsoul
Jan 4th 2009, 08:45 PM
According to you, in what way was Adam made out of the dust of the earth?

Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...Genesis 2:7


The original Hebrew word here for formed is yatsar. Translated to form, to mold, and figuratively to form for purpose. I believed that this narrative is figuratively meant to convey that Adam was purposed as the first human who could realize God - who had the capacity to have a relationship with God. In reality I believe that is the whole purpose the second creation narrative as a part from the first creation narrative. I know most on this board don't agree but there really is no denying that are two different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. There is no way of getting around this question unless one just simply chooses to ignore it.
The two narratives do not lend themselves to be complimentary.

God bless

Athanasius
Jan 5th 2009, 05:43 AM
The original Hebrew word here for formed is yatsar. Translated to form, to mold, and figuratively to form for purpose. I believed that this narrative is figuratively meant to convey that Adam was purposed as the first human who could realize God - who had the capacity to have a relationship with God. In reality I believe that is the whole purpose the second creation narrative as a part from the first creation narrative. I know most on this board don't agree but there really is no denying that are two different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. There is no way of getting around this question unless one just simply chooses to ignore it.
The two narratives do not lend themselves to be complimentary.

God bless

I've no problem raising my hand and denying... Just not sure if I want to go over this for the umpteenth time.

Yankee Candle
Jan 5th 2009, 05:26 PM
"I know most on this board don't agree but there really is no denying that are two different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. There is no way of getting around this question unless one just simply chooses to ignore it."

I will say it for the umpteenth time.

Yes there is. I deny that they are two different accounts. The 2nd chapter is simply giving more information about what was given in the first chapter.

The Lord Jesus Christ NEVER placed what Moses wrote in Genesis in quetion...like modern theistic evolutionists do.

Alaska
Jan 6th 2009, 02:31 AM
I'm a physics major so this is stuff i like to talk about. Technically they move around each other in accordance with Newtons 3rd law and barycenter motion, but the Earth does move around the sun in a much much quicker rate. But to answer your question, the evidence that I can think of just now off the top of my head is gravity and the equations of Newton who was himself a Bible believing Christian, and also those of Einstein. The more mass an object has the more gravity it has (that means everything including me and you). So the earth haivng less mass would revolve around the sun which has greater mass. Theres no doubt the earth revolves around the sun.


Newton was one of the scientists agreeing that the two positions are arguing relative motion.

The observations would be the same as well as the ability to mathematically predict positions.
There were two models in his day and he agreed that the debate had not been resolved.

It is only theoretical that the helio is true. Of course the laws of gravity etc are brought in as witnesses but it comes down to circumstantial evidence at best.
What we need is an honest paper revealing the actual fact that the debate has NOT been imperically shown to be one way or another or at least not any evidence that has made it out to the public at large.

There were experiments that indicated that the earth does not move nor does it spin. There are practical alternatives but we have been conditioned to look at geo as if it is absolutely stupid.
There is a need for a balanced paper being honest about the uncertainty and negatives of helio and also the possibilities and reasoning why geo is not as far fetched as mainsteam anti God education makes it.

We tend to look at geo as if it needs too much movement. But in a vacuum, movement and drag and friction don't exist the same as in our reality on the earth. There are also some serious anomalies with regard to physics, both under the microscope and in deep space.

Romber
Jan 6th 2009, 03:01 AM
I know most on this board don't agree but there really is no denying that are two different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2.

Like Yankee Candle said, the "second" one is a more in depth description.

Humans are fairly important part to the bible, correct? How silly would it be to describe the exact story of their creation in the middle of laying down all the information for what happened in 6 days. It would disrupt the flow of thought and actually make things a bit cluttered. Maybe you come this conclusion because you have an evolutionary bias that tells you sacrifices have to be made somewhere in scripture.

Old Earther
Jan 6th 2009, 03:05 AM
Actually, Rhomber, the creation stories do contradict one another. Tell me, were the animals created before or after adam?

BrckBrln
Jan 6th 2009, 03:17 AM
Actually, Rhomber, the creation stories do contradict one another. Tell me, were the animals created before or after adam?

If the stories contradict each other then why do you believe in the Bible?

By the way, I don't believe the stories to be chronological.

Alaska
Jan 6th 2009, 03:43 AM
sacrifices have to be made somewhere in scripture.


Like the millions of sacrificial "stupids" who accepted that the sun moved as indicated by their senses and by certain verses that corroborated those senses?
Just write them off as uneducated and therefore stupid for believing for many centuries that the sun does indeed move because their senses and scriptures indicate that to be reality?

Let's get consistent here.
Sure, Gen 2 is an overlap narrative with no contradictions whatsoever; we won't sacrifice anything there.
Before the modern theory of helio, isn't it extremely understandable that people who read their bibles, strongly believed that the sun does in fact move and not the earth?

So are you really ready to regard those people as decieved as a result of their accepting the bible as children as Jesus said we should?
Indigenous people around the world who have NOT been indoctrinated into that helio theory, which cannot be proven anyway, think those who believe the earth is spinning and flying through space are very foolish.
Maybe this is a classic example of modern scientists "professing themselves to be wise they became fools".

Why can't those scriptures really be true?
Why can't an unproven theory be wrong?

When evolution was introduced many Christians didn't have the faith to say, "lies all lies". They should have said, "this is prophesy right from the bible; you cannot and you will not find any supposed missing link because we know from a childlike acceptance of the Word that gradual transition (macroevoution) is NOT how things came to be."
Later when good science showed the stupidity of the theory many wished they had been bold to stand on the word and declare its absolute correctness.

If they are able to prove that the earth really isn't moving, a lot of Christians are gonna feel real stupid for not being "stupid".

Yankee Candle
Jan 6th 2009, 01:48 PM
Actually, Rhomber, the creation stories do contradict one another. Tell me, were the animals created before or after adam?

No, the Genesis account DOES NOT contradict from chapter one and chapter two. Chapter one says the animals were created on the same day as man. Chapter two does not tell us what day God created them, but that he made them from the earth.

Chapter one vss 24-31 gives us the timing of the matter. Chapter two vs 19 gives us the source of origin (the earth).

Jesus said the scriptures cannot be broken but theistic evolutionists, agreeing with the unbelieving modernists who doubt scripture, say that it can be.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 6th 2009, 05:17 PM
Like the millions of sacrificial "stupids" who accepted that the sun moved as indicated by their senses and by certain verses that corroborated those senses?
Just write them off as uneducated and therefore stupid for believing for many centuries that the sun does indeed move because their senses and scriptures indicate that to be reality?
[quote]

You can't fault people who have not been exposed to all the data or who have no frame of reference for understanding the data concerning heliocentrism as being "stupid", they're just ignorant. . .and that's not any kind of derisive comment, some people just live in locales or in periods of time which did/do not allow them to have the relevant data. However, people who do have access and frames of reference for that data and continue to proclaim geocentrism would, in my opinion, fall into that category.

[quote]
Indigenous people around the world who have NOT been indoctrinated into that helio theory, which cannot be proven anyway, think those who believe the earth is spinning and flying through space are very foolish.
Maybe this is a classic example of modern scientists "professing themselves to be wise they became fools".


You know I've actually met and lived with some of those "indigenous people", they have a few other notions about how the world works that you might not be so on board with. For example, a some indigenous people initially thought that modern medical practices were very foolish when there was a perfectly good witch doctor just down the road. I assume you're not suggesting we go with their non-modern-medicine-indoctrinated views on that are you?



Why can't an unproven theory be wrong?


Because it has been proven wrong, so so so many times. I'll repost what I wrote before about geocentrism since you never responded.

Nope, there is no valid argument that the sun revolves around the earth. You can't wish away Earth's equatorial bulge, starlight aberrations, or the coriolis effect.

It's simple observation. Gravity is determined by mass, the sun is more than a million times more massive than the earth therefore the sun generates more gravity. Even if you somehow claimed this wasn't true, look around. . .do we see massive objects orbiting small ones anywhere else in the universe? Do we orbit the moon?

Take it a step further, if the earth is stationary that means that the visible universe whips around us every 24 hours which would mean that anything beyond 4.1 billion kilometers should be moving faster than the speed of light. Even the sun would be wizzing around somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light and would display measurable relativistic length contraction. Curiously, we should have expected the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft to have accelerated beyond the speed of light a while ago if the universe is truly flying around a stationary earth. . .isn't it kind of odd that we see no evidence of this?




If they are able to prove that the earth really isn't moving, a lot of Christians are gonna feel real stupid for not being "stupid".

That's an awful lot of "stupid" to throw around. . .and I daresay it's misdirected.

Old Earther
Jan 6th 2009, 05:27 PM
yankee candle,

Genesis 1, which is clearly chronological, lists the creation of man after the creation of the animals. Chapter 2, which is also clearly chronological, reverses this order.

BrckBrln
Jan 6th 2009, 06:15 PM
yankee candle,

Genesis 1, which is clearly chronological, lists the creation of man after the creation of the animals. Chapter 2, which is also clearly chronological, reverses this order.

What makes you think Genesis 1 is chronological? Just because 'day one' comes before 'day two' and so on does not mean it's meant to be read chronologically.

Yankee Candle
Jan 6th 2009, 07:34 PM
yankee candle,

Genesis 1, which is clearly chronological, lists the creation of man after the creation of the animals. Chapter 2, which is also clearly chronological, reverses this order.

So what if it reverses the order? It's still on the same day. Why would you agree in this matter with hate filled atheists and skeptics who do not love God? I have fought many of battle with those who despise Christianity on this VERY point and they display such a contempt for the Bible!

What a shame for professing Christians to attack the words of Jesus Christ that 'the scripture cannot be broken' and be so blind in the doing of it.:confused

Example: "I arrived last Friday with my kids and we had a great time."

"I had a great time with my kids. We arrived last Friday."

Now, which came first? And can we tell by the context of what I said that 'we had a great time' is subsequent to 'I arrived ...with my kids'? Nothing in the context of each statement forbids both events from being contemporaneous.

Genesis 2 is not chronological. After the seventh day is mentioned further details about the creation are given. The language is distinct: "on the seventh day...: in vs. 2 becomes, "And these are the generations of..." in verse 4 and then Moses goes on to describe in more detail what the Lord did in Chapter one.

Old Earther
Jan 6th 2009, 11:02 PM
What makes you think Genesis 1 is chronological? Just because 'day one' comes before 'day two' and so on does not mean it's meant to be read chronologically.


Good one!

:lol:

Old Earther
Jan 6th 2009, 11:08 PM
So what if it reverses the order?

So, there's a contradiction.


Why would you agree in this matter with hate filled atheists and skeptics who do not love God?

Must I disagree with everything atheists and skeptics say?


I have fought many of battle with those who despise Christianity on this VERY point and they display such a contempt for the Bible!

I have not displayed contempt for the Bible.



What a shame for professing Christians to attack the words of Jesus Christ that 'the scripture cannot be broken' and be so blind in the doing of it.:confused


I'm not attacking the words of Jesus. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency that any child can readily see. But you see, the Genesis creation accounts were not intended to be read literally.


Example: "I arrived last Friday with my kids and we had a great time."

"I had a great time with my kids. We arrived last Friday."

Now, which came first? And can we tell by the context of what I said that 'we had a great time' is subsequent to 'I arrived ...with my kids'? Nothing in the context of each statement forbids both events from being contemporaneous.

You and your silly analogies. Does anyone here take you seriously?



Genesis 2 is not chronological. After the seventh day is mentioned further details about the creation are given. The language is distinct: "on the seventh day...: in vs. 2 becomes, "And these are the generations of..." in verse 4 and then Moses goes on to describe in more detail what the Lord did in Chapter one.

Really?

I will number the events, and it will remain for you to place them in their proper chronological order.

1.God places Adam in the garden.
2.God tells Adam that he can eat from every tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
3.God says that it is not good for Adam to be alone and declares that He will provide Adam with companionship.
4.God creates the animals.
5. God brings the animals to Adam and Adam names them.
6. God puts Adam to sleep.
7. God removes one of his ribs and makes Eve out it.
8. God brings Eve to Adam.

BrckBrln
Jan 7th 2009, 12:28 AM
Good one!

:lol:

I was being serious. I don't believe Genesis 1 to be chronological.

Old Earther
Jan 7th 2009, 01:06 AM
Brck,

You don't think the presents a chronological sequence of "days"?

BrckBrln
Jan 7th 2009, 01:09 AM
Brck,

You don't think the presents a chronological sequence of "days"?

No. I don't believe the 'days' are 24 hour literal days nor do I think they are chronological. I subscribe to the framework interpretation. It fits best in my opinion.

Romber
Jan 7th 2009, 01:47 AM
Actually, Rhomber, the creation stories do contradict one another. Tell me, were the animals created before or after adam?


It's Romber

Anyways, the verb used in Chapter 2 that says formed can also be used as "had formed". Had being past tense. Animals were created before man, as chapter 1 indicates.


If the stories contradict each other then why do you believe in the Bible?

It is only what one would expect. If Old Earther implies anything, it has shown that he doesn't take Genesis 1-11 literally. It's a slippery slope he is on, already claiming there is a contradiction in God's word.

Yankee Candle
Jan 7th 2009, 02:22 AM
It really sickens my heart to see someone treat God's Word this way. By 'chronological' I meant that it was not given in the same sense as chapter one. My do you theistic evol's have a problem grasping inspiration and inerrancy matters in the Bible. You just don't believe in it. You seem to have no trust in the words of the Lord Jesus nor his servants who gave us the Bible.

Notice: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," It is plain as day to honest people who trust that God gave us those words that we have a re-statement of what had already been mentioned plus new details that we were not given in chapter one.

The most evil thing about the critics who claim that chapters one and two are contradictory is that it insults the author who wrote it; as if he didn't have enough brains nor common sense to see what the critics are claiming is a 'problem'. What a lie. What an insult to the blessed Holy Spirit.

I won't comment on this so-called problem again. It's really a pretty dumb argument anyway. But the dumbest thing that was said was this:

"You and your silly analogies. Does anyone here take you seriously?"

Oh, only about 20 to 40 million people in this country that believe that Genesis is literally true. I think they would agree with me.

Old Earther
Jan 7th 2009, 03:09 AM
brckbrln,

What is the "framework interpretation"?

Old Earther
Jan 7th 2009, 03:18 AM
It really sickens my heart to see someone treat God's Word this way.

What way?


By 'chronological' I meant that it was not given in the same sense as chapter one.

The honest reader can see that chapter 2 most certainly is chronological: God creates man, sees that man is lonely and so creates the animals and brings them to man, and then creates the woman. Is your reading comprehension so poor that you can't see this?


do you theistic evol's have a problem grasping inspiration and inerrancy matters in the Bible.

I am not an evolutionist, thank you. I totally accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, fella. I also accept that not all of it is to be taken literally.

<snip>


The most evil thing about the critics who claim that chapters one and two are contradictory is that it insults the author who wrote it; as if he didn't have enough brains nor common sense to see what the critics are claiming is a 'problem'. What a lie. What an insult to the blessed Holy Spirit.


Get with the program, sir. The creation narratives were not written by the same author(s), as is clearly indicated by the stylistic changes from one text to the next. This is old hat, dude. Reasonable and informed Christians accept this fact.

Yankee, how many people here take you seriously? should I start a poll?

Alaska
Jan 7th 2009, 03:56 AM
Why can't those scriptures really be true?
Why can't an unproven theory be wrong?





Because it has been proven wrong, so so so many times. I'll repost what I wrote before about geocentrism since you never responded.

Nope, there is no valid argument that the sun revolves around the earth. You can't wish away Earth's equatorial bulge, starlight aberrations, or the coriolis effect.

It's simple observation. Gravity is determined by mass, the sun is more than a million times more massive than the earth therefore the sun generates more gravity. Even if you somehow claimed this wasn't true, look around. . .do we see massive objects orbiting small ones anywhere else in the universe? Do we orbit the moon?

Take it a step further, if the earth is stationary that means that the visible universe whips around us every 24 hours which would mean that anything beyond 4.1 billion kilometers should be moving faster than the speed of light. Even the sun would be wizzing around somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light and would display measurable relativistic length contraction. Curiously, we should have expected the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft to have accelerated beyond the speed of light a while ago if the universe is truly flying around a stationary earth. . .isn't it kind of odd that we see no evidence of this?



Quote:
If they are able to prove that the earth really isn't moving, a lot of Christians are gonna feel real stupid for not being "stupid".
That's an awful lot of "stupid" to throw around. . .and I daresay it's misdirected.


The points you bring up show a deduction of reason and not proof.
Any truly competent astronomer will tell you that though almost all astronomers believe that the sun is central in our system, there is no actual testable proof, since there are other hypothesi (is that the right word?) which cannot be disproved. Your use of the term "proven wrong" is not true after the understanding that "prove" means having the means to demonstrate that it is not so. The deductions in your "proof" are reasonable but the claim that geo has been proven wrong is simply outside of reality since it cannot be demonstrated.
By such reasons you give and the assumptions connected to them, it is more honest to say that it is overwhelmingly agreed upon by virtue of such reasons and assumptions that the model agreed upon as the truth is the helio model. But to be absolutely fair to what constitutes absoluteness with regard to proof and not mere intellectual deduction, a real astronomer will admit that helio is understood and generally accepted to be the best hypothesis.

If you were familiar with the geo model you would not have supposed some of what you have supposed in your above paragraph.
In the geo model that accomodates all the predictable positioning of any celestial body, (which helio also does) some of the planets orbit the sun as the sun orbits the earth. This model places all the bodies in the same position (being seen from earth) as supposed that only a helio model can accomodate.
If you were familiar with the extensive scientific arguments in this long but not resolved debate, you would not have so flippantly dismissed geo as "stupid".
There are computer programs for studying and understanding positioning of bodies in the firmament. These programs also accomodate using the geocentristic hypothesis.

Just because so called science tells us that evolution is proven fact (meaning after their definition of "proven" meaning a deduction of reasoning they believe to be unquestionable) doesn't mean that evolution really is proven fact.
Just because so called science says geo cannot be true, that doesn't mean it cannot be true.

I refer you to the two short questions at the top of this post.

BrckBrln
Jan 7th 2009, 05:13 AM
brckbrln,

What is the "framework interpretation"?

Lee Irons gives a good overview.

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html

Old Earther
Jan 8th 2009, 08:08 PM
Thanks Brck,

I find the framework interpretation to be untenable. What attracts you to it?

BrckBrln
Jan 8th 2009, 08:15 PM
Thanks Brck,

I find the framework interpretation to be untenable. What attracts you to it?

Why do you find it untenable? What attracts me to it is the exegesis that happens to fit somewhat with science.

Old Earther
Jan 8th 2009, 10:24 PM
Brck,

I find it untenable because it completely ignores the obvious chronological structure of the text. Can you give me one reason to ignore this structure?

BrckBrln
Jan 8th 2009, 10:28 PM
Brck,

I find it untenable because it completely ignores the obvious chronological structure of the text. Can you give me one reason to ignore this structure?

There is only an obvious chronological structure to modern readers who read it that way. Just look at the relationship between day one and day four and tell me they are not the same creation act.

Old Earther
Jan 9th 2009, 12:46 AM
Brck,

How does your view account for the fact that each day is delineated with, "and there was evening, and there was morning"? I see a clear succession here.

Old Earther
Jan 9th 2009, 12:58 AM
Brck,

Hmmmmm......

Here is the first paragraph from the wikipedia entry on "frame work interpretation":



The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics) of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis) which holds that the seven-day creation account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis) found therein is not a literal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism) or scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) description of the origins of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe); rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) of creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth). The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_device) or symbolic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism) structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat) commandment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

I pretty much agree with this! I do believe that Genesis 1 is symbolic. I also believe that Genesis 2-3 is symbolic. However, both accounts of creation are chronological narratives, and there is no way of getting around that. Taken literally, these narratives do contradict each other in terms of sequence of events. However - and this has been my main point - this inconsistency does not matter, simply because the texts were never intended to be taken literally. As you say, it is the modern (yet, ironically, antediluvian) mind that interprets these texts literally, thus imposing on the stories a meaning that the ancient Hebrews would never consider. Those who take the creation stories literally are like the fools who took Jesus literally when He spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

crawfish
Jan 9th 2009, 03:31 AM
Brck,

How does your view account for the fact that each day is delineated with, "and there was evening, and there was morning"? I see a clear succession here.

It's a literary mechanism, not secondary support of the day concept.

Old Earther
Jan 9th 2009, 04:13 AM
crawfish,

Not that I disagree, but what do you think is the significance of this literary mechanism?

crawfish
Jan 9th 2009, 05:19 AM
crawfish,

Not that I disagree, but what do you think is the significance of this literary mechanism?

It implies completion. The day's object of creation is finished. This is strengthened by the statement "and it was good", which indicates that God is pleased with that element.

Alaska
Jan 10th 2009, 06:44 AM
Indigenous people around the world who have NOT been indoctrinated into that helio theory, which cannot be proven anyway, think those who believe the earth is spinning and flying through space are very foolish.
Maybe this is a classic example of modern scientists "professing themselves to be wise they became fools".


Response:
You know I've actually met and lived with some of those "indigenous people", they have a few other notions about how the world works that you might not be so on board with. For example, a some indigenous people initially thought that modern medical practices were very foolish when there was a perfectly good witch doctor just down the road. I assume you're not suggesting we go with their non-modern-medicine-indoctrinated views on that are you?


The inconsistency with your argument is that you are comparing a Geo view, which the scriptures suggest, with the unsound practices of a witchdoctor.
Find a biblical scenario endorsing things akin to witchdoctor practices and then your argument will have some validity. If the scriptures, and not modern scientific theory, were the dominant point of reference with regard to determining sound scientific data, it would be reasonable to consider Geo as representing reality. Yet you speak against its possible validity.

It is a scientific fact that creatures can only bring forth after their own kind in reproduction, contrary to many years of 'enlightened' thinking that contradicted that scientifically sound doctrine found first in the Bible.

There are numerous things from the scriptures that modern thought contradicted but later were found to be validated by good science.
Take the Piltdown and Nebraska "men" for example, which served to show that fossil evidence really does not exist to counter the Biblical claim.
For many years Piltdown Man was regarded as imperical evidence for evolution. Many men even acquired their PHd. credentials by writing their doctorates on the discovery etc.

Though there seems to be overwhelming evidence that Geo cannot be true, the fact remains that Helio is still only a theory, like evolution.
Imagine some claiming sometime during the reign of Piltdown Man that this "evidence" of a missing link is only a theory, that would later be proven to be false. They would have been seen as the biggest idiots ever, flatly contradicting absolute 'evidence'.

But with Helio you say, 'there is this and that point and then there's this other point over here and another over there, it cannot possibly be wrong'.

Really?

The scriptures have consistently shown the "foolishness of God" to be wiser than men. It may be just a matter of time before this suggestion the scriptures make concerning the sun moving is proven to be literally true. Or else they already know it but are keeping it quiet because of the support it gives to the scriptures. After all, the scriptures declare that the earth was created complete with water, dry land and extensive and varied plant life including fruit-bearing trees, before the creation of the sun, moon, or any other celestial body. Do you also deny this as you deny the possibility of the sun's movement around the earth?
God is just a whole lot smarter than men.

1 Cor. 1:
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

This same Christ crucified said in prayer to God for believers:
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
And the Apostle Paul wrote of the people of God being "washed by the water of the word" and the church being "the ground and pillar of the truth".
If "thy word is truth" really is true, then the strong suggestion the scriptures make concerning the sun moving may really be true and loving and standing for truth is what the church is supposed to be all about. Therefore the people of God should look at the Helio theory as just that, a theory.
It's about being honest and giving the Scriptures a fair shake.

Time will tell. But history has shown that the odds are in favour of the Scriptures.
Modern science has basically crucified Geo.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 10th 2009, 01:26 PM
Response:
The inconsistency with your argument is that you are comparing a Geo view, which the scriptures suggest, with the unsound practices of a witchdoctor.


Inconsistent argument? You made the claim that because "un-indoctrinated" indigenous peoples regard heliocentrism as laughable it was an indication of the strength of geocentrism. Both geocentrism and withcraft are "unsound". That's the point.



If the scriptures, and not modern scientific theory, were the dominant point of reference with regard to determining sound scientific data, it would be reasonable to consider Geo as representing reality. Yet you speak against its possible validity.


You are elevating interpretation to the level of revelation and casting this as a false dichotomy between science and scripture. I can incorporate both. Geocentrism has been proven false. It will remain where it lays on the refuse-pile of science unless someone can provide any kind of evidence for it.



It is a scientific fact that creatures can only bring forth after their own kind in reproduction, contrary to many years of 'enlightened' thinking that contradicted that scientifically sound doctrine found first in the Bible.


So now there are "scientific facts"? Pray tell why is this a fact and not Helioentrism? I dare say Heliocentrism has much much much better evidence behind it. While your at it what is the definition of "kind"?



There are numerous things from the scriptures that modern thought contradicted but later were found to be validated by good science.
Take the Piltdown and Nebraska "men" for example, which served to show that fossil evidence really does not exist to counter the Biblical claim.
For many years Piltdown Man was regarded as imperical evidence for evolution. Many men even acquired their PHd. credentials by writing their doctorates on the discovery etc.

Though there seems to be overwhelming evidence that Geo cannot be true, the fact remains that Helio is still only a theory, like evolution.
Imagine some claiming sometime during the reign of Piltdown Man that this "evidence" of a missing link is only a theory, that would later be proven to be false. They would have been seen as the biggest idiots ever, flatly contradicting absolute 'evidence'.


Piltdown man was not disproved by the Bible, Piltdown man was discovered to be a fake by other evolutionary scientists precisely because he was not consistent with the fossil record. Once this had been demonstrated through evidence based arguments he was cast next to geocentrism on the dungheap. Your own example completely contradicts your characterization of science and scientists. Science operates on evidence, it may operate slowly as it did with Piltdown man, but it is largely self-correcting. New theories are celebrated and their authors rewarded as long as they are based on solid evidence.



But with Helio you say, 'there is this and that point and then there's this other point over here and another over there, it cannot possibly be wrong'.

Really?


Yes, really. I've listed several observations that directly contradict geocentrism. You've responded to precisely none of them instead choosing to talk about how "nothing can be known". . .except, of course, those "scientific facts" that support your interpretation. What were you saying about inconsistent arguments?

Alaska
Jan 10th 2009, 09:48 PM
So now there are "scientific facts"? Pray tell why is this a fact and not Helioentrism? I dare say Heliocentrism has much much much better evidence behind it. While your at it what is the definition of "kind"?


I supposed you realized the difference between good and bad "science".

If Helio was a "fact" it would not still be on the hypothesis pile. It is not sufficiently repeatably testable and other models and hypothesi exist that likewise cannot be disproven.

Creatures were made to reproduce after their own kind showing that a dog could never eventually turn into a bear no matter how many generations of offspring were produced. Though there are variations within a kind, the kind cannot go out of its basic category.
Hence 2 dogs were created instantly with a rich genetic library responsible for all the differing breads of dogs. They vary but they are all still dogs.

You have observation and then you have interpretation of the observation.
As long as interpretations differ on the same observations, your beloved hypothesis cannot be rescued from its status as only a hypothesis.

I think you have a bad gamble going.



Science operates on evidence, it may operate slowly as it did with Piltdown man, but it is largely self-correcting.


Sometimes it also doesn't fess up. Sometimes it doesn't even go slowly, it goes in reverse.
The antichrist education system doesn't even allow students to get info from the designated school books that evolution has extremely serious problems with a lot of the data, which data they will not reveal to the students.
It's like being in a court room and only being allowed to hear the prosecution blast the defendant.

I answered your question about "kind", now answer my question:


The scriptures have consistently shown the "foolishness of God" to be wiser than men. It may be just a matter of time before this suggestion the scriptures make concerning the sun moving is proven to be literally true. Or else they already know it but are keeping it quiet because of the support it gives to the scriptures. After all, the scriptures declare that the earth was created complete with water, dry land and extensive and varied plant life including fruit-bearing trees, before the creation of the sun, moon, or any other celestial body. Do you also deny this as you deny the possibility of the sun's movement around the earth?

Yankee Candle
Jan 10th 2009, 10:08 PM
"Get with the program, sir. The creation narratives were not written by the same author(s), as is clearly indicated by the stylistic changes from one text to the next."

The 'program' is what Jesus said. He verified that Moses wrote the Pentatuech. The position that more than one person wrote Genesis is not honest. So what if the 'style changes'?

I write poetry a lot. But I change the style of my writing as best suits the need.

Jesus: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." John 5:46

"Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."

Every time 'Moses & the prophets' were mentioned it referred to the Pentateuch (Genesis thru Deuteronomy) and all the books of the prophets.

Jesus quoted Genesis and/or referred to Moses many times but never indicated that anyone but Moses wrote it.

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

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:25-27.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 11th 2009, 01:02 AM
I supposed you realized the difference between good and bad "science".

If Helio was a "fact" it would not still be on the hypothesis pile. It is not sufficiently repeatably testable and other models and hypothesi exist that likewise cannot be disproven.


Heliocentrism is consistent with virtually every observation we make whereas Geocentrism is counter to just about all of them. You can play semantics all you want, at the end of the day heliocentrism explains more and is backed by solid evidence, it can be used to produce real world ends like firing accurate artillery as the Germans did during the first world war using calculations which incorporated the Coriolis effect and like modern sattelite navigation systems. All things are possible, not everything is probable. If you feel better taking refuge in a technical possibility that geocentrism might be revealed as true have at it. Honestly your approach to this reminds me of my favorite Dr. Seuss story,

". . .but of course the world didn't stand still
the world grew
in a couple of years the new highway came through.
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax.
And left them there standing still in their tracks."



Creatures were made to reproduce after their own kind showing that a dog could never eventually turn into a bear no matter how many generations of offspring were produced. Though there are variations within a kind, the kind cannot go out of its basic category.
Hence 2 dogs were created instantly with a rich genetic library responsible for all the differing breads of dogs. They vary but they are all still dogs.


That's an example, not a definition. If I take your meaning then "dog" kind refers to anything that looks like a dog including wolves, coyotes, yorkies, and dingos, correct? Or do you just roughly equate "kind" with the "family" taxonomical group?



You have observation and then you have interpretation of the observation.
As long as interpretations differ on the same observations, your beloved hypothesis cannot be rescued from its status as only a hypothesis.


As long as someone can draw a different interpretation all interpretations should be viewed as equal? I thought you young earth guys were kind of against postmodernist leanings? This has got to be one of the most bizarre definitions of hypothesis I've ever heard.



Sometimes it also doesn't fess up. Sometimes it doesn't even go slowly, it goes in reverse.


Like. . .when? Give me specifics. Your other example of Nebraska Man is a very good one for illustrating how science works. . .though unfortunately not the way you probably want it to.

In 1922, a Nebraska geologist sent a fossilized tooth to Henry Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn was involved with the Scopes Monkey Trial, and was delighted at the new evidence for his side. He rushed to publication, and announced the new species Hesperopithecus ("Ape of the western world"). It seemed, he said, more human than ape.


But what happened next? The answer is that Osborn himself went to Nebraska in the summers of 1925 and 1926. Many more teeth were found, and it became apparent that they weren't from an ape. They belonged to an extinct peccary, Prosthennops. A retraction of Hesperopithecus was published in 1927.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/nebraska.html


Within a few years of the original find more evidence was uncovered by scientists that indicated the original claim was in error. When that evidence became convincing a retraction of the claim was made public.




The antichrist education system doesn't even allow students to get info from the designated school books that evolution has extremely serious problems with a lot of the data, which data they will not reveal to the students.


As a practicing member of the antichrist education system

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h200/nevercheer/Debatable/seal.gif

I wholeheartedly agree, we do not teach pseudoscience like geocentrism or young earth creationism. Opting instead to follow the curriculum of satan by drawing supportable conclusions from observations about creation.




I answered your question about "kind", now answer my question:

You did nothing of the kind! (insert evil laughter here) You only gave me an example not a definition! Additionally, I think I have answered your question since I don't think the genesis account of creation is literal.

Yankee Candle
Jan 11th 2009, 01:54 AM
"You did nothing of the kind! (insert evil laughter here) You only gave me an example not a definition! Additionally, I think I have answered your question since I don't think the genesis account of creation is literal."

I gave him the definition also, but this theistic evolutionist won't accept it. I even posted a chart illustrating the creationist position on 'kind' and he shrugged it off.

Kind2 (kºnd) n. 1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common. 2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best? See Synonyms at type. 3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.


You can't reason with him. This is the person who calls plesiosaurs 'basking sharks', human shoe prints (heel visible!) a natural formation, and Jesus description of creation (Mark 10:6) not literal even though his disciples said the same (literal) things.


Anyway, good luck. I only use his posts as an opportunity to reveal the truth for other readers who need to see how empty and evil TE really is.

fishbowlsoul
Jan 11th 2009, 02:58 AM
Anyway, good luck. I only use his posts as an opportunity to reveal the truth for other readers who need to see how empty and evil TE really is.[/FONT]

So I guess that makes you the Austin Powers of young earth creationists?
:hmm:

or has Itinerant Lurker stole your mojo babyyyy!!!?

Alaska
Jan 11th 2009, 09:07 AM
Anyway, good luck. I only use his posts as an opportunity to reveal the truth for other readers who need to see how empty and evil TE really is.


Well I wouldn't call him evil, I'd rather refer to this scripture as I believe it fits the situation:

Titus 3:3
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

I had thought of going to the trouble of exposing the numerous inconsistencies in his arguments and the tactics he uses to twist and distort, not to mention the bitter sarcasm and the... never mind, let's just pray for the guy, it will help also to not get upset because of his abuse, which I hope is not the reason why he behaves the way he does. I mean, I hope he doesn't behave this way just because he likes to see if he can upset others.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 11th 2009, 11:47 AM
I gave him the definition also, but this theistic evolutionist won't accept it. I even posted a chart illustrating the creationist position on 'kind' and he shrugged it off.

Kind2 (kºnd) n. 1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common. 2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best? See Synonyms at type. 3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.


That's a little better, but still troublesome. If we take "traits held in common" to be "eyes" for example you end up with a rather large group whereas if you say the common trait is bipedal mammal who uses tools you've just incorporated most of the links in the evolutionary chain for the evolution of homo sapiens. We could also throw out skin color as a "trait" and demarcate different races as "kinds". Can you see how such vague definitions can be made to fit any circumstance? "Nature" or "essence" are subjective descriptions, not taxonomical descriptions that can be applied to real world circumstance in a consistently accurate way.

And even given such overly broad definitions, where is the proof that living things cannot adapt to changing environments to the point where they no longer resemble their ancient ancestors? There is no biological or logical reason to think that everything will kinda sorta look the same (which is what I take your definition of "kind" to essentially boil down to) forever. Alaska made the claim that this has more observable proof that Heiolocentrism. I'd like to see it.



Anyway, good luck. I only use his posts as an opportunity to reveal the truth for other readers who need to see how empty and evil TE really is.[/quote]

In the interest of keeping threads open I'll no longer be responding to personal or general insinuations of myself or old earth views as "evil", "ungodly", "unbiblical", or generally "dishonest". Apparently my form of humor doesn't go down well.

Romber
Jan 11th 2009, 12:41 PM
Or do you just roughly equate "kind" with the "family" taxonomical group?

Yes and no. It depends which organism you are talking about.

Read (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp) this article and it will give you a much better perspective.

"Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class."

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 11th 2009, 04:14 PM
Yes and no. It depends which organism you are talking about.

Read (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp) this article and it will give you a much better perspective.

"Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class."

Why should the definition of "kind" refer to humans at the species level and not something else? Going by your article it seems that at the end of the day all YEC can do is throw up their hands and say the genetic research isn't done yet so they can draw any definitive lines.

Defining the Genesis kinds is very difficult because we do not know enough about genetics, and it is at the genetic level that the kinds need to be defined. Even the test of interbreeding is not a foolproof determination because we do not know how genetic defects (mutations, etc.) have built up over time to interfere with the reproductive process. We also have come to realize that animals that appear to be one kind do not interbreed (at least normally) because of different ingrained behaviors (a scientific subfield called ethology), mating practices, and other such complications.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp

If you cannot really define what "kind" is then how can you claim that it is impossible for any one kind to adapt into another? You do not have a way to tell them apart! Any example I bring up could be equally correct or incorrect because we have no definitive starting point. Therefore making the claim that no change between kinds has MORE evidence than Heliocentrism seems rather ill-conceived. I'll refer back to Clifford Cuffey for why this creates problems for YEC arguments.

But, given the internally inconsistent definition of “basic kind,” what should be looked for? If intermediates between two species of the brachiopod Eocoelia are found, it can be explained as “variation within the Eocoelia kind.” If intermediates connecting Hyracotherium with Equus are found, it can be explained as “variation within the horse kind.” If intermediates between mesonychid ungulates and whales are found, it can be explained as “variation within the mammal kind.” If intermediates between reptiles and mammals are found, it can be explained as “variation within the vertebrate kind.” One could also argue that such in termediates are separate “created kinds.”
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_09.htm

Romber
Jan 11th 2009, 05:13 PM
Why should the definition of "kind" refer to humans at the species level and not something else?

For a more in detail answer to this you will have to look into Baraminology.


Going by your article it seems that at the end of the day all YEC can do is throw up their hands and say the genetic research isn't done yet so they can draw any definitive lines.

It's not just YEC who do it, but everyone. Everyone uses the same tests to try and figure out where a species is. Lets be clear though, NO ONE has an exact idea of exactly how to define each level of taxonomy, especially on the species level.

Alaska
Jan 11th 2009, 06:06 PM
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h200/nevercheer/Debatable/seal.gif

Very nice graphics.
If the education system would just be so honest. Like adding little clarifying statements to balance out what they say, such as:

"Opting instead to follow the curriculum of satan by drawing supportable conclusions from observations about creation".
And by "supportable", we mean supportable by numerous untested assumptions and by circular reasonings that we shove down the throats of our students as actual fact.

Athanasius
Jan 11th 2009, 06:37 PM
Come on, guys... Check your attitudes.

Alaska
Jan 11th 2009, 06:51 PM
Questions about certain critters, whether they were a separate baramin or whether they are a variation of another does not get at the heart of the issue.
The issue is a faith related matter. While a creationist realizes making a clear distinction between certain critters may pose a problem, [lets say the sabre tooth tiger; was it a separate created kind or was it a variation from the cat baramin?] there is no question at all when the two critters horse and mouse are inspected. At least not for the creationist.

The evolutionist supposes that the two have to be related howsoever distant the kinship may have begun. That is his faith.

The creationist believes that the horse and mouse are two separately created kinds that could not and did not morph, the one from the other.

A common tactic of the enemy of truth, that old serpent called the devil and Satan is to focus on something that is reasonably questionable and try to extrapolate the issue and somehow claim that if this questionable issue can't be resolved then neither can the larger bigger picture overall be resolved. Getting us to question whether or not something was created or adapted from a created kind can be used to claim that if you can't answer this, then the mouse must also then be related to the horse.

In determining truth it is sometimes effective to determine first what is not truth. Establish the absolutes and then everything has to conform.

Some of the evolutionists' absolutes are totally different from the creationists'. So unless some basic agreement can be made on some of the most basic beliefs held by the two opposing parties the discussion is doomed before it starts.

But on to something else:
I would like to see computer generated simulations of the two models, geo and helio with an upfront painfully honest list of the serious problems that they each face. I have an idea of the basic movement required by geo but would like to see it demonstrated in simulation.
And by the way helio is not all cut-and-dry-no-problem.
Further thoughts; are there any nano examples of larger bodies orbiting a smaller nucleus in the world under a microscope?

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 11th 2009, 07:56 PM
For a more in detail answer to this you will have to look into Baraminology.

You know I've heard that term thrown around a few times and never put together what it actually meant. If nothing else at least I glean a more robust vocabulary by coming here.



It's not just YEC who do it, but everyone. Everyone uses the same tests to try and figure out where a species is. Lets be clear though, NO ONE has an exact idea of exactly how to define each level of taxonomy, especially on the species level.Sure, especially at the species level it's hard to classify everything using a single system. That being said, current systems of taxonomy used in mainstream science are MUCH more detailed and thus, in my view, superior in their descriptions than the ill-defined and shadowy "kind" of YEC. Take the classification of modern humans as an example.



Domain: Eukarya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote) (organisms which have cells with a nucleus)
Kingdom: Animalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal) (with eukaryotic cells having cell membrane but lacking cell wall, multicellular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular), heterotrophic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterotrophic))
Phylum: Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate) (animals with a notochord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notochord), dorsal nerve cord, and pharyngeal gill slits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_gill_slits), which may be vestigial or embryonic)
Subphylum: Vertebrata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) (possessing a backbone, which may be cartilaginous, to protect the dorsal nerve cord)
Class: Mammalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal) (endothermic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm-blooded) vertebrates with hair and mammary glands which, in females, secrete milk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk) to nourish young)
Cohort: Placentalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placental) (giving birth to live young after a full internal gestation period)
Order: Primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates) (collar bone, eyes face forward, grasping hands with fingers)
Suborder: Anthropoidea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropoidea) (monkeys, including apes, including humans; as opposed to the lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers)
Infraorder: Catarrhini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini) (Old World anthropoids)
Superfamily: Hominoidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominoidae) (apes, including humans)
Family: Hominidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae) (great apes, including humans)
Genus: Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29) (humans and related extinct species)
Species: Homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens) (high forehead, well-developed chin, gracile bone structure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy#Taxonomic_ranks

This system makes use of multiple levels of meaningful descriptions and distinctions that can be directly observed and measured. Compare this to "sharing common traits. . .the essence of a thing". Which system is going to be more meaningful in a real world setting? Which is more useful?

"Created Kinds" illustrates the problems of trying to use the Bible as a science textbook. God gave use eyes and brains to figure out how His creation works, He used scripture to help us figure out how our relationship with Him should work.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 11th 2009, 08:00 PM
If the education system would just be so honest. Like adding little clarifying statements to balance out what they say, such as:

"Opting instead to follow the curriculum of satan by drawing supportable conclusions from observations about creation".
And by "supportable", we mean supportable by numerous untested assumptions and by circular reasonings that we shove down the throats of our students as actual fact.

I can't respond to vague generalizations. . .though if you have a specific example of something taught in mainstream science classrooms that is based on "numerous untested assumptions & circular reasonings" I'd be happy to talk about what we actually teach in science and compare the two.

Romber
Jan 11th 2009, 08:56 PM
You know I've heard that term thrown around a few times and never put together what it actually meant. If nothing else at least I glean a more robust vocabulary by coming here.

It's a sub-study within Creationism that tries to derive which animals belong to what kind. Essentially it is an effort to figure out what kinds are in general








God gave use eyes and brains to figure out how His creation works, He used scripture to help us figure out how our relationship with Him should work.

I agree with your first part. God did give us the ability to figure out how his creation works. It is through this discovery that we can further glorify God. But for your second part, what do you say when the bible makes a clear reference to a known fact in science hundreds of years before it was actually discovered? Is the bible merely a guide to a relationship to God or perhaps a little more? And if one can admit that the Bible just might be more than just a guide to personal relationship, as I am, then it is altogether very plausible to use it as a starting point in every scientific experiment, as it is a book written by the creator.

However, don't get me wrong when I say the bible is a science textbook. I am in no way it advocating it as a literal science textbook, but one that has very factual scientific data sewn into it that is not nearly as specific but very general in it's explanations. Of course it is the same data, but with different levels of attention.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 12th 2009, 01:12 PM
But for your second part, what do you say when the bible makes a clear reference to a known fact in science hundreds of years before it was actually discovered? Is the bible merely a guide to a relationship to God or perhaps a little more? And if one can admit that the Bible just might be more than just a guide to personal relationship, as I am, then it is altogether very plausible to use it as a starting point in every scientific experiment, as it is a book written by the creator.


Occasional references to physically accurate phenomena notwithstanding, that's just not how it was written. Consider the audience, most of whom would not be able to understand an actual literal description of how the universe was formed and many of whom likely wouldn't have really cared as technology had not progressed to a point where such knowledge could be made relevant to their every day lives.

If we hold up the bible as a literal starting point for every scientific experiment what happens when it makes utterly wrong literal predictions? God is the author of both creation and scripture isn't He? Shouldn't we be able, then, to reach accurate conclusions when we use observations about His creation as our starting points for figuring out how the world works?



However, don't get me wrong when I say the bible is a science textbook. I am in no way it advocating it as a literal science textbook, but one that has very factual scientific data sewn into it that is not nearly as specific but very general in it's explanations. Of course it is the same data, but with different levels of attention.

I could get on board with that description, but I think we reach vastly different conclusions about how it should be used. Take the use of "kind" as an example. The bible mentions it in a very general and ill-defined way, it seems obvious to me that it's not intended to form the bedrock of taxonomy, nor does it seem obvious that there's any biblical demand for creatures to remain in their "kind" forever. And since we can't define "kind" anyway, there's absolutely no way to make the claim that there is observable evidence that one "kind" can't adapt into another "kind".

Thus making claims about some inviolate rule of biblical "kinds" appears to be based on a desire to cling to a traditional view of creation rather than a desire to uncover the depths of God's creation.

Romber
Jan 12th 2009, 04:18 PM
Consider the audience, most of whom would not be able to understand an actual literal description of how the universe was formed and many of whom likely wouldn't have really cared as technology had not progressed to a point where such knowledge could be made relevant to their every day lives.

This makes me think of another point, the creation account didn't receive a ton of attention considering how controversial it is today. What was included is a basic understanding of what happened. It is very true that people back then didn't have the technology to research these statements in the bible. However, we all have the same book to read. God knew our knowledge would increase, to a point that we want to explain everything, and know how everything works. Hence the little, general observations of many laws of science put into scripture, to give us humans a little stepping stone to start.


Shouldn't we be able, then, to reach accurate conclusions when we use observations about His creation as our starting points for figuring out how the world works?

I agree with this whole-heartedly but we have a couple of problems here. First of all, we are only human and we will make mistakes. Our observations might be biased, we might miss something critical, or we might observe in the wrong manner. If we use this as our starting point, then we will end up with vastly different endpoints-even if our starting point were minutely different. Again, we are only human. This means we are not omniscient or omnipresent. We will never know everything about a certain area of study no matter how much time and effort we pour into it because we lack the very fundamental aspects of absolute knowledge. This is why the Bible is not wrong. It was wrote by the absolute truth. This absolute truth-which is fundamental for a complete knowledge of any subject-is provided for it's readers through the bible. They are a starting point that I then believe can be further extrapolated on through observation.


The bible mentions it in a very general and ill-defined way, it seems obvious to me that it's not intended to form the bedrock of taxonomy, nor does it seem obvious that there's any biblical demand for creatures to remain in their "kind" forever.

It may not be meant as the bedrock for taxonomy, but a starting step. If scientists started trying to define what a kind is first, then I truly believe everything else will fall into place much easier as we started with an absolute truth.


And since we can't define "kind" anyway, there's absolutely no way to make the claim that there is observable evidence that one "kind" can't adapt into another "kind".

As of right now, there may not be a very definite answer for exactly what a kind is, but the research in baraminology has made leaps in bounds in recent years. Even the most conservative estimates believe we started with about 40,000 land kinds (those that needed the Ark to survive). There is many extensive studies that have made great strides into the study it self-and some are even viewable online. I believe that the answer to what a kind is will be revealed through more research and study in close years to come. Also, you have to remember that a species is not well defined either. It is a fairly difficult field no matter what camp you believe in.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 12th 2009, 10:33 PM
I agree with this whole-heartedly but we have a couple of problems here. First of all, we are only human and we will make mistakes. Our observations might be biased, we might miss something critical, or we might observe in the wrong manner. If we use this as our starting point, then we will end up with vastly different endpoints-even if our starting point were minutely different.


If both creation and scripture are representations of absolute truth authored by the same God we run into exactly the same problem with scripture. Being fallible human beings our interpretations might be biased, we might miss something critical, or we might interpret in the wrong manner. Thus, to me at least, it seems the best method is to look for interpretations and observations that agree. YEC is not such a method.



This absolute truth-which is fundamental for a complete knowledge of any subject-is provided for it's readers through the bible.


I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with this, but that strikes me as dead wrong. You don't need to know the bible in order to have knowledge about gravity, you just need to know a thing or two about physics and mass. You don't need scriptural revelation to understand how limestone forms. Biblical teachings have zero impact on determining the speed of light. One is perfectly capable of acquiring knowledge in these subjects completely absent of Christian theology.



They are a starting point that I then believe can be further extrapolated on through observation.


I'm getting lost in the talking points, what's an example of a good starting point that we couldn't otherwise get from observation?



It may not be meant as the bedrock for taxonomy, but a starting step. If scientists started trying to define what a kind is first, then I truly believe everything else will fall into place much easier as we started with an absolute truth.


You're asking scientists to reinvent the wheel seemingly hoping it will disprove evolution. We already have a taxonomical system that does a pretty good job of demarcating living things. All the definitions vague and vast so far given for "kind" involve shared traits. . .well what do you think current taxonomy is based on? Common traits. What novel direction do you think we should go with this?



As of right now, there may not be a very definite answer for exactly what a kind is, but the research in baraminology has made leaps in bounds in recent years. Even the most conservative estimates believe we started with about 40,000 land kinds (those that needed the Ark to survive). There is many extensive studies that have made great strides into the study it self-and some are even viewable online. I believe that the answer to what a kind is will be revealed through more research and study in close years to come. Also, you have to remember that a species is not well defined either. It is a fairly difficult field no matter what camp you believe in.

Seems like reinventing the wheel in the vain hope of disproving evolution to me. Taxonomy already exists that is far superior than any YEC "kind" classification I've ever seen. No matter how you slice it, things change.

Romber
Jan 13th 2009, 12:17 AM
Thus, to me at least, it seems the best method is to look for interpretations and observations that agree. YEC is not such a method.

I think the bolded part is the best definition for such a discrepancy in views. To you at least (a human observation) you conclude that YEC does not agree in both interpretations and observations. I go a more bottom-up approach and see what the the bible lets humans know. I understand that you do the same thing, but the difference is that you use observation of nature (which has bias) alongside written Word of God while I use the Word first, then observation.


I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with this, but that strikes me as dead wrong. You don't need to know the bible in order to have knowledge about gravity, you just need to know a thing or two about physics and mass. You don't need scriptural revelation to understand how limestone forms. Biblical teachings have zero impact on determining the speed of light. One is perfectly capable of acquiring knowledge in these subjects completely absent of Christian theology.

No, no. What I was trying to say is if the Bible does mention the certain law of science, or any hint of anything scientifical for that matter, then I will use that as a starting point as the bible is absolute truth and inerrable. The bible does not always lay a foundation for every field of science out there. This is when we must use observation, that does not conflict with the bible as, again, the bible is an inerr truth.


I'm getting lost in the talking points, what's an example of a good starting point that we couldn't otherwise get from observation?

Oh, every example from the bible is eventually observable, it just depends on technology. What I am saying is how much research, time and money does science waste attempting to establish and get an observation that in the end was listed in the bible? The bible's starting point are not only a good place to start (and ultimately push you in the right direction for research) but it also saves valuable time and you can largely forgo the observational part.


You're asking scientists to reinvent the wheel seemingly hoping it will disprove evolution.

This is far from any reason for researching and defining what a kind is. One I believe it is more for apologetic purposes than anything, espescially pertaining to the feasibility of the ark, and two the connection between Kinds and disproving evolution would be, imo, very weak and not an argument I would like to use. At the core, the way Bariminologist define a kind is exactly the same way as evolutionists do, but the process to define each taxonomic group has inverse presumptions to start with. When kind is fully defined, it can be used as a substitute to give people an idea of what creationists are talking about when they say a kind. A kind is roughly equivalent to species, genus or family, depending on which creature you are talking about.


All the definitions vague and vast so far given for "kind" involve shared traits.

Creationists can believe in taxonomy. A common creator will give their inventions similarities.

Alaska
Mar 1st 2009, 08:12 AM
Lets say we construct a rigid tube, let's say 20 ft in diameter many miles, let's say 50 miles straight up. A plumb line is used to set the tube perfectly straight up and down and a circle the diameter of a bowling ball is painted in the very center on the floor of the base indicating dead center of the plumbline point.

Now let's say we drop a bowling ball from the dead center position from the very top of this 50 mile high rigid tube.

At the speed the earth is supposed to be spinning, added to the speed of orbit it is supposed to be going in its orbit around the sun, how far off dead center will it hit at the base after the long 50 mile drop?

I'm sure there is an explanation for this, I would like to see it.

Gauntlet
Mar 1st 2009, 03:15 PM
I believe in God, but I also believe in science. God created Man, who then created science. So indirectly, God created science. God created Satan in the same indirect manner, did He not?

In the 21st century, the notion of geocentrism seems laughable. As does the YEC claim that Earth is just 6000 years old. Am I a YEC? Nope. Although I don't subscribe to creationism as an absolute, I'm closer to being OEC than YEC in my views on the cosmological origins of our planet.

Has anyone heard of something called abiogenesis? It's the scientific theory that states all life on Earth came from inorganic material. At first I was incredulous. How could life come from non-life? How is this any easier for the average person to believe than Genesis, Adam & Eve?

But I thought about it and then suddenly realized what God had used to form Adam before breathing life into his notrsils: dirt, dust, earth, mud. Decidedly inorganic materials.

:idea:


To be honest, I don't understand the importance of the whole YEC/OED debate. How is it relevant to our lives? If having a YEC/OED belief was really important in the Christian walk, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed, btw, is what I consider to be a listing of all the really important Christian beliefs. Stuff like Genesis & Creationism is of peripheral importance and lesser relevance, so to speak.


:note: Pls note the above message is strictly IMHO :note:

stuart shepherd
Mar 1st 2009, 04:24 PM
Joshua 10:13 (King James Version)

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Notice that the sun and the moon stood still relative to the earth.
Since the sun and moon stood still it would indicate that the earth stopped spinning on its axis.

The circumference of the earth is about 25,000 miles at the equator. Since the earth spins once every 24 hours, that means that someone standing on the equator is traveling more than 1000 miles per hour.
If God stopped the earth from spinning there would have been a rapid deceleration from 1000 miles per hour to zero miles per hour.

Did you ever ride on a bus or train when the driver stops suddenly and everyone on the bus or train pitches forward and are often injured?
A bus or train typically travels at 60 miles per hour.......what would it be like to stop when you are traveling 16+ times faster [1000mph] ???

Stuart Shepherd

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 2nd 2009, 11:52 AM
Lets say we construct a rigid tube, let's say 20 ft in diameter many miles, let's say 50 miles straight up. A plumb line is used to set the tube perfectly straight up and down and a circle the diameter of a bowling ball is painted in the very center on the floor of the base indicating dead center of the plumbline point.

Now let's say we drop a bowling ball from the dead center position from the very top of this 50 mile high rigid tube.

At the speed the earth is supposed to be spinning, added to the speed of orbit it is supposed to be going in its orbit around the sun, how far off dead center will it hit at the base after the long 50 mile drop?

I'm sure there is an explanation for this, I would like to see it.

There's some variables you need to nail down to get an exact figure: Is the tube situated on the equator? If not at what latitude is it located? Your tube nullifies wind but not air resistance, are we counting this variable as well? How heavy is the bowling ball? What is it's volume?

If I assume your metal tube is on the equator it will be rotating at about 1070 miles per hour (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html). If it's a standard 16 pound bowling ball then I think it's circumfrence should be about 27 inches yes? Which would yield a terminal velocity of 163 miles per hour. For the sake of keeping this simple let's assume your bowling ball reaches it's terminal velocity shortly after being released.

Time = Distance/Rate

T = 50miles/163mph

T = .31 hrs

So we know it would take a standard bowling ball roughly .31 hrs to drop to earth, now we can plug in our equatorial rotational speed looking for distance.

Distance = Rate x Time

D = 1070 mph x .31 hrs.

D = 331.7 miles

And there you go, your bowling ball will, of course, rattle around inside your metal tube on its way down. In free fall at terminal velocity without taking wind sheer or air resistance into account a standard bowling ball would land about 331.7 miles horizontally away from the vertical height from which it was dropped.

Alaska
Mar 3rd 2009, 03:59 AM
There's some variables you need to nail down to get an exact figure: Is the tube situated on the equator? If not at what latitude is it located? Your tube nullifies wind but not air resistance, are we counting this variable as well? How heavy is the bowling ball? What is it's volume?

If I assume your metal tube is on the equator it will be rotating at about 1070 miles per hour (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html). If it's a standard 16 pound bowling ball then I think it's circumfrence should be about 27 inches yes? Which would yield a terminal velocity of 163 miles per hour. For the sake of keeping this simple let's assume your bowling ball reaches it's terminal velocity shortly after being released.

Time = Distance/Rate

T = 50miles/163mph

T = .31 hrs

So we know it would take a standard bowling ball roughly .31 hrs to drop to earth, now we can plug in our equatorial rotational speed looking for distance.

Distance = Rate x Time

D = 1070 mph x .31 hrs.

D = 331.7 miles

And there you go, your bowling ball will, of course, rattle around inside your metal tube on its way down. In free fall at terminal velocity without taking wind sheer or air resistance into account a standard bowling ball would land about 331.7 miles horizontally away from the vertical height from which it was dropped.


You're joking right? Your laughing your head off right?
Seems like you figured the bowling ball was not moving with the earth when it was released.
Like a bomber releasing bombs in flight. At the point of release they are going about as fast as the plane but soon lose speed.
You figured it as though the point of release was from some imaginary unmoveable point, that is a point not moving with the earth in the theory that the earth is moving.
By your calculation for every foot it dropped vertically it flew horizontally 6.634 feet.

50 miles =264,000 ft.
331.7 miles= 1,751,376 ft

1,751,376 divided by 264,000= 6.634


That means if I drop a golf ball from 1 foot, it should hit the floor about 6 1/2 feet away because of the theoretical rotation of the earth.

Seriously, I want a real explanation.

Alaska
Mar 3rd 2009, 04:45 AM
To be honest, I don't understand the importance of the whole YEC/OED debate. How is it relevant to our lives?


So you don't mind accepting that the scriptures don't really mean what they say or that they are erroneous?
It is better to not accept and profess Jesus if you do so making what he said to be untrue.

Jesus places man and woman at the very beginning, at creation.
The OE people have to make Jesus at fault for his statements concerning this.

Either accept him or don't accept him.

Don't say you accept him but then suggest he lied or was deceived. That really means you do not accept him if you side with those making him a fool.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 3rd 2009, 05:09 AM
You're joking right? Your laughing your head off right?
Seems like you figured the bowling ball was not moving with the earth when it was released.
Like a bomber releasing bombs in flight. At the point of release they are going about as fast as the plane but soon lose speed.
You figured it as though the point of release was from some imaginary unmoveable point, that is a point not moving with the earth in the theory that the earth is moving.
By your calculation for every foot it dropped vertically it flew horizontally 6.634 feet.

50 miles =264,000 ft.
331.7 miles= 1,751,376 ft

1,751,376 divided by 264,000= 6.634


That means if I drop a golf ball from 1 foot, it should hit the floor about 6 1/2 feet away because of the theoretical rotation of the earth.

Seriously, I want a real explanation.


hahahahahaha. That's what you get when you ask me to do math before I've had my morning coffee. In all seriousness though, if you're up 50 miles you're in the Thermosphere which is pretty out there and thing's are going to get a little garbled. Yes, I was assuming our bowling ball wasn't moving with the earth since we're dropping it through a giant metal tube and at first glance I figured this is what you're getting at. The question seems like it has an awful lot of variables, in any event I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.

Philemon9
Mar 3rd 2009, 05:23 AM
So you don't mind accepting that the scriptures don't really mean what they say or that they are erroneous?
It is better to not accept and profess Jesus if you do so making what he said to be untrue.

Jesus places man and woman at the very beginning, at creation.
The OE people have to make Jesus at fault for his statements concerning this.

Either accept him or don't accept him.

Don't say you accept him but then suggest he lied or was deceived. That really means you do not accept him if you side with those making him a fool.

Gotta love thinking in absolutes like this. By this same train of thought: Are you calling God a deceiver since he created the earth/universe with the appearance of age? Or do you believe every respected scientist is in on some conspiracy against Christianity?

Soupy
Mar 3rd 2009, 09:17 AM
Gotta love thinking in absolutes like this. By this same train of thought: Are you calling God a deceiver since he created the earth/universe with the appearance of age? Or do you believe every respected scientist is in on some conspiracy against Christianity?

A scientist will only consider natural means for the age of the universe/earth, that's their limitation and makes them very unreliable for certain topics ... they can't help it, it's how most of them were taught and trained, most scientists could care less about anything other than observable conclusions producing results they understand, bringing 'God' into the equation is too much of a curve ball for most of them ... no conspiracy needed.

Scientists can only test how they see things now in todays physical state, another limitation that can only be bridged by including and considering miraculous events when considering the origins of the universe.

I still find it amazing that many Christian's refuse to acknowledge the miraculous side of God when discussing the beginnings, do you think God created Adam as a man ? ... I do, this would mean Adam was made 'aged', this is not deceptive at all ... was God being deceptive when he caused other miraculous events that defy our physical understanding of how things normally work ... no He was not being deceptive, He was being miraculous.

:)

Gauntlet
Mar 3rd 2009, 02:07 PM
Adam & Eve are described as man and woman (adults) in the early chapters of Genesis, but before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge and realizd they were naked, Adam & Eve were more like children.

Knowledge ruins Paradise.

The blissful innocence of childhood is always broken off by sin and knowledge of the world. :cry: Why? Because that is the way of things.

Gauntlet
Mar 3rd 2009, 02:27 PM
Here's a question: Why was the Serpent (Satan) allowed to enter the Garden in the first place? Was the Serpent actually sent by God to test Adam and Eve? I think we can all agree that Adam & Eve failed that test.

But when the Serpent told them that they would not die from eating the forbidden fruit, that turned out to be true. Mixing lies with the truth, I guess. That is Satan's M.O.

fishbowlsoul
Mar 4th 2009, 02:30 AM
A scientist will only consider natural means for the age of the universe/earth, that's their limitation and makes them very unreliable for certain topics ... they can't help it, it's how most of them were taught and trained, most scientists could care less about anything other than observable conclusions producing results they understand, bringing 'God' into the equation is too much of a curve ball for most of them ... no conspiracy needed.

Scientists can only test how they see things now in todays physical state, another limitation that can only be bridged by including and considering miraculous events when considering the origins of the universe.

I still find it amazing that many Christian's refuse to acknowledge the miraculous side of God when discussing the beginnings, do you think God created Adam as a man ? ... I do, this would mean Adam was made 'aged', this is not deceptive at all ... was God being deceptive when he caused other miraculous events that defy our physical understanding of how things normally work ... no He was not being deceptive, He was being miraculous.

:)

Wow. I thought this topic would be closed or too far down the thread totem pole to still be active. When I started I didn't think it would last this long even though it has inevitably gone off topic.

So do you believe God created Adam as "aged" but the earth/universe was created long before Adam came about?

Alaska
Mar 4th 2009, 04:36 AM
The creation didn't look aged to A&E. They understood it to be only a few days older than themselves, including the sun and moon and stars.They knew this because God told them and they believed his word.

Therefore their minds weren't muddled with ideas that suggested contradiction to what they were told. How did it look? Someone may say it looked deceitful because it looked old. But who would have told them to look at it negatively and suspiciously?

I'm sure they simply accepted the explanation God told them and understood that God made it the way he did and it was only a few days older than themselves. How did it look to them?
Beautiful.

Asking how old it is with the suggestion that something is deceitful is the same MO Satan used with the woman.
Same old serpent, same kind of simplistic acceptance to his interjected questions and doubt.

Has God said, he made it in 6 days?

Alaska
Mar 4th 2009, 04:49 AM
The question seems like it has an awful lot of variables, in any event I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this

Really?

Everybody knows that gravity will drop things straight down perfectly perpendicular to the earth. The bowling ball will hit dead center. Not 1 mm off dead center.
If the earth is moving so fast on a spin and also in orbit, 50 miles ought to give us a little reading of movement.
You give it about 20 minutes drop time.
How many miles in spin on the circumference at the equator will have passed an imaginary fixed point in 20 minutes.
And yet not 1 mm off dead center from 50 miles up?

Like I said before, I'm sure they have an explanation. I'd like to see it.

Hey, this thread is not off topic. Its about geocentricism and that is what we are talking about.

Shnoz462
Mar 4th 2009, 06:36 AM
The answer is Newton's First Law of Motion: 'A body will remain at rest or in constant motion until acted upon by a force.'

Say you're in a car. The car isn't speeding up or slowing down, it's just cruising along at the same speed. You drop a ball in the car. It falls straight down, because gravity (downwards force) is the only force acting on it.
But if you drop the ball while the car's accelerating, the ball will drop backwards. This is because gravity (downwards force) AND acceleration (backwards force) are acting on the ball.

But the Earth isn't accelerating or breaking, it's cruising along at the same speed. So when you drop a ball, there is only ONE force and that's gravity dragging the ball down.
That's why the bowling ball falls straight down.

Philemon9
Mar 4th 2009, 01:40 PM
I thought we waved bye bye to geocentrism back in like 1598

Gauntlet
Mar 4th 2009, 02:24 PM
Earth is suspended in the zero-gee vacuum of space, which would make the physics a bit different. Has anyone realized that?

:hmm:

teddyv
Mar 4th 2009, 05:53 PM
Really?

Everybody knows that gravity will drop things straight down perfectly perpendicular to the earth. The bowling ball will hit dead center. Not 1 mm off dead center.
If the earth is moving so fast on a spin and also in orbit, 50 miles ought to give us a little reading of movement.
You give it about 20 minutes drop time.
How many miles in spin on the circumference at the equator will have passed an imaginary fixed point in 20 minutes.
And yet not 1 mm off dead center from 50 miles up?

Like I said before, I'm sure they have an explanation. I'd like to see it.

Hey, this thread is not off topic. Its about geocentricism and that is what we are talking about.
It would only hit dead centre if there was a perfect vacuum from the drop height to surface. Since that is not the case, the atmosphere would cause drag, winds would blow it off course. Theoretically in a perfect vacuum, there probably could be a slight variation since the earth does not have a perfect gravitation field. There are areas with higher apparent gravity (of course not noticible to us) but we use these differences in geological applications of remote sensing. The moon and sun could also have very minor impact. So even with a perfect vacuum, there are still lots of other variables.

Alaska
Mar 5th 2009, 02:45 AM
It would only hit dead centre if there was a perfect vacuum from the drop height to surface. Since that is not the case, the atmosphere would cause drag, winds would blow it off course. Theoretically in a perfect vacuum, there probably could be a slight variation since the earth does not have a perfect gravitation field. There are areas with higher apparent gravity (of course not noticible to us) but we use these differences in geological applications of remote sensing. The moon and sun could also have very minor impact. So even with a perfect vacuum, there are still lots of other variables.

This is the situation, I don't think you are grasping what is being looked for. But you are basically agreeing that the spin and orbit will not effect the drop from being basically perfectly perpendicular to the earth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1996698#post1996698)
Lets say we construct a rigid tube, let's say 20 ft in diameter many miles, let's say 50 miles straight up. A plumb line is used to set the tube perfectly straight up and down and a circle the diameter of a bowling ball is painted in the very center on the floor of the base indicating dead center of the plumbline point.

Now let's say we drop a bowling ball from the dead center position from the very top of this 50 mile high rigid tube.

At the speed the earth is supposed to be spinning, added to the speed of orbit it is supposed to be going in its orbit around the sun, how far off dead center will it hit at the base after the long 50 mile drop?

I'm sure there is an explanation for this, I would like to see it.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 5th 2009, 03:45 AM
Really?


Yes really.



If the earth is moving so fast on a spin and also in orbit, 50 miles ought to give us a little reading of movement.
You give it about 20 minutes drop time.
How many miles in spin on the circumference at the equator will have passed an imaginary fixed point in 20 minutes.
And yet not 1 mm off dead center from 50 miles up?

Like I said before, I'm sure they have an explanation. I'd like to see it.


Inertia. The atmosphere is rotating with the earth along with everything else including your hypothetical bowling ball. This explanation was given quite a while ago. . .as in 1687 with Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica).

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Rotational_inertia

So, if the bowling ball is rotating with the atmosphere horizontally when it's released what force is going to act on it to change it's motion (present state)? Gravity will pull it down changing it's vertical motion but there's nothing that's going to be changing it's horizontal movement so it will keep pace with the earth.

Alaska
Mar 5th 2009, 03:50 AM
Heliocentricism is foolishness.

If the bowling ball is so easily affected by moon wind etc then it is very sensitive because it is freefalling in air. Yet it will fall straight down.
But that would be impossible if the earth is spinning at 1000+ miles an hour.
So the earth is moving out from under the ball as it falls and yet it will basically go straight down.

Gravity pulls down vertical.
If the ball is released from a precise point and directly perpendicular to that release point on the earth is a circle drawn, and yet the earth is moving out from under the ball because of rotational spin, then we need a 'horizontal gravity' in order to make it hit that circle.
And there is no horizontal gravity, except perhaps in the mind of heliocentricists?
Yet the ball will basically fall straight down. And in perfect conditions after my scenario in the tube, it will hit dead center.

Take a ball and hold it up 50 inches, each inch to represent a mile.
Underneath this put a piece of plywood. Do the mathematics for the relative speed of the earth's rotation and find how fast the plywood has to be dragged to mimic the rotational speed.
Drop the ball and move the plywood.
The ball will not hit at the perpendicular point from which it was released.
It will be far away from the perpendicular point straight down from where it was released. By measuring the inches on the plywood and reckoning also 1 inch to mean 1 mile, the ball would fall much farther than wind, moon or differences in gravity could account for. The notable distance away from dead center would clearly be accounted for by the rotational speed.

Yet there is no notable distance in the real world because the earth is not spinning. Drop something from a high distance and the object will fall straight down and hit very close to the point perpendicular from where it was released.
That would be impossible if the earth is spinning at 1000+ mph.

Unless of course we bring in horizontal gravity. And the only ones I can think of who might believe in that are heliocentricists.

.

Athanasius
Mar 5th 2009, 04:43 AM
I thought the OP was ridiculous but reading this thread...

Philemon9
Mar 5th 2009, 05:31 AM
I thought the OP was ridiculous but reading this thread...

Yeah... I think Alaska is trolling. He just has to be.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 5th 2009, 11:34 AM
But that would be impossible if the earth is spinning at 1000+ miles an hour.
So the earth is moving out from under the ball as it falls and yet it will basically go straight down.


As I just explained, the earth is not rotating "out from under the ball". Earth's atmosphere is rotating with the earth as well as everything else on the planet, including your bowling ball. Since there's no force that's going to act on the bowling balls horizontal motion the only force in play here is going to be the vertical pull of earth's gravity.



If the ball is released from a precise point and directly perpendicular to that release point on the earth is a circle drawn, and yet the earth is moving out from under the ball because of rotational spin, then we need a 'horizontal gravity' in order to make it hit that circle.


Nope, all we need is for the First Law of Motion (Inertia) to hold true just like it does in every observable instance. Objects do not move or stop unless acted on by some sort of force. Gravity holds earth's atmosphere in place so that atmosphere is rotating with everything else on earth - this is the force which produces the bowling ball's horizontal motion before you drop it, it's spinning around on earth just like everything else. Because there's no force slowing down that horizontal motion it will remain in motion at the same speed as the earth's rotation, the only change will be the vertical pull of gravity.



Take a ball and hold it up 50 inches, each inch to represent a mile.
Underneath this put a piece of plywood. Do the mathematics for the relative speed of the earth's rotation and find how fast the plywood has to be dragged to mimic the rotational speed.
Drop the ball and move the plywood.


Or make an accurate model by moving the plywood and the ball at the same speed and then dropping them. Of course, such a model would be imperfect because the air around the bowling ball is not moving with it and air resistance will start to skew your results, but from 50 inches this shouldn't be noticable.



That would be impossible if the earth is spinning at 1000+ mph.

Unless of course we bring in horizontal gravity. And the only ones I can think of who might believe in that are heliocentricists.

.

Or objects obey certain laws of motion. Do you observe many objects spontaneously moving without a force acting on them? Does your car regularly stop moving without you having to apply the brakes?

Inertia, it's a wonderful thing.

Alaska
Mar 6th 2009, 08:22 AM
Yeah... I think Alaska is trolling. He just has to be.

What is trolling?

Christians who jumped on the bandwagon and in ignorance defended evolution were very embarrassed when data came out later to reveal neb. man and piltdown man etc to be nonsense.
The scriptures were true after all.
Christians should jump off the Helio bandwagon and jump on the biblical suggested Geo before the replay of man's foolish wisdom paying out all that embarrassment happens again.
Helio is only a theory and common sense militates against it.

This inertia thing is just so totally laughable. As if perpetual motion is a reality.

The air is a very free medium. It is independent. it often blows opposite than the direction of the alleged rotation.
At what point as you go up do we find a rigid casing protecting the free movement of the air from the turbulence created by the 1000+ speed of rotation?
Does the space shuttle hit "turbulence zone" on the way out?

Philemon9
Mar 6th 2009, 01:42 PM
What is trolling?

Christians who jumped on the bandwagon and in ignorance defended evolution were very embarrassed when data came out later to reveal neb. man and piltdown man etc to be nonsense.
The scriptures were true after all.
Christians should jump off the Helio bandwagon and jump on the biblical suggested Geo before the replay of man's foolish wisdom paying out all that embarrassment happens again.
Helio is only a theory and common sense militates against it.

This inertia thing is just so totally laughable. As if perpetual motion is a reality.

The air is a very free medium. It is independent. it often blows opposite than the direction of the alleged rotation.
At what point as you go up do we find a rigid casing protecting the free movement of the air from the turbulence created by the 1000+ speed of rotation?
Does the space shuttle hit "turbulence zone" on the way out?

Trolling is intentionally taking a position that will draw arguments, which is what I still think you're doing.

There's no such thing as a helioist and a geocentrist or whatever it would be called. There's simply people that accept reality and those who don't.

You can continue to defend this position to your heart's content, but you would probably have an easier time arguing the moon is made out of cheese, the sky is green, and the stars are really just gnats caught in God's big net.

As an old earther, a part of me is kind of glad you have taken this position. Because 99% of YEC's wouldn't even take your "interpretation" of scripture to this extreme. I guess I'm hoping YEC's would see in your argument, what I see in the idea of a 6,000 year old earth/universe.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 6th 2009, 08:48 PM
Christians who jumped on the bandwagon and in ignorance defended evolution were very embarrassed when data came out later to reveal neb. man and piltdown man etc to be nonsense.


I guess it's a good thing the theory of evolution wasn't based on those two claims then. Furthermore, since it was fellow scientists doing continuing research in these fields that figured out there were problems with those claims doesn't that obliterate the idea that scientists are all part of an atheist cabal of evil intent on suppressing the truth? We've been over this before (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=150560&page=10):

"Your other example of Nebraska Man is a very good one for illustrating how science works. . .though unfortunately not the way you probably want it to.

In 1922, a Nebraska geologist sent a fossilized tooth to Henry Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn was involved with the Scopes Monkey Trial, and was delighted at the new evidence for his side. He rushed to publication, and announced the new species Hesperopithecus ("Ape of the western world"). It seemed, he said, more human than ape.


But what happened next? The answer is that Osborn himself went to Nebraska in the summers of 1925 and 1926. Many more teeth were found, and it became apparent that they weren't from an ape. They belonged to an extinct peccary, Prosthennops. A retraction of Hesperopithecus was published in 1927.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c.../nebraska.html (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/nebraska.html)


Within a few years of the original find more evidence was uncovered by scientists that indicated the original claim was in error. When that evidence became convincing a retraction of the claim was made public."



This inertia thing is just so totally laughable. As if perpetual motion is a reality.


Your understanding of basic physics is truly painful. Perpetual motion is not a reality because there is no infinite space in which no forces are acting. The earth's rotation is being acted upon by other forces, such as the gravitational pull from the sun, and is slowing down by tiny increments.



The air is a very free medium. It is independent.


The air is not a free medium, it is not independent of gravity. If it was why doesn't it all just float off into space? What do you think holds it to the earth?



it often blows opposite than the direction of the alleged rotation.


Wind is caused by uneven heating of the earth's surface, though the rotation of the earth does effect wind patterns. Hot air rises, cold air sinks. . .this is literally elementary science.



At what point as you go up do we find a rigid casing protecting the free movement of the air from the turbulence created by the 1000+ speed of rotation?


Turbulence caused by. . .what exactly? Space is pretty much a vacuum, why would the earth's rotation cause any disturbance there?



Does the space shuttle hit "turbulence zone" on the way out?

No, space shuttles pass through the upper reaches of the atmosphere which get exponentially thinner the higher you go. Once you get up into the upper reaches of the atmosphere there's no distinct boundary between atmosphere and space, instead it's kind of a hazy demarcation based on the reduced effects of earth's gravitational pull on various gas particles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Atmosphere_layers-en.svg/102px-Atmosphere_layers-en.svg.png

As an aside, having answered your questions I will, once again, re-post some of my own (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1921334&postcount=82) to which you have never responded:
"You can't wish away Earth's equatorial bulge, starlight aberrations, or the coriolis effect.

It's simple observation. Gravity is determined by mass, the sun is more than a million times more massive than the earth therefore the sun generates more gravity. Even if you somehow claimed this wasn't true, look around. . .do we see massive objects orbiting small ones anywhere else in the universe? Do we orbit the moon?

Take it a step further, if the earth is stationary that means that the visible universe whips around us every 24 hours which would mean that anything beyond 4.1 billion kilometers should be moving faster than the speed of light. Even the sun would be wizzing around somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light and would display measurable relativistic length contraction. Curiously, we should have expected the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft to have accelerated beyond the speed of light a while ago if the universe is truly flying around a stationary earth. . .isn't it kind of odd that we see no evidence of this?"

Soupy
Mar 6th 2009, 10:31 PM
this thread ain't goin' anywhere fast lads !

fishbowlsoul
Mar 6th 2009, 11:00 PM
As the OP, I vote this thread be closed. It jumped the shark a long time ago.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2009, 03:41 AM
What is trolling?
Christians who jumped on the bandwagon and in ignorance defended evolution were very embarrassed when data came out later to reveal neb. man and piltdown man etc to be nonsense.


Trolling would be doing this:

1. Entering a discussion on evolution
2. Refuting every possible argument by using two examples
-->> 1. Piltdown man
-->> 2. Nebraska man
3. From those two examples lay claim that every proof is false (unsupported)
4. Assert 'pet' claim in lieu of rational discussion

It's kind of like comparing heliocentricism to evolution and refuting both by referencing piltdown man and nebraska man, saying "people have it wrong". Well yes they do, but not all the time. More correctly Christians who defended Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man as evolutionary links were embarrassed. Quite a different thing from defending evolution as a theory. Understand the difference?

On that this is closed.