Creation questions

It is stupid, radical statements like this that make rational discussion with people of your mindset impossible. Every scientist that does not believe in an old earth evolutionary model is described as "liars, fools, or something much worse".

You would do well to spend some time with the history of science and see that science is not truth but, hopefully, a search for truth. You know it was scientists who used to bleed people to cure diseases, or even worse used leeches. Hopefully you have advanced beyond that point.

Actually there are many scientists in academia who reject evolution and an old universe.

 

The random events that you believe led to the evolution of the universe and life on earth may be nothing but a conjecutre based on a lack of knowledge of the facts and an outright denial of the logical implications of the known facts because they contradict the philosophical premise of naturalism.

The "Intelligence" that I believe to be responsible for creation is based on the correct notion that God declared that everything that is exists because of a divine act of will on His part. "Random" is the word evolutionists seem to prefer since even they seem to recognize how ludicrous "chance" is as a means of creating order.

Are you saying that natural selection does not depend on "chance" or "random" events? If not random, are you claiming that they are directed? If not, what is the third option?

Then you need to argue with the evolutionists rather than us... because they are dependent on random events for the origin of life as well as for each evolutionary step from then to now.

Regardless of how you try to play semantics, a process by which random mutations meet the exact random environmental conditions to select those mutations for preservation... is "merely a random process."

 

There are no demonstrated proofs that the earth is more than 10K years old. The fundamental premise for all of these "proofs" is that God had nothing to do with creation but rather it is all a series of random events.

Insert a omnipotent Creator and that all goes out the window.

 

No, not if the believer is only three years old and not especially bright.</font>[/QUOTE] I believe this. I am not 3... and I have an IQ above 130 and have never been accused by anyone who knows me personally of not being "especially bright".

Amen! Absolutely! (But of course no one in this thread is doing that.)

</font>[/QUOTE]Then you are in self-denial/deception. That is absolutely what you have declared on this very thread. You said that Genesis cannot be literal because the THEORIES of men say so. Actually, you said that the facts disprove it... which is categorically false. It is the naturalistic explanation of the facts that contradict the literal reading... not the facts themselves.

 

You avoided JWP's point. Most of us believe this paragraph but also that God divinely superintended the writing ensuring that it communicated exactly what He intended.

So the idea that Moses was just recording tradition or folklore or whatever is insufficient.

There is no internal evidence nor actual evidence related directly to the Bible itself that suggests that Genesis is any different.

Not true. Scripture was written to all of mankind, for all time, by a timeless God.

You simply cannot apply theories about ancient literature of human sources to scripture without doing violence to scripture. If men wrote the OT and Genesis in particular then it is wholly unreliable on every account... but that isn't the way it was treated in the NT.

It is only authoritative if divinely authored.

 

Anyone who disagrees with the point of view of tens of thousands of biologists when there is not even one Ph.D. biologist teaching in a major university who agrees with them is, in my highly educate opinion, either ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or mentally ill.

</font>[/QUOTE]Then the problem is perhaps your own ignorant arrogance rather than the supposed deficiencies of your opponents.

You failed to mention that the "tens of thousands" of biologists you mentioned were trained (indoctrinated) to believe that evolution accounts for biology and that science depends on naturalism.

True science depends on the pursuit of truth... not the preservation of a philosophical point of view.

 

Scott,

You simply cannot apply theories about ancient literature of human sources to scripture without doing violence to scripture.

You and I will have to disagree on this one. God chose to give us scripture by this means (human hands). He could have carved (Himself) another set of stone tablets but He did not.

As such it IS appropriate to use techniques of literary analysis. And I do NOT think this constitutes "violence".

[/B]If men wrote the OT and Genesis in particular then it is wholly unreliable on every account... but that isn't the way it was treated in the NT.[/B]

You raise a good point here. NT references to the OT speak of literal days. I think though that the same middle eastern mindset applies here. They refer to the OT literally because there is no reason to do otherwise. That is to say the NT is a theological document and not a scientific one.

 

By human hands? Yes. But not by human will and intent.

The theories regarding ancient literature/mythology (if true) do not apply to the writings of a transcendent God.

That's a cop out Charles... an argument of convenience.

When two things purported to be true contradict one another in points of fact then one is false.

When NT writers and/or Jesus point back to Adam, Noah, Job, etc. or creation or the flood as if they were literal history but "science" demands that they be fictional then one or the other is not true.

Jesus showed no respect for men's traditions. The NT writers clarified many things that were misunderstood in the OT. The fact that they treat Genesis as literal is quite a strong argument that God inspired them to communicate this idea.

 

Wrong question.

The question is: "Why would we and why have you?"

We accept inspiration as a biblically declared truth. Therefore, there is no reason to look for "literary devices" to explain away parts we find disagreeable and inconvenient to our presuppositions about origins (among other things).

 

We accept inspiration as a biblically declared truth.

As do I (and I think almost everyone on this board).

I will say that I do NOT view as pertaining to the exact literal wordings. That is to say I do not think all of the Bible was tailor-made to be read as a literal account by 21st century westerners.

This is an important point on which we differ.

I think (whether you realize it or not) you are claiming inspiration not just for the Bible but also for your views on it.

Therefore, there is no reason to look for "literary devices" to explain away parts we find disagreeable and inconvenient to our presuppositions about origins (among other things).

This may apply to a staunch evolutionist with anti-Christian bias but not to me. And young earther authors do the very same thing - only arguably less competently than their evolutionist counterparts.

 

I have struggled with old earth or young earth for a while now. I am still holding on to the young earth theory. It is extremely difficult for me as an Engineer because I like facts and figures and positives and there is a lot of scientific evidence for an old earth. However, what I have to rely on here is the inerrancy of the Word and my faith in God that he would not try and confuse me with contradictions. He is timeless and His Word wouldn't have different meanings to people in 1000BC versus 2005AD. I am still holding on to young earth.

I would also like to say that I am a lurker on this forum and read it every day and rarely post as you can tell by my post count. This thread has degenerated into more name calling and insults as a lot of them do on this board. As a young earther, I could probably talk pretty good to Charles Meadows about the old earth theory, but there is absolutley know way I would listen to CraigByTheSea and take the abuse (I find no love in his statements). There are some on the other fence that is a little abrasive as well. In all things that we do, do it in love.

Anyway, that is my opinion and you may take it or leave it.

 

Yes it is. So please show me something from God's divine revelation to us (which is supposedly sufficient to make us wise and is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work") that tells me that I should read it according to theories about ancient mythological literature rather than as if it were written to me.

And you base that charge on what? My rejection of human theories as authoritative over matters of biblical interpretation?

 

I would suggest something like this to an engineer.

I drive by acre after acre of crops on everyday. These crops are a direct result of design, engineering, and "extra"natural action.

The engineering, methods, and crops are interrelated but if you were ignorant of modern agriculture, the crops themselves contain little evidence about the processes that led to their existence. From an engineering standpoint, the genetics, order, tire prints, etc all point to the creative activities of intelligent agents... but not the actual mechanics of how the work was accomplished.

Now, suppose someone approaches that a corn field with the philosophical premise that any explanation for it must conform to strict naturalism. They could draw on knowledge of various natural processes and spin them into very creative, impressive sounding, technically confusing explanations for the field... but when you step back and take a look at the whole of what they propose you see that it is simply not reasonable when compared to just accepting that intelligence was responsible.

They would presuppose that the function of the field limits the possible causes for its existence.

That is what naturalism does to science. It limits explanations for origins to the processes of nature even though creative intelligence is a much better explanation.

You are probably referring to me... at least in part.

Craig and I have a history on this issue. This thread isn't the first one where he has engaged in the behavior you noted toward creationists.

It also isn't his first time calling creationists things like "babboon".

 

Scott J wrote,

This line of thinking is an excellent example of how creation “scientists” willfully and deliberately deceive their reading public (which is primarily people who are woefully devoid of even a basic education). Every creation “scientist” knows (most of them having learned it in their 7th grade science class) that there is NOTHING random about natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest. Indeed, they not only know this for a fact, but they use this fact to support their claims of speciation (a polite word for evolution) after the flood. From one side of their mouth they deny a basic truth of science and from the other side of their mouth they greatly exaggerate and distort the potential speed of this process that they deny the existence of .

Scott, you can purchase a used high school biology textbook at the thrift store for a dollar (or less) and learn the basics of biology. If you will do this, you will learn for yourself that creation “scientists” willfully and deliberately misrepresent what biologists believe and why they believe it.

 

Nothing in this statement is true, and anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of science knows for a fact that nothing in this statement is true.

Why is truth so very important to scientists but so very irrelevant to creationists?

 

OldRegular wrote,

Dear Sir,

Have you completed even one course in biology at a university ? Do you have any knowledge at all of this subject, or are you arguing exclusively from willful ignorance?

 

Scott J wrote,

Perhaps your memory needs to be refreshed a bit. Here are some of the basic, undeniable FACTS (not theories) that I have posted in this thread,

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any rational man or woman can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

Again Craig, if you want to dispute the word "random" you need to take it up with apologists for evolution.

Natural selection is not "random" in the evolutionary framework? Which part of my summary is false Craig? There is no deceit here.

Speciation is not equivalent to macroevolution and you very well know it.

Talk about distortion and deception.

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution takes place. Living things possess the genetic ability to adapt according to the information passed to them by their ancestors.

Where we disagree is on whether microevolution will or even can result in macroevolution and also if microevolution plus any other known natural process can account for the net increases in complexity and information that would have had to occur in single-cell to man macroevolution.

 

Scott J wrote,

If I am ignorant, what word would you use to describe my opponents in this thread?

 

When I used the expression “literary device,” I was referring to my own post, not the writings in the Bible. However, am I to understand that you are unaware any of the many literary devices used in the Bible by either Jesus or Paul, both of whom used many of them?

Have you studied neither biology nor the interpretation of literature ? If I had the pleasure of a dialogue with a man who was vastly better educated than I am, I certainly would not waste the time arguing with him when I could be learning from him instead.