Creation theories, necessary?

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Hi DonnA, welcome to the discussions!
The verse doesn't give a hint that it is not to be interpreted literally EXCEPT - it can't be literally true!

This is the best confession about how Evolutionists treat the text of Gen 1-2:3 that I have ever seen posted.

They cling to "Belief" in junk-science and pure atheist-evolutionist-speculation on origins, instead of the Bible and then declare that the Bible "gives no hint that we are not to believe it - except that we KNOW it can't literally be true from our Junk-science beliefs".

So instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Imagine if God had said "and so you are to hate sin JUST as you hate your Mother and Father" equating the HATE of both... in the SAME way that God said that our 7 day week is in exact equivalence to Creation week?

Then wouldn't our evolutionist friends finally "have an out"?? Something that would "hold water" for disbelieving the text of God's Word.

Truly - THEN they could use that as their example of "an escape clause" from belief in Christ our God - Creator and Savior. But as it is - John 1 makes it "very clear" that He ACTUALLY created all things.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

So Bob, as PastorGreg points out, to be consistent you also need to admit that the Bible, if taken literally, indicates geocentrism. Why don't you let us know on what basis you accept that the earth actually moves around the sun. Show us the exegesis for that or give us some other reason that you accept that the earth orbits the sun.

 

[Gup20]

No... it does not effect your salvation... however, if you continually undermine the reason for salvation you will have lost the ability to convince someone they need salvation.

Also... it's a matter of principle... everything in the Bible is absolute truth. If you undermine anything in the word (especially it's foundation) you undermine the whole. Who is going to believe or trust you when you don't believe in the basis of your faith entirely.

 

[Gup20]

to be consistent you also need to admit that the Bible, if taken literally, indicates geocentrism.

Wrong.

Psalm 93:1 is the verse that is the center of the geocentric doctrines.

Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

By the geocentrics exegesis, 'it cannot be moved' means it's fixed and doesn't rotate around the sun.

First of all... no where in the whole chapter does the verse mention cosmology in any way... nowhere does it mention the heavens. It does, however, mention time (everlasting), steadfastness (waves crashing against the an unyeilding force) and 'surity' in the realms of testamonies and holiness. Therefore, the literal exegesis can be seen as "stability" not fixed position in space.

Psa 62:6 He only [is] my rock and my salvation: [he is] my defence; I shall not be moved.

Psa 10:6 He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for [I shall] never [be] in adversity.

Psa 21:7 For the king trusteth in the LORD, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved.

Clearly, the phrase 'shall not be moved' is a figure of speach meaning steadfastness and stability. It is not a description of cosmological location. We can tell by both context and usage of the phrase in other locations that cosmology is not the frame of reference of this scripture.

 

[UTEOTW]

Then why is that great Biblical scholars of the past take these to literally mean an earth that does not move? Were they not as smart as we are? Or did the non-literal interpretation come about after we learned the truth about the way our solar system works?

 

[UTEOTW]

1 Chronicles 16:30

"...the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Well, that eliminates your book of poetry line of reasoning.

The same word used as "move" in these verses is also used in the following manner.

Psalm 17:5

"Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not."

So, now we see that the word can also mean physical movement.

Isaiah 41:7

"So the carpenter encouraged the goldsmith, and he that smootheth with the hammer him that smote the anvil, saying, It is ready for the sodering: and he fastened it with nails, that it should not be moved.[/i]"

Again, the same word being used in a manner which indicates physical movement.

So, we can also make the case on how the same word is used in other locations that it indicates physical movement.

I am not impressed with your ability above to pick and choose items that agree with your preconcieved notions and to ignore the examples that go against them. You have shown that your manner of exegesis is to select other passages that agre with what you already think and to not select passages that would challenge what you already think. Your opinion has influenced your exegesis and as such, you have not done as you stated and simply let the WOrd speak.

 

[A_Christian]

Well we all know that the earth follows an orbit. The earth doesn't travel all over space at will. The tilt of the earth is specific and so is it rotation. It hasn't moved to assume the orbit of Mars. I believe in a GENERAL way the verse is correct. There are presently earthquakes but they are regional. I really think you are trying to undermind the honest simplicity of the scripture and its thought provoking character in order to support your disregard of its truthfulness & trustworthiness. You are wrong. The Bible is correct. The ENTIRE BIBLE MUST BE ACCEPTED AND READ NOT JUST PORTIONS or you miss the full picture GOD has provided.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Gup20:
No... it does not effect your salvation... however, if you continually undermine the reason for salvation you will have lost the ability to convince someone they need salvation.

Also... it's a matter of principle... everything in the Bible is absolute truth. If you undermine anything in the word (especially it's foundation) you undermine the whole. Who is going to believe or trust you when you don't believe in the basis of your faith entirely.

Which is precisely what Ute and I and others are trying to prevent from happening . . . because by asserting that the Bible is in opposition to known truth of science the YEC school of Bible interpretation is placing biblical interpretation into disrepute.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
Well we all know that the earth follows an orbit. The earth doesn't travel all over space at will. The tilt of the earth is specific and so is it rotation. It hasn't moved to assume the orbit of Mars. I believe in a GENERAL way the verse is correct. There are presently earthquakes but they are regional. I really think you are trying to undermind the honest simplicity of the scripture and its thought provoking character in order to support your disregard of its truthfulness & trustworthiness. You are wrong. The Bible is correct. The ENTIRE BIBLE MUST BE ACCEPTED AND READ NOT JUST PORTIONS or you miss the full picture GOD has provided.

Hmmm. 93 million mile radius times pi equals 290 million miles moved per year. But that's not moving, when it comes to being literal?

You're so good at re-interpreting the Bible to match the science once you believe it! The real problem is, your education on biology and geology and astronomy was sadly inadequate.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So Bob, as PastorGreg points out, to be consistent you also need to admit that the Bible, if taken literally, indicates geocentrism. Why don't you let us know on what basis you accept that the earth actually moves around the sun. Show us the exegesis for that or give us some other reason that you accept that the earth orbits the sun.

In one of the books I read by Henry Morris he thinks that it is very much a possibility. What proof do you have that the earth revolves around the sun? How is that measured? What is the point of reference for measurement?

 

[UTEOTW]

"In one of the books I read by Henry Morris he thinks that it is very much a possibility. What proof do you have that the earth revolves around the sun? How is that measured? What is the point of reference for measurement?"

If Morris believes that then I have one additional reason not to trust anything he has to say...

Let's look at this, shall we.

For a body to be in orbit about another body, the force of gravity must be perfectly in balance with the centrifugal force cuased by the circular motion.

Now we can calculate the gravitational force between any two objects.

F = (G M m) / R^2

where F = force
G = gravitational constant
M = mas of the larger object
m = mass of the smaller object
R = the distance between them

Now the centrigugal force is given by the mass of the object in orbit times the radial acceleration of that object.

Fr = Ar m

where Fr = force radially
Ar = radial acceleration
m = mass of the object in orbit

The radial acceleration is given by the following formula

Ar = R 2 pi / T^2

where Ar = radial acceleration
R = distance between the objects
pi = 3.14
T = the time it takes the object to complete one object

Now if you run through the numbers (which I leave as an exercise for the reader if you are that interested) you will find that for the case of the earth orbitting the sun, the numbers are in perfect balance.

Now, look closely at the formulas. If you want to say that the sun is the one actually moving then examine what happens to the formulas. The calculation of the gravitational force remains the same because all the numbers remain the same. But when calculating the acceleration force, things are different. The rate of acceleration is much greater because you are now taking the dame distance between the two objects and dividing by 1 day squared instead of 1 year squared. So the force is 365^2 times greater (or about 130,000 times greater). Plus, the actual force is now being multiplied by the mass of the sun instead of the mass of the earth. The sun weighs about 330,000 times as much as the earth.

So the total force that would be pulling the sun away is 44,289,000,000 times as much as the force of gravity trying to hold them together. Sorry to say, but that physics will not work. And we have plenty of observational data of other objects in orbit about various other objects to let us know that this math really works.

Do you have an alternative physics that would allow the sun to orbit the earth? I will need to see the math.

 

[UTEOTW]

"In one of the books I read by Henry Morris he thinks that it is very much a possibility."

But, once again, for Morris to have even made such a silly statement (and for you to feel the need to make a reference to it) there must be something to this whole idea that if read literally, the reader would come to the conclusion that the earth does not move.

And that reading is wrong just as reading the firmament as literal or the flat disk of the earth as literal or six day creation as literal are wrong.

 

[Janosik]

UTEOTW,

first, I don't believe that the sun is orbitting the earth.

But if the sun orbits the earth you need to consider if the earth spins as well. If the earth wouldn't spin then the T would be 1 not 365.
Some people would adjust

the weight of the sun to get proper results

 

[av1611jim]

For you mathematicians.
You are familiar with the "greater than" symbol?
Here's an equation for you to figure out.

My God's words > your man's science.

Ed does this...TEEHEE!
In His service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

I know that wasn't very helpful to the discussion no matter how fun it was. LOL

In His service;
Jim

 

[UTEOTW]

I'll grant that you that one. They could say that the earth spins but in one spot. Then you only have the weight of the sun to deal with and you would only be off by the 330,000 to 1 ration of the weight of the sun to the earth.

Of course you are also right that some would then just arbitrarily adjust the weight of the sun to make it work, ignoring all the other problems. That seems to be how most YE "science" is done, just adjust whatever you have to without reason and ignore everything else.

As far as Jim goes, He is my God too and I don't disagree with anything He has to say. I just think that some are taking the wrong meaning.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
As far as Jim goes, He is my God too and I don't disagree with anything He has to say. I just think that some are taking the wrong meaning.

So YOU think the atheistic community are the ones that have it right?

 

[UTEOTW]

Who said anything about atheists? Many fine Christians are also scientists. It was a Christian geologists who discovered the geologic column that some of you still doubt.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let me answer that a different way.

In my experience, the scientists involved treat the data much more fairly and accurately than the YE "scientists." When I was YE and started looking into this, the YE materials I read seemed so shady that they encouraged me to explore the matter further and from additional points of view. At first much of it just seemed about a half a bubble off plumb but I could not put my finger on why exactly. Then I came across the entropy question. I knew immediately what was wrong with that one so I started looking into others.

I found that most of the YE material seemed to be made up of out of context quotes and misrepresented data. We recently had a whole thread on just this subject. I went on for twenty pages on specific cases where the YE "scientists" were not just wrong, but were deliberately wrong. As an example... Someone above mentioned Morris. I documented a case where he cited a scientific study wrongly. The study was testing volcanic grains that did not melt completely to see how wrong a date you would get because of the excess argon if you tired to date them. They also dated samples that were correctly chosen that did not have excess argon to show that proper sample selection leads to the right date. He only cited the tests on the grains that did not melt and claimed that this showed that dating does not work. He left out all of the context that shows that this is not the case. He purposely misrepresented the work of the scientists.

Scientists subject themselves to peer review. They cannot afford to treat data in such a manner because someone will expose and discredit themselves. Most YE material has never been through such a peer review process with experts in the relevant fields and therefore has no such built in check. Even when mistakes, such as the example above, are revealed, the material is not withdrawn, it continues to be distributed and used and the YEers do not police themselves adequately to remove such garbage.