One, you still have not answered the question posed to you. Neither has Bob. You both have wasted bandwidth on responses when all we want is a direct answer. You claim that the evidence points to a young earth. Yet you cannot point us to a single person who has come to that conclusion outside of a prejudice to that means based on their interpreation of scripture or another "holy" book. So give us some examples or admit that no one come to a young earth conclusion without other biases. I am living proof that people with young earth biases can come to an old earth conclusion. So is the fact that these sciences developed at all. Remember there used to be a time before evolution was the accepted paradigm.
OH MY GOODNESS! I read that and my jaw just about hit the floor? Am I arguing with a Christian or an atheist here!!?
Lets give you a direct answer shall we?
No - there are no objections to evolution outside 'religion' or some 'holy book' (or God's Word as I like to call it... just a personal choice there really). However... you failed ... as has Galatian to answer my direct question. If you take the Bible on it's own... without what we 'know about science' does it suggest millions of years... or do you get the impression that creation happened in six days about 6000 years ago?
... ?
If you have a grain of honesty in your entire being, you will conclude that without the influence of science or evoltion, the Bible supports entirely and unequivocally a six day recent creation.
I would submit to you then... that because the Bible supports special, recent creation... regardless of what evoltuion or science says... the Bible is right.
The second point is that at the time Hutton and Lyell were developing modern geology, it was from a young earth basis. The evidence itself led them away from a young earth.
Absolutely I agree 100% this is accurate (you might get an argument from Galatian). However... it is important to point out that they made the mistake of interpreting the evidence they saw outside the framework of what the Word told them was true. They did this intentionally. They wanted to establish a history based solely on the evidence they could see... disregarding the scripture purposefully.
The answer is still the same. Do you really think that pointing out that someone did not accept modern biology and geology before the advent of modern biology and geology makes a point? The theories were not available for them to evaluate and you wish to make a claim on how they might have evaluated it. Anything to claim a point.
You are preaching to the choir here... I was simply trying to snap The Galatian back into reality. His version of 'revisionist history' told him that man has always considered the earth old.
The point is that the modern theories are just that - MODERN... coming after the popularization of a naturalistic history by Darwin. Galatian tried to make it appear that it has always been that way, and that the YEC interrpetation of the Bible is a new interpretation that adds to scripture something that was not there before. In fact, the YEC view is the view that has been there since the beginning when it was dictated by God himself.
Since you are fond of quoting the dictionary. Merriam-Webster. "morning 1. a. dawn [to begin to grow light as the sun rises] b : the time from sunrise to noon"
Let me 'shed some light on that' for you (hehe).
Dictionary.com says:
1. The first or early part of the day, lasting from midnight to noon or from sunrise to noon.
a. Pertaining to the first part or early part of the day; being in the early part of the day; as, morning dew; morning light; morning service.
3: the first light of day;
Lets go another step further into the absolute shall we?
Merriam-websters defines DAY as:
1 a : the time of light between one night and the next b : DAYLIGHT
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
en 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
So there was day and night before the sun and moon... but God created the sun to be dominant during the day... and the moon to be dominant during the night. WOW.... so that means that the Light God created actually determined the day and night... not the sun. The sun was to signify daytime and nightime. OOOOOOOHHHHHH!
So the DAY is a specific period of time. When the Sun is created on Day 4, God says that the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. Wow... so now we have a couple of signs that we can see so that we know the relative meaning of day in Genesis 1:5! The confirms itself over and over and over and over...
...
and over and over and over again. A day is a literal day. Moreover, the language of morning, evening, number, day lets us know that grammatically there cannot be another meaning either.
YET AGAIN... I have shown you FROM SCRIPTURE how the YEC view is advocated, whereas you have no scriptural basis still for your statements!
Yes you posted this earlier. It does not address the Jews at all. I thought I pointed that out the first time. (
CLICK FOR LINK ) This has do do with the Greeks and other beliefs in the first and second millenium. It does not address the issue at all.
In fact, it is very relevant. The 'flat earth' concept did not come from scripture and is not present in early Jewish culture. This shows the origin of the 'flat earth' mythology... again... this is extra or outside scripture.
Some early people... such as yourself and The Galatian... were quick to try to incorporate Man's ideas into the Bible and try to find Biblical support for the humanistic ideas. This is a marvellous example of WHY the church and christians should NOT capitualate the word with humanistic, worldly, man's ideas (such as evolution).
Besides, that is not even what I said in my last post. You are regurgitating your canned responses again instead of addressing what I said. I said that a plain reading, you yourself doing the reading without any influence of any outside knowledge, would lead you to believe in a flat geocentric earth with windows in a fixed dome that allows the waters above to fall.
In fact, in a plain reading, I read that the earth is a cicle... in my mind that generates ZERO flat or dome like images. I think of a ... circle.
Even the best 3D rendered picture of the earth looks like a circle. Just because an object is a circle doesn't mean it it has no depth. These people lived in a 3 dimentional world. If you said, for example that a person's head was round like a circle... every one would know that you didn't mean a 2 dimentional flat object. Why? Because everyone lives in a 3 dimentional world where objects have depth. So in the most simplistic terms... when you say circle... you mean like a rock or a person's head. Objects that exist in reality have depth. Objects in their reality had depth. I very much doubt they were ever walking along and picked an apple off a tree and said... 'oh rats... I accidentally got one of those 2 dimentional flat disk apples'. Their entire world and existance was full of dimention and depth... what could possibly give them the impression that their world was a flat round disk? NOTHING. Moreover, they had only to look up at the sun and moon and see spheres in the sky.
You see... these are all physical observations, but they are observations made WITHIN the context of scripture... not outside of it.
Once again, it is not the Bible I am saying is wrong but you.
Cute, but God knows your heart anyway. God says he made the world in literal days and confirms it over and over. God says the whole world flooded and confirms it over and over. Yet you do not believe either of these things.
But when you want to claim that the evidence really does indicate an old earth, I will attack that because that notion is built squarely on nothing but junk science.
Well let me clear it up for you. If you look ONLY at the evidence without consideration of the Scripture, it will lead you to the conclusion of Evolution. However, if you wish to be correct, you must realize that things didn't come about naturalisticly only. They happened as the Bible describes. The Bible is ultimate truth, and it must be considered the primary truth to draw correct conclusions. If you look at ONLY the evidence naturalisticly, it mounts up so that you MUST overlook items like the impossibility for entropy to decrease on it's own... or the impossibility for information to arise on it' own. These must be overlooked in to adhere to the large body of evidence that says they did. However, if you consider that evidence again withing the context of scripture and withing the framework that the Bible is true, you must draw very different conclusions about all of the evidence. Suddenly, the evidence you see makes sense and there are no contradictions. Suddenly you can indeed reconcile observation of entropy and information into origin history.
If you exclude the Bible - as science has agreeed for the most part to do.. then the conclusions drawn are the only logical conclusions. However, if factored in as the PRIMARY concern and contributing factor, all evidence must be re-interpreted under that framework, and a wholely different picture emerges.
I have no problem with your science or logic. I have a problem with your framework, your interpretation, and your 'start point'.
If you believe the BIble is true, then your science goes in a very different direction.
Instead of simply being logical and evidenciary... you become correct, and border on truth.
[ July 30, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
