Inconsistency of literalists vs science

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
AN incomplete animal would not survive, that is why you do not find them.

The earth is only about 4.56 billion years old, not "hundreds of billions of years."

My point completely. There is not enough time for even one celled organisms to have evolved into the form they supposedly have had for even a few billion years-------much less evolve into even one Woolly Mammoth.

Math simply doesn't allow for the diversity and the establishment of well developed and complex species. 4.45 billion years is even far less time than I was allowing. Remember, this planet (according to uniformitarians) took several billion years to develope even land, water, and an atmosphere... WE AIN'T LEAVING ALOT OF TIME HERE FOR RANDOM DEVELOPEMENTS. The math simply does not support the theory of evolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

YOu are making an ussupported assumption here.

Just why do you not think it is possible? Come on, facts please.

First off, I think the oldest strata with indications of life are about 4 billion years old, so it did not take THAT long to get established.

Second, you were talking about 1 beneficial mutation a year. For most of the time, life has been single celled. What's the life cycle there? Mere hours for some individuals? I think there are orders of magnitude more generations of life than you give credit for. Were you no the one who made basically the same statement about the differences between humans and apes a few weeks ago? Someone did. Go look up my response. The number of measured mutations and the expected number, back of the envelope for the question and the answer, were reasonably close.

Besides, I think you have a misconception. The developements are not random. The mutations are, but there is a strong selective force at work which makes the whole process far from random.

Do you have any specifics yet about biology or astronomy or geology that you have a problem with, yet?

 

[UTEOTW]

"In answer to the charges against the well meaning "science" of men of God to explain the young earth scientifically, I have none. Let them answer it. Have you asked THEM? Rather than asked US? You say they lied. Take it to them. This public condemnation of them without their being present is NOT in accordance of Matt. 18:15-20.
This is all I've got to say."

Here's the deal. We have a jeanie who has been let out of the bottle. I could track Morris down and have a conversation with him about his claims on the dating of volcanic rock. But at this point it is too late.

LEt me explain. AIG, to their credit, has a list of several common young earth arguements that they say should not be used because they are wrong. But, with a bit of Googling, I bet I could easy find scores of people still using those same arguments.

So it is here. Morris and I could come to an agreement and work out our differences of opinion. BUt the jeannie is out. It cannot be put back in the bottle. Even if he were to agree with me, all those references to it through the years are not going to disappear.

So, I do what I can. I put the information out in a public forum. I generally give the reference to the YE position so that the other side of the story can be found. And I give the reasons why I think it is wrong.

In some cases I have become quite aggressive. Maybe that is wrong of me. But, in my opinion, some of the actions are so blatently wrong that it is not possible for them to be accidental mistakes. In short, I think they are lies. Do I know their hearts to know for sure if the actions are deliberate or accidental? Of course not. BUt I can look at the fruit and say something is wrong here.

Remember, I was once YE. When I went looking for data on YE, these are the guys I went to. What I found disgusted me so I have a very negative opinion of them. At the very least, I hope to make others careful about who they trust for information if they go looking for it.

Lot's of people lose their faith after being exposed to such and then seeing the truth. They wonder if Christian leaders were to lie to them about this, what else might they have been willing to lie about. That should not happen to anyone. And that is my purpose in exposing these guys.

If you read the Bible literally and insist that only a young earth will do, fine. But when you decide to start proving it through the physical, be careful of your source. If you use junk like this, I will expose it. It sounds so good to the uninformed, but it is rotten underneath.

 

[Frank]

Bob,
I appreciate your post. The word of God has settled this issue to anyone who understands language.
I have noticed the lack of will of the evolutionist to take the accounts posted and refute them. They will not; because they cannot.
This would expose the fallacy of their position.

I have read this thread, and to my knowledge, not one person who purports the figurative theory of usage in Genesis has actually followed the divine instructions of God in I Thes. 5:21. PROVE IT !
I do not believe God authorized middle eastern cultures, scientist or those who write science fiction as authorities on origin. However, God did authorize inspired men to do so. They have spoken and made the origin of man as clear as the word clear could ever be clear. God created the world and all that is in it in six days by speaking it into being. The word of God says so.

The credibility and reliablity God exceedds any eastern culture, scientist, or writers of science fiction. God's record is perfect unlike the previous mentioned folk who proclaim the fantasy that God did not mean what he said in the Bible. This is foolishness of the highest order.

Frank

 

[Paul of Eugene]

It is a simple matter to prove the necessity of interpreting the Bible in a non-literal fashion so as to agree with the findings of science.

The proof goes like this.

a) The Bible, properly interpreted, is infallibly correct. Take this as an axiom.

b) The age of the earth is measured in several billion years and all life is of common descent (Based on scientific evidence of the highest sort)

c) The literal interpretation of the Bible leads to a contradiction of b. Therefore

d) The proper intepretation of the Bible is non literal in so far as it contradicts the known truth of b).

See, it is really very simple!

 

[av1611jim]

Paul; your fallacy rests in the usage of the term, "properly interpreted".
I said, in the NORMAL COMMON reading of scripture ..."
I think I see circular reasoning.
I challenge you to refute my post on page 16 of this thread.
Take the given ages of the men so named as ancestors of Abram and show me where you come up with even 12,000 years for the age of the earth. You CAN'T do it. You say that "scientific evidence of the highest sort" measured the earth to be several billions of years old. But I SAY UNTO YOU that indeed you have NOT consulted "science of the highest sort".
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
I submit; you have most definitely NOT consulted the highest order of science.
Once more. Refute the evidence I have given you.
In you 'simple'tons equation you have not proved (b).
You and I have met before and you din't answer me then so I don't suppose you will take this challenge either.
In any case, have a day.
In His service;
Jim

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Although I do not and CANNOT support questionable or deceitful practices to prove one theory or another; I am fully on the side of the young earth proponents.
Why? Because in the normal reading of the creation accounts it is evident what God meant when He SAID He created everything in 6 days. That is; days as is commonly understood by all. A day = a 24 hour period consisting of evening and morning.
There is AMPLE evidence in Scripture to prove the earth is young, i.e. 6000 years (give or take a century).
I have yet to see one evolutionist give any Scripture to back up his claims that God used evolution to create everything we see about us.
As has been affirmed, the point about Adam is the best we have. When you can refute this then you have my attention. The Bible gives a chronology of the decendants of Adam up to Noah. Then we have a chrononly of the sons of Noah, one of whom was Shem. From Shem to Abram we have the exact years again leading up to Abram.
Usher calculated the times of these men and comes up with an approximate date for the creation of the Earth. It is conceded that he made a few mistakes but generally speaking we can be assured that the Earth is 6000 +/- years old.
Based on Biblical evidence it is not possible that the earth is MORE that 10,000 years old at the very oldest; given extreme errors on Usher's part. ( I am not willing to concede that he made errors that great but for arguements sake)
Can ANYBODY refute this? Using the Bible in its PLAIN AND COMMON reading?
In answer to the charges against the well meaning "science" of men of God to explain the young earth scientifically, I have none. Let them answer it. Have you asked THEM? Rather than asked US? You say they lied. Take it to them. This public condemnation of them without their being present is NOT in accordance of Matt. 18:15-20.
This is all I've got to say.
I will NOT answer the charges against them, for it is NOT my place to do so.
I stand on God's Book.
In His service;
Jim

There is ample evidence that the geneologies that appear to be complete in the Bible are not necessarily complete. One has only to compare the geneology in Matthew 1:1-17 with the Old Testament corresponding geneologies. Matthew declares there were 14 generation from David to the Deportation to Babylon and names them; the Old Testament corresponding passages list some generations Matthew left out to achieve that 14. Go ahead, do a little digging, you will see it is true. I am not saying this to detract from the Bible; I am saying this to detract from your slavishly literal interpretation methods in the face of all evidence.

This does not mean the Bible is false. It means the truth of the Bible is not presented in a literal fashion according to our modern way of thinking about numbers. It is not right to take such ancient literature and expect the use of numbers to conform to our modern cultural methods of using numbers.

To do so would be to accuse Matthew of making false statements in his geneology, because he had the complete Hebrew geneology at hand.

You hold your method of interpreting the Bible by faith. I hold my method of interpreting the Bible by faith. Plus, the evidence is on my side!

 

[Charles Meadows]

I agree with Paul on most of these issues of interpretation. I don't think the bible intended to be literal in the creation account or geneologies - but that's just my opinion. If we look at ancient near eastern writings of similar age we see alot of similarities - so there is a possibility that the ancient Hebrews were writing in a similar style and not intending it to be literally factually true. But then that is my opinion and I admit it is open to argument.

I still say to Jim and A_Christian, and Bob - it's fine to believe the bible at face value and take the literal reading as fact. WE CANNOT disprove this even though I and others may interpret it differently. As such you don't need science anyway to prove the bible, right? So don't then insist on some of the ridiculous YEC theories JUST BECAUSE they come up with a young earth! That's junk science (heh heh).

 

[av1611jim]

Still assuming generations were left out, (which I concede were left out for reasons not germaine to the discussion) it is impossible to reckon an earth age of more than 10,000 years.
That is my point.

Something I thought of last night but was too tired to add.
Is it not true that the ancients reckoned time, i.e. years, in a much less accurate way than we do? I believe this to be the case. Therefore given the ages of the men I referred to, this would make the time span even LESS than the 10,000 years I am willing to grant you.
You are free to interpret the Bible anyway you see fit. Provided it does not do violence to the intent of what God is saying.
When He gives us words to convey a message, He also, (many times) explains those words for us.
Example, days = evening and morning. You cannot escape this. As you yourself have admitted.
So I ask you, how do you honestly approach Scripture without destroying the obvious intent of the Author?

As to the geneologies, if it says "all the days of _____ were _____ years; how on earth do you get anything other than the plain and clear meaning out of it? If not intended to be literal, why the use of such language? And if not literal, why bother giving their ages at all?

Don't play the "ancient near eastern writings" card, it won't wash. Of course there are similarities. They are all of the same man, i.e. Shem. That being said there is one glaring difference. Their writings were not by "Holy men of God...moved by the Holy Spirit". It is at this juncture that your comparison falls apart.

God knows we humans. We tend to make things ALOT more difficult than He intended it to be. Therefore, knowing our own tendencies to muddle the waters, why would we think God would make things so difficult to understand when He uses such plain language?

Concerning the Matthew geneology.
God intentionally left out some names because it was He who said to those men that they would not have an heir to sit on the throne; this was for their wickedness. Your turn to do a little digging. You will see that I am right.

Charles, as you may have read, I do not use "science falsely so-called" to prove the Bible. It proves itself just fine. Besides, anytime man tries to 'help' God out he gets in a really BIG mess. Witness the Mid-east problems for confirmation. i.e. Isaac-Ishmael.
In His service;
Jim

 

[A_Christian]

The reality is that GOD (according to Genesis) created a finished, complex and perfect world with a fully established and functioning ecological system.

If there were mountains, they were real. If there was sand, it was real. I believed everything had the look, feel and makeup of HISTORY about it. I've seen "Victorian" houses that have the look of homes built over 100 years ago and yet they were built only yesterday. There are differences to be noted, but I believe you get what I'm saying. We don't know how deep the ocean was before the Flood. We don't know how high the mountains were before the Flood. We also don't know how the introduction of sin changed the environment initially. What we do know is that the FLOOD brought about sweeping changes to the environment that is still effecting us to this very day.

 

[UTEOTW]

It is not just that it looks old. It IS old.

Where do you want to go with this?

What about the Hawaiian Islands? This is a volcanic island chain. We can observe changes as we move from one end to the other. At one end, the mountains are still being built. They are large mountains. They date young. At the other end, the mountains have eroded all the way back into the ocean. They also date very old. There is a linear relationship between the age of the mountain and the distance from the currently active volcanoes. This means that we can show that the hot spot forming the mountains has been moving at roughly the same speed for tens of millions of years. We can also compare the age with the amount of erosion. Again, the older the mountain, the more it has eroded. Just how would you get such a sorting in a young earth.

 

[UTEOTW]

What about genetics? As has been recently explained to you, why do humans and the other primates share the exact same mutation that causes them not to be able to produce vitamin C? Common descent explains it perfectly? Why do you suppose that in a young earth that this group of animals, and only this group, ould be given all the other machinery to make vitamin c but have the one piece broken in exactly the same fashion?

Look up retoviral inserts. Why would humans and the apes share several LTRs from virii? Common descent explains quite well how common ancestors would have been infected and had different snips of DNA inserted into a germ line cell and passed on. You must suppose that the virus for all the different insertions infected a member of all the different "kinds" and inserted the SAME sequence into all the different individuals and that the insertion was in a germ line cell that was used for reproduction and that all the insertions (and no others) spread through out the whole population of all the different "kinds."

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

I didn't say you specifically used science poorly. But consider the oft used examples of the second law of thermodynamics and carbon 14 dating. The things in the Ankerberg and McDowell books ARE wrong and as such can hurt the credibility of the YEC stance. If the bible is the basis for your (or any YEC person's) stance then rest on this and not on arguments in which the endpoint justifies any means.

Regarding the near eastern writngs "card".... You ask how one can interpret Genesis 1 figuratively when the biblical account is clearly literal. The creation account IS CLEARLY a LITERAL narrative with actual days and nights. These are real days and nights and do not correspond allegorically to some extended time periods. This is definitely out (as I'm sure you'd agree). The question is not whether it is symbolic but whether it is theological. Jesus' parables were actual stories with concrete days and night - but they were stories intended to convey a point and did not necessarily represent REAL FACTUAL EVENTS. Given the way that the ancient Babylonians and Akkadians wrote it is reasonable to suggest that the Israelites would have written in the same way.

This may seem "off the wall" to 21st century American Christains - but would this sort of parable-like account have been the way a proto-Semitic man living 4000 years ago would have likely understood the Genesis creation account? The "near eastern writings card" most certainly does "wash" - but it understandably may be a little tough for 21st century westerners to grasp.

We really don't have enough "evidence" to suggest that anyone should necessarily believe this as such - but it certainly DOES make sense given what we know about the culture at that time.

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
What about genetics? As has been recently explained to you, why do humans and the other primates share the exact same mutation that causes them not to be able to produce vitamin C? Common descent explains it perfectly? Why do you suppose that in a young earth that this group of animals, and only this group, ould be given all the other machinery to make vitamin c but have the one piece broken in exactly the same fashion?

Look up retoviral inserts. Why would humans and the apes share several LTRs from virii? Common descent explains quite well how common ancestors would have been infected and had different snips of DNA inserted into a germ line cell and passed on. You must suppose that the virus for all the different insertions infected a member of all the different "kinds" and inserted the SAME sequence into all the different individuals and that the insertion was in a germ line cell that was used for reproduction and that all the insertions (and no others) spread through out the whole population of all the different "kinds."

I don't know about you, but I LOVE oranges, grapefruit, lemons & limes. Since GOD designed fruit for US and we were ORIGINALLY created vegitarians (according to the GENESIS accound). Why would we need to produce vitamin. The same is true of our monkey friends. You are making an assumption based on man's consideration of evolution. I'm making my assumption based on what GOD tells me.

 

[A_Christian]

By the way, what constitutes OLD? 10-12 thousand years isn't YOUNG. I cannot even imagine marriage to a woman that many years older than myself...
I guess I do believe in an OLD earth. The question is NOW OLD..?

 

[UTEOTW]

That is a single example and I think you may have missed the point of the example.

Primates, and only primates, share a specific mutation that has been passed down through the ages.

Let me steal an analogy. If I am a map maker and I want to prove that another map maker has plagarized my work, I might build a small, deliberate mistake into my maps. If this is duplicated, there is absolute proof that the guy copied.

Here we have a very specific mistake. That it is copied around is strong evidence that all the mutations are copies of a single mutation. If your explanation were the answer, then why put four good enzymes and one bad one in all these species to begin with? It does not make design sense. You would simply leave all various parts out.

And this is just one example of many. I even gave you a second. Evidence that various virii inserted their DNA into our common ancestors with the other apes. Again, you have no reason to suppose why a designer would put the same random snips of viral DNA into various species. Common descent handles it easily.

 

[UTEOTW]

But 10000 years IS a short time geologically. THe cooling time for rocks fromed from magma and lava can be millions of years. There is NO WAY to speed this up because the chemistry dictates that faster cooler yields different minerals and different size crystals. And the effects of the molten rock on the surrounding rock shows that these are not original creations. They have been formedsince the earth was created.

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
But 10000 years IS a short time geologically. THe cooling time for rocks fromed from magma and lava can be millions of years. There is NO WAY to speed this up because the chemistry dictates that faster cooler yields different minerals and different size crystals. And the effects of the molten rock on the surrounding rock shows that these are not original creations. They have been formedsince the earth was created.

With GOD NOTHING is impossible. Did Adam have a NAVEL? Adam was created a healthy 30 year old man. Adam was not born; therefore, he had no navel.... This is limited human reasoning! God created Adam as the prototype of the human race; therefore, Adam and Eve may both have been created with navels. I never saw them.

Creation was likely accomplished apart from how we want to think, imagine or figure out. The Flood compounds the problem by mixing it all together, shifting it all around and flipping it on its head. On top of everything we now have to add approximately 5, 6 or 7 thousand years of environmental changes and seismic activity that I believe were not a part of pre-Flood earth.

 

[UTEOTW]

If you believe that God would supernaturally do things and then make it appear that they were formed with time then we have nothing left to discuss. You will not accept any physical evidence and I will never believe that about God's character. But if that is what you believe then please do not say that you think that the evidence favors your position because you are admitting that it does not but that you choose to ignore that.

SO which is it? The evidence indicates a young earth? Or the evidence indicates common descent and an old earth but it is not true?

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
If you believe that God would supernaturally do things and then make it appear that they were formed with time then we have nothing left to discuss. You will not accept any physical evidence and I will never believe that about God's character. But if that is what you believe then please do not say that you think that the evidence favors your position because you are admitting that it does not but that you choose to ignore that.

SO which is it? The evidence indicates a young earth? Or the evidence indicates common descent and an old earth but it is not true?

Ute;
There is a possibility, (rather probability) that you have not, as yet, considered.
SIN
When sin entered the picture everything changed. And I do mean EVERYTHING.
The Bible clearly tells us that even creation itself was affected by mans sin. God CURSED the Earth. I submit; any evidence you may glean for your position comes from a cursed creation. You see a rose with thorns. I submit that God did not originally make a rose with thorns. You see mutations in genetic codes. I submit that those 'codes' were corrupted somehow by "the sons of God taking strange flesh". Possibly beastiality or the myriads of generational chnages in the flesh of sinful men since creation and carried through the flood by Noah or his sons. You see ancient ages for rocks. I submit that the flood changed rocks. In a hurry! So much so as to blur your accuracy.
No I do not believe God would deceive us by making things APPEAR old after making them in a 6-day week. I submit that your INTERPRETATION of the so-called evidence is in error.
One Bible teacher told me that "God is always right. If you see a contradiction, the problem is YOU and NOT God." I submit that the same truth applies here. If you SEE evolution then the problem is with your eyes. Not with HOW God created.
The fall affected everything. So did the flood. Believe it or not.
(That last was brought to you by Ripley's

)
In His service;
Jim