Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

[UTEOTW]

No rush. I am stil working on your other posts on the other thread. I understand.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Excellent reply PSBB! You sum up my beliefs very well, but I could never verbalize them as well as you.

I really fail to grasp why some people who name the name of Christ choose to believe what science says ove the inspired word of God!

But that's their choice.

Very well said PSBB and this response by JWP fits me like a glove.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Very well said PSBB and this response by JWP fits me like a glove.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

BobRyan, just-want-peace, hillclimber,

Thank you for your support and for your kind words. I am encouraged by this.

Thanks for the Setterfield link hillclimber. This site was new to me. I managed to follow the simplified version to some extent when I looked at this from the other thread.

Yours in Christ,
PlainSense

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I am still quite interested in what you think of the responses to your first two claims. Especially the first claim. The author changed numbers by large amounts from his sources, left out other numbers from his sources, and has not updated the results even though the mistakes were pointed out to him in a series of written exchanges nearly nine years ago. IMHO, this is not a good sign for either the author or the host web site.

Hi UTEOTW,

Just to keep you informed, I have started looking at "Salty Seas" this evening and have made some notes. I have some way to go before I can start posting back some comments and questions though.

PlainSense

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by PlainSense Bible believer:
BobRyan, just-want-peace, hillclimber,

Thank you for your support and for your kind words. I am encouraged by this.

Thanks for the Setterfield link hillclimber. This site was new to me. I managed to follow the simplified version to some extent when I looked at this from the other thread.

Yours in Christ,
PlainSense

you're welcome on the Setterfield link but it is over my head, adn I kinda wish I hadn't posted it now. I didn't know he was already known to many on here. To my admittedly limited mind he makes far more sense than any evolution view I've ever encountered. The evo's have to distort the Bible far too much to fit their theory. God said, "the morning and the evening" in describing the 7 days of creation, defining what a day was.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The evo's have to distort the Bible far too much to fit their theory.

Please stop accusing us of distorting the Bible. We have the facts about evolution and the Bible on our side, not yours. You are free to believe whatever you want to, but please don't falsely accuse us of distorting the very book that we have committed our lives to studying and teaching.

So far I have not seen you post even one single post in which you contributed any knowledge whatsoever in any discussion anywhere on this message board. And anyone who would post links to articles that they themselves, by their own admission, can not understand, are placing everyone on this message board at risk. Please don’t do that anymore.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The evo's have to distort the Bible far too much to fit their theory.

Please stop accusing us of distorting the Bible. We have the facts about evolution and the Bible on our side, not yours. You are free to believe whatever you want to, but please don't falsely accuse us of distorting the very book that we have committed our lives to studying and teaching.

So far I have not seen you post even one single post in which you contributed any knowledge whatsoever in any discussion anywhere on this message board. And anyone who would post links to articles that they themselves, by their own admission, can not understand, are placing everyone on this message board at risk. Please don’t do that anymore.

</font>[/QUOTE]Well Craigbythesea, if you continue to believe, that the Bible reinforces your views on evolution, in my opinion, you are sadly guilty of the same error you attribute to me. I don't feel that I am falsely accusing you of anything. Do you think you have a corner on the study of God's word, or the proper interpretation of it? I think not.

I don't care if you think I'm contributing or not. I write to anyone that may want to see what I have to say, to find out what others think and some information about them as anyone would that wants friends or that may want to get to know me a little bit. I say my piece, and let the chips fall where they may. I very well may be a bit shallow, but I try hard to walk with Him and learn what I can.

I also fail to see what, if any risk, there is in posting links to Barry Setterfield. He sure seems to tweek your serenity, so I already decided to stop posting him.

I resent your condescending attitude, and unwillingness to recognize the fact that I have a legitimate entitlement to my point of view, and to post that view here.

I have made some errors in posting on the wrong threads, and when it was pointed out, I quickly apologized.

If you believe in evolution and it's satanic origin, go for it, but you need to be able to take the heat for your disregard of God's Word.

I've seen enough on here to realize the true Baptists on here are a minority. Many others are disingenuous, and in fact bent on disallowing constructive discussion if it doesn't fit their lifelong prejudices.

If I am a heretic, My Lord has not pointed that out to me yet, and I talk to him all the time.

You are not forced to read my posts Craigbythesea, so why torture yourself?

Unless I'm banned, I will continue to post my thoughts, whether or not anyone benefits from them.

So, Craigbythesea, am I banned? Or is that up to you? Or someone else?

I'm willing to go onward from here, learning what I can from each contributer and dispensing what I can to add to the discussion. If that's not acceptable, so be it.

hillclimber

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I really fail to grasp why some people who name the name of Christ choose to believe what science says ove the inspired word of God!

I have personally read thousands of post on this message board and I have yet to read even one post in which the author of the post even suggested that he or she chooses to believe what science says over the inspired word of God. This is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS accusation to make!</font>[/QUOTE] You don't have to say it when you so effectively illustrate it.

You deny that Genesis means anything like what it actually says. You must do this because you accept what philosophical naturalists posing as objective scientists say first then interpret the Bible through that lense.

Your final authority on matters of origins is not the Bible. It is the philosophy of naturalism as represented by evolution. The Bible does not indicate or even lend any kind of support to the theory of evolution.

The truth is that some people on this message board have studied both the Bible and science and have learned that there is absolutely no conflict between the two.

That's true. God's Word is the presupposition that leads to a proper interpretation of all natural evidence. All interpretations must fit within that framework.

But of course some people read Genesis as though it was written in English by some farmer who lived and died in Kansas in the 1950's rather than an example of ancient oriental literature through which God speaks to men and women today.

And some of us read as the account that God inspired Moses to write that gives no contextual indication of being anything other than a literal narrative. If you want to view it as a piece of "ancient oriental literature" that is your prerogative but if you do you forfeit the right to cry foul when we say you have a low view of scripture.

...it only makes sense to read it in the light of the genre of literature that it is a part of—and when one does that—one sees that there are no conflicts between Genesis 1 – 11 and either the theory of evolution or an earth that is billions of years old.

In other words, only when you deny that Genesis 1-11 mean anything like what the words actually say and accept the theory of evolution and the presupposition of naturalism as ultimate truth can you properly understand this scripture.

Wrong. You can spin it any way you want but evolution is contradictory to the Bible's teachings on origin.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The evo's have to distort the Bible far too much to fit their theory.

Please stop accusing us of distorting the Bible. We have the facts about evolution and the Bible on our side, not yours. </font>[/QUOTE]I have seen many posts by you, UT, and Paul of Eugene... and have yet to see any of you build a biblical case for evolution or its naturalistic presuppositions from scripture. I have seen many instances OTOH of your basing interpretations of the Bible on a presupposition that evolution and its naturalistic assumptions are true.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Well Craigbythesea, if you continue to believe, that the Bible reinforces your views on evolution, in my opinion, you are sadly guilty of the same error you attribute to me.

Dear Brother Hillclimber,

Thank you for contributing something more than a link to writings by Mr. Setterfield. Although I do not agree with your point of view, it was a very refreshing experience to hear your point of view in your words rather than someone else’s.

However, I do NOT believe that the Bible reinforces my particular views on evolution, nor anyone else’s view on evolution—pro, con, or indifferent. I know for an absolute fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event, and I know that from my many years of university studies in the sciences—chiefly the biological sciences. The ark, as literally described, was not large enough—plain and simple—and anyone who cares to go to the trouble can easily enough learn this for himself. And since Gen. 1 – 11, in its present form, is a discreet piece of literature, I find no reason to believe that anything else in Gen. 1 – 11 is a literal account of an historic event, but rather I find substantial reason to believe that it is not.

Jesus does not claim that God wrote Genesis, but He does specifically attribute parts of the Pentateuch to Moses, that is if you interpret the relevant passages in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John literally. I believe, along with many—if not most—Baptist scholars of the Old Testament, that Genesis is a redacted compilation of the works of many different individuals as God inspired them to write. I do not base this belief on anything having to do with evolution, the age of the earth, or any of the natural sciences, but exclusively upon the text of Genesis itself. (There is, of course, a huge body of extra-biblical literature that supports this belief, but the evidence in Genesis itself is compelling). And there is nothing in the text itself which suggests that any of the contributors to the Book of Genesis, other than God Himself, had any knowledge of any kind as to the age of the earth or the details of the creation or of the flood. Neither did they have any knowledge that the earth is a sphere or that the earth revolves around the sun.

I find it remarkable that fundamentalists often accuse scientists of being atheist and inspired by Satan and yet their homes are not only full of scientific technology, but their very homes were built on the basis of scientific technology. When their children get sick or injured, they call for an ambulance and all of its scientific equipment and technology—not to rush their children to the church to be prayed for—but to the hospital whose staff’s education is based upon “atheistic and satanic sciences.” From my point of view, that is the most extreme form of hypocrisy imaginable.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You deny that Genesis means anything like what it actually says. You must do this because you accept what philosophical naturalists posing as objective scientists say first then interpret the Bible through that lense.

This is absolutely false, slanderous, and libelous! My interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with what any philosophical naturalists have said about anything. As I stated in my reply above to Hillclimber, my interpretation of Genesis is based upon the text of Genesis itself. I do find what Jesus said about the authorship of the Pentateuch to be relevant, and I find many other parts of the Bible to be relevant, but the text of Genesis itself is the basis of my interpretation of it, an interpretation that is very much in agreement with many if not most Baptist scholars of the book of Genesis.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have seen many posts by you, UT, and Paul of Eugene... and have yet to see any of you build a biblical case for evolution or its naturalistic presuppositions from scripture.

Of course not!

I have seen many instances OTOH of your basing interpretations of the Bible on a presupposition that evolution and its naturalistic assumptions are true.

Although it would be highly immoral, indecent, and contrary to reason to exclude any relevant data from our interpretation of Genesis, my personal interpretation of Genesis is based upon the text of Genesis itself, and I find that the text of Genesis is harmonious with both the theory of evolution and the fact that the earth is billions of years old. No, the Bible does not explicitly teach evolution or an old earth, but neither does it teach contrary to these positions. Your personal interpretation may be very contrary, but that is irrelevant to the facts.

If my interpretation of Genesis based upon the text of Genesis proved to be contrary to the scientific data, I would have to question my interpretation of Genesis. However, since it is not contrary to the scientific data, I have no reason to believe that my interpretation is incorrect.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

I know for an absolute fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event

I would be interested to know how you can possibly know "for an absolute fact" that the Ark was not literal. I haven't got time at the moment to find and post the link, but AiG have worked out the size of the Ark (sorry for the missing link but I'm sure you are capable of finding it for yourself if you want to). I would add though, that AiG's size will be based on the cubit - the length of the forearm and, given the Bible's description of the gigantism of people in those times, their forearm was likely much longer than ours and it is likely that you should double the size of the Ark as worked out by AiG.

PlainSense

 

[Craigbythesea]

I would be interested to know how you can possibly know "for an absolute fact" that the Ark was not literal. I haven't got time at the moment to find and post the link, but AiG have worked out the size of the Ark (sorry for the missing link but I'm sure you are capable of finding it for yourself if you want to). I would add though, that AiG's size will be based on the cubit - the length of the forearm and, given the Bible's description of the gigantism of people in those times, their forearm was likely much longer than ours and it is likely that you should double the size of the Ark as worked out by AiG.

Is this the Baptist Board or the Johnny Carson show?

 

[Scott J]

No, the Bible does not explicitly teach evolution or an old earth, but neither does it teach contrary to these positions. Your personal interpretation may be very contrary, but that is irrelevant to the facts.

Evolution absolutely contradicts not only Genesis where creation is attributed to direct acts by God but also numerous passages in the NT (Romans 1:20 comes to mind) where direct creation is affirmed.

The Bible says that God "made" everything that is... not that He guided natural processes or started everything then stood on the sideline and hoped for the best. He designed it and spoke it into existence... or else not only Genesis but many other scriptures are simply untrue.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You deny that Genesis means anything like what it actually says. You must do this because you accept what philosophical naturalists posing as objective scientists say first then interpret the Bible through that lense.

This is absolutely false, slanderous, and libelous!</font>[/QUOTE] Then disprove it.

Do you believe that when God said "morning and evening"/"day", He meant what He knew the hearers would understand as a day (the "day" that He Himself established) or do those words not mean what they mean?

When the Bible says that God created biological life then commanded that it reproduce after its own kind, does it mean that or does it mean that it would reproduce into totally different kinds given billions of years that supposedly these 6 days represent?

My interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with what any philosophical naturalists have said about anything.

You did not start with the text of scripture to derive what you believe Craig. Don't even try that.

Evolution provides the limit to what you are willing to believe about origins. Evolution has as its primary presupposition- naturalism. Whether you were taught theistic evolution or came to it more independently doesn't change the facts.

As I stated in my reply above to Hillclimber, my interpretation of Genesis is based upon the text of Genesis itself.

That interpretation may be "based" on the text (though I fail to see it) but it is governed by evolutionary assumptions.

an interpretation that is very much in agreement with many if not most Baptist scholars of the book of Genesis.

Proof please.... oh never mind, you don't consider someone educated much less a scholar unless they agree with you about evolution.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Is this the Baptist Board or the Johnny Carson show?

This is a typical evolutionist ploy - if you haven't got an answer, use ridicule. Ridicule doesn't work though - water off a duck's back.

 

[Glory2God]

How about Helium flux through the atmosphere??? Pretending to understand Physics will NOT help here!!!Got a copy of the technical papers in my lap.Where oh where did the Helium all go?? Where oh where could it be???

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-143.htm

 

[Craigbythesea]

Mr. Scott,

Do you really believe that you know me better than I know myself? Do you really know what I believe and why I believe it? Do you really know the basis for my beliefs? And do you really believe that you know the book of Genesis better than Baptist scholars who have spent a lifetime studying it? Do you have enough knowledge of the Bible to do anything other than criticize others for what they believe?