Scholar Explains Why So Many Reject Genesis

[Reformed]

Dinesh D'Souza is an apologist for Bio-Logos!

Correct. He is a brilliant scholar but an errant theologian. Theistic evolution is a dangerous view on multiple levels. It reshapes the Genesis narrative into a sort of mythology. That is the error Peter Enns fell into which resulted in his being rightly booted out of Westminster Philadelphia.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You are free to Assume anything you wish.

No assumption about it. Nothing but the facts.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Is that "we" used so prolifically the Royal WE, the plural we, or the wee we!

Are we talking "this little pig went to market ... " or ... uhmmm ... er ... #1??

 

[quantumfaith]

Frankly, though I believe in a literal six 24 hour day creation and a young earth/universe, I am not necessarily a believer in Usher's 6000 year age of the universe. We don't know how long Adam and Eve occupied the garden before they rebelled.

I would be interested if you know how are all those dates determined?

I hope you find the following interesting and informative. (Not assuming your agreement)

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evid.anc.earth.pdf

 

[HankD]

The appearance of old age is a weak argument made by desperate people.

So Rev was Adam created as an infant or a "full grown" man?

HankD

P.S. I'm not desperate, naive to believe a 6 sidereal day creation maybe but not desperate.

HankD

 

[quantumfaith]

So Rev was Adam created as an infant or a "full grown" man?

HankD

P.S. I'm not desperate, naive to believe a 6 sidereal day creation maybe but not desperate.

HankD

I understand the definition, but do not understand your use of "sidereal" here. Can you help the learner in me?

 

[HankD]

I understand the definition, but do not understand your use of "sidereal" here. Can you help the learner in me?

Sure:

sidereal day n. The time required for a complete rotation of the earth in reference to any star or to the vernal equinox at the meridian, equal to 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 seconds in units of mean solar time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sidereal+day


HankD

 

[quantumfaith]

Sure:




http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sidereal+day


HankD

Thanks for clearing me on that.

 

[OldRegular]

I hope you find the following interesting and informative. (Not assuming your agreement)

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evid.anc.earth.pdf

I never could link to the full paper. Some opposing views are found here:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module...t=any&f_context_any=any&f_context_without=any

and here:

http://creation.com/search?q=Radiometric+dating

 

[Aaron]

:thumbs::thumbs:

Just think, six weeks and Moses can wear his Santa hat.

 

[Aaron]

As is the case with most theological revelations, you begin with what you observe and you go to the Bible for instruction concerning what you observe.

In the case of historical record, you can make no observations. You cannot observe the administrations of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, King James, or Caesar Augustus. There is no observation to be made, only something you're told. So also in the life of Christ. You cannot observe His birth, death or resurrection. You cannot observe any of His acts or those of His Apostles. You are only told, and you either trust what you're told, or you don't.

That is how one approaches the Creation Week narrative.

Now we can hash the reliability of the witnesses, and we can make the case that the witnesses are trustworthy, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to your presupposition, in most cases, and especially in those which are most critical, revelation comes through the verbal testimony of a witness. It is your only source of knowledge for the life and teachings of Christ.

We observe stars in the night sky that no longer exist. It takes light billions of years to reach us from those stars.

Assuming certain things, yes, but our observations and knowledge are incomplete and there are a host of assumptions that accompany them, and from which one leaps to dubious conclusions. It's like measuring the present erosion rate of the Colorado River and assuming that tiny force and path were constant and then making the assumption that the river is what cut the Grand Canyon in the first place.

We observe that the universe is expanding at a particular rate which means it is very old.

Assuming the rate of expansion has been constant, and that is a big assumption based on no science whatever. But there's more. All the galaxies are observed to be moving away from the earth and each other at the same rate. Assuming the earth is at the center (or very very near the center) of the universe, that observation is easily explained, and in no way counters a young earth cosmology. But if one feels the need to remove any hint of purpose in a creation, he can just as easily assume a cosmology with no boundary or center (and that does not mean an infinitely large universe) and explain the observations. An unbounded universe is the prevailing "scientific" opinion.

One cannot prove a bounded or unbounded universe, but both will explain the observations. The only difference is the assumption, not the science.

And then, because of the TRADITION taught us, not because of what the Scripture actually SAYS, we say, "Oh God, how can these things be?" Then divine Providence points us back to these Scriptures and we see that "day" means "epoch of time" in the Bible more often than it means 24 hour period.

Actually, what God will do is teach you that your eyes are dim, your observations are incomplete and your brain is small, and that you are a presumptuous clod to base your hermeneutic not on His text, but on fragmented, incomplete data and arbitrary assumptions.

Here's what it boils down to. Rick has not measured the speed of light. He has not observed the expansion of the universe. Hell, he's not even well-read on the subject. He just trusts what he's been told assuming that he has been told the whole story, and the rest is the fruit of his immersion in a culture based on Darwinism. That's why I can say with certainty, the reason anything in creation looks old to him is because of his conditioning.

 

[OldRegular]

In the case of historical record, you can make no observations. You cannot observe the administrations of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, King James, or Caesar Augustus. There is no observation to be made, only something you're told. So also in the life of Christ. You cannot observe His birth, death or resurrection. You cannot observe any of His acts or those of His Apostles. You are only told, and you either trust what you're told, or you don't.

That is how one approaches the Creation Week narrative.

Now we can hash the reliability of the witnesses, and we can make the case that the witnesses are trustworthy, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to your presupposition, in most cases, and especially in those which are most critical, revelation comes through the verbal testimony of a witness. It is your only source of knowledge for the life and teachings of Christ.

Assuming certain things, yes, but our observations and knowledge are incomplete and there are a host of assumptions that accompany them, and from which one leaps to dubious conclusions. It's like measuring the present erosion rate of the Colorado River and assuming that tiny force and path were constant and then making the assumption that the river is what cut the Grand Canyon in the first place.

Assuming the rate of expansion has been constant, and that is a big assumption based on no science whatever. But there's more. All the galaxies are observed to be moving away from the earth and each other at the same rate. Assuming the earth is at the center (or very very near the center) of the universe, that observation is easily explained, and in no way counters a young earth cosmology. But if one feels the need to remove any hint of purpose in a creation, he can just as easily assume a cosmology with no boundary or center (and that does not mean an infinitely large universe) and explain the observations. An unbounded universe is the prevailing "scientific" opinion.

One cannot prove a bounded or unbounded universe, but both will explain the observations. The only difference is the assumption, not the science.

Actually, what God will do is teach you that your eyes are dim, your observations are incomplete and your brain is small, and that you are a presumptuous clod to base your hermeneutic not on His text, but on fragmented, incomplete data and arbitrary assumptions.

Here's what it boils down to. Rick has not measured the speed of light. He has not observed the expansion of the universe. Hell, he's not even well-read on the subject. He just trusts what he's been told assuming that he has been told the whole story, and the rest is the fruit of his immersion in a culture based on Darwinism. That's why I can say with certainty, the reason anything in creation looks old to him is because of his conditioning.

Well said Aaron!

 

[Van]

I think it is fair to say the world looks old to me because of conditioning, but would it not follow then that if the world looks young to others, it is because of conditioning.

A good deal of what we are reflects what we accepted as true.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think it is fair to say the world looks old to me because of conditioning, but would it not follow then that if the world looks young to others, it is because of conditioning.

A good deal of what we are reflects what we accepted as true.

Interesting and thought provoking observation. My bet is that any who are "hard determinist" would disagree.

I can honestly see that we are all influenced (conditions) by the parameters and variables which surround us from the earliest of days.

 

[just-want-peace]

The same evidence is available to all; the only difference is your predetermined approach to that evidence, as stated earlier.
In a nutshell, the differing views of "creation" come to you based on where you place your FAITH!
Personally, mine is totally in His word, not what some scientist or atheist, or whoever decides God "REALLY" meant. Others have faith, yes FAITH, in what secularists declare as fact rather than His word.
Bottom line ------ some believe what they do because they trust the scientific community first; I believe what I do because I trust the word of God first. Either way it's faith, just differently focused.:godisgood:

 

[OldRegular]

I posted the following passage of Scripture either on this thread or another. However given the context in which it is written, one of the Ten Commandmants, I believe that it confirms a six, 24 hr. day creation.

Exodus 20:1-11
8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and res.ted the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Sadly a lot of "Christians" accept what science says without thought. Science is basically the mind of man trying to explain what the mind of God has done, whether they are believers or not.

It is important to remember that science is an ever changing body of thought. It is not "truth"! Hopefully it is a such for truth. At one time science said that the four basic elements were earth, air, fire, and water; and that the earth was the center of the universe. When I was in college the basic elements, now atomic particles, were the neutron, proton, electron, and neutrino. Now dozens are postulated. {I should mention that there is some thought currently that the earth is the center of the universe because all bodies seem to be moving away from the earth in all directions. I believe Aaron mentioned this earlier.}

When I was in college it was argued that the geologic history of the earth was uniformitarian; now it is commonly accepted that the geologic history of the earth was catastrophic.

One of the extremes of "scientific thought?" is demonstrated by the following:

The first Mars rover roamed about Mars for awhile giving basically a dogs eye view of the terrain and it was claimed that this view indicated a universal flood. Yet "scientists?" look at the terrain of this planet and deny a world wide flood, I believe because the Bible tells us so.

So much for the objectivity of science!

 

[michael-acts17:11]

This thread has been a very interesting read, but there is one very important aspect of the argument missing from this debate. Evolution is not a product of science, but is an attempt by anti-Christian humanistic atheists to unseat God as the personal Creator of the universe.

BTW, I recently read an article on "dark matter", where scientists are spending billions of our tax dollars looking for an invisible force which holds the universe together. According to what we can observe, every atom is being held together by some unseen force. They are constructed in a manner that should cause them to violently explode. Also, evolution between species is scientifically impossible. Look up & study "irreducible complexity" & the observable movement of the moon, for starters. The rate of the moon's orbital decay makes it impossible for the earth to be millions of years old. Evolutionists counter this fact with blind faith & assumption. They assume that the moon's orbit MUST have been different in the past in order for it to fit their disproven theory.

OECism is nothing more than a ludicrous attempt to merge the truth with the impossible, wisdom with foolishness, & science with God-hating ideology.

 

[OldRegular]

The concept of "dark matter" is an indication of the ever changing body of thought called science. There are claims that "dark matter" comprises as much as 80% of the matter in the universe? What will they think of next!:laugh::laugh:

 

[HankD]

The concept of "dark matter" is an indication of the ever changing body of thought called science. There are claims that "dark matter" comprises as much as 80% of the matter in the universe? What will they think of next!:laugh::laugh:

Uh, I think it was first called "Invisible matter" but presumably that caused a litte too much mocking from creationists and it was quietly changed.

In fact if you try to type in "invisible matter" in Google it only gives you information related to "dark matter".

HankD

 

[quantumfaith]

Uh, I think it was first called "Invisible matter" but presumably that caused a litte too much mocking from creationists and it was quietly changed.

In fact if you try to type in "invisible matter" in Google it only gives you information related to "dark matter".

HankD

I know very little about the physicists concept of "dark matter". Don't be too quick to "poo poo" the concept though. There was a time that the concept of the atom was intellectually ridiculous, simply because we could not see it. It was theorized long before we had the technological ability to see it first hand.