Stunning victory of Creation

The isolated use of a figure of speech or the use of figurative language identified by its context and style is not a proof for Genesis 1-11 being allegorical.

Please show a biblical proof using context and cross-reference that this account is intended to be viewed as allegory. </font>[/QUOTE]The proof is as follows:

a) The bible is inerrent when properly interpreted
</font>[/QUOTE] No dice. You need to show internal evidence that establishes a foundation for your next two points which discount the possibility that "God created..."

It is extrapolated as being this age assuming purely natural causes for everything we observe based on a limited understanding of a limited part of an immense universe.

The same logic could be used to prove that you had driven two hundred continuous miles if 10 gallons of gas were missing from your tank. Evolution's theorists assume a "zero" starting point. With a willful, intelligent, purposed driver involved, there is no reason to accept the conclusion in my example. With a willful, intelligent, purposed Creator involved there is no reason to accept evolutions suppositions about the age of the universe.

Nope. Man's interpretation of the evidence for natural history do not provide a sound basis for discounting the acts of a sovereign creator.

You have fallen terribly short.

 

Even the most strident atheistic evolutionist agrees with Christ that from the beginning of the creation of humanity they were male and female. That Christ is speaking of the beginning of the species instead of all the creation is evident in that even in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 there are a few days before men and women were created, therefore they were not in the ultimate beginning in that sense . . .

 

Well, every attempt by creationists to discount the proven age of the earth turns out to be based on flawed science, so your mere declaration that the science is flawed won't do. Can you be the first to show us that all of science is truly flawed?

 

As far as the moon dust...

A prominent YEer, Andrew Snelling had the following to say.

Snelling, A. A., and D. R. Rush 1993, Moon dust and the age of the solar system, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7:1:2-42.

I have also read previously that certain optical properties of the moon showed that there was not a thick layer of dust well before any astronauts were sent.

 

We were earlier discussing carbon 14 dating. The question was asked about how the dates can be checked and calibrated. I went through an example of using tree rings to calibrate and also mentioned checks using lake varves.

I thought it might be useful to mention a few other ways in which the dates can be checked. The dates can and have been checked using gas trapped in ice cores from various places. While the layers must be counted, there will often be layers whose age is known exactly scattered through the core. One example would be dust from volcanoes. Core from diverse locations can also be compared against one another. Corals can also be used to check dates. C14 dates can be checked using uranium-thorium dating.

Now the question becomes what could possibly through off all of these dating methods by the same amount. Usually you will see attempts to divide and conquer when it comes to this issue. How do you know that each tree ring is just one year? How do you know that each lake layer is just one year? How do you know that the ice layers are annual? Ignoring that there are regular patterns that indicate such and that these things are checked against items from diverse locations and against each other.

Another problem sometimes posed is that a catastrophe could have buried much of the earth's carbon at one time, upsetting the balance. This would at first seem to be a way to through all the other dates off the same amount. The problem is that this could not throw off the other radiometric techniques that can be used to check the dates.

Using a diversity of crosschecks that rely on different assumptions is a very powerful method of verifying the technique.

 

Huh?

Sexual reproduction wouldn't have appeared for a long time under any evolutionary explanation I am aware of- certainly well after the beginning of creation.

 

"This may be true, but the information of a thin layer of dust was obviously not provided to the scientists and engineers working on the lander."

You know people and have resources that I do not have. All I can say is that by that time, data from the Soviet Luna program and the American Surveyor program should have been convincing proof that a problem should not be expected. I thought that I read somewhere that the designers of the lander were told not to expect problems with deep dust. Maybe not.

 

"Sexual reproduction wouldn't have appeared for a long time under any evolutionary explanation I am aware of- certainly well after the beginning of creation. "

He means that humans have always been male and female.

I agree.

 

Again Paul, are we going to have to start making verses in the New Testament allegorical?

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
ASV </font>[/QUOTE]It is referring to death of men, not death of animals. It is plain that Tyronosaurus Rex killed and ate 65 million years before men walked in Eden.

 

Well, every attempt by creationists to discount the proven age of the earth turns out to be based on flawed science, so your mere declaration that the science is flawed won't do. Can you be the first to show us that all of science is truly flawed? </font>[/QUOTE]Did you ignore the rest of my post?

It is "flawed science" to make any definitive statement on the age of the universe without knowing the starting point/value.

If the assumption that pure naturalism has ruled creation throughout the history of the universe then you have an argument. However this is a huge "if" assuming that you believe in an omnipotent God.

Further, I cited an article earlier from Barry Setterfield's website- his wife used to frequent this board. http://www.setterfield.org/accelanom.htm


Without regard to his explanation, he cites actual data that shows an "anomoly" picked up by all four of our deep space probes after reaching a certain distance from the sun. His conclusion is that the speed of light may not be constant outside of our solar system.

Bottom line is that we have very limited information to base uniformatarian assumptions about the universe on. If I am not mistaken, one of the critical tools used by evolutionists to date the age of the universe is the supposed distances to stars and the related distances between them. If the speed of light is not constant outside of our solar system, every model used by "science" for determining distances in the universe, the rate and amount of expansion, and age calculations is fatally flawed.

This is what I mainly argue against. Evolution is being swallowed whole even though it is dependent on a great number of very uncertain assumptions.

 

We have discussed this before. Yes- species with created genetic similarities exposed to similar environmental conditions developed a similar response.

Actually, I understand how science works just fine. It is when "science" gives explanations like you propose but cannot give any tangible proof for their hypothesis but none the less want to declare it a fact... that is where I have a breakdown in my understanding of "science".

 

You seem to imply that you never do that. We've had an argument between science and scripture before, you know. When Copernicus proposed that the SUN is the center around which all the PLANETS revolve, and that the ROTATION OF THE EARTH is the cause of night and day, rather than the Sun's daily crawling across the sky, he was roundly condemned by Martin Luthor and all the other protestant leaders and by the catholics as well (his book being banned) because it was against the literal interpretation of scripture.

To be consistent, you must deny the rotation of the earth and deny the revolution of the earth in orbit around the sun. Of course, like any educated person of today, you accept the findings of science against the literal interpretation of scripture.

The very thing you condemn me for doing.