Stunning victory of Creation

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Most YEC's routinely change the bible to agree with the science they agree with, particularly in the case of the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night (compared to the moving of the sun across the sky).

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..."

b) The world is 4.5 billion years old as scientifically proven

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.

c) Therefore proper interpretation allows for an old earth of 4.5 billion years

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Phillip:
How does this verse fit with billions of years of evolution? Are we going to start making the gospels allegorical?

Mar 10:6

(ALT) "But from [the] beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' [Gen 1:27]

(ASV) But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.

(CEV) But in the beginning God made a man and a woman.

(Darby) but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(DRB) But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

(EMTV) But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'

(ESV) But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

(GB) But at the beginning of the creation God made them male and female:

(GNT) ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς ὁ Θεός·

(KJV+) But1161 from575 the beginning746 of the creation2937 God2316 made4160 them846 male730 and2532 female.2338

(KJVA) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(UPDV) But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female he made them.

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 . . .

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:


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. [/QB]

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?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
But your idea that animal death is bad is not God's idea. It is a human idea of what is bad and imperfect, and God's ways are not our ways.

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

 

[Phillip]

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead

These are but a few verses that seem to indicate that "death" is not considered part of a perfect world by God.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
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 . . .

Read the GREEK Paul. There is no indication when it says the "Beginning of creation" to tie that to "the creation of man." The sentence refers to "the creation" as seperate.
You interpret it as the creation of man, the Bible just says the "creation". What does the Bible keep referring to when it refers to the creation? Just the beginning of man?

So, you are saying that we AGAIN need to change our interpretation of the plain text so that it fits your theory. Don't buy that one!

 

[Phillip]

Let me interpret your statements:

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
a) The bible is inerrent when properly interpreted

The Bible is inerrent as long as it is interpreted in a way that fits modern science and the method of interpretation for centuries is changed. We "evolutionists" will tell you how it should be interpreted; just don't believe what you read.

b) The world is 4.5 billion years old as scientifically proven

I THINK, the world is 4.5 billion years old based on what I have read about theories that seem to point to an old earth. Besides, I believe in evolution and 4.5 billion years is necessary for THAT theory to work, so it MUST be that old.

c) Therefore proper interpretation allows for an old earth of 4.5 billion years

Every modern scientific theory should be used as the "basis" to interpret the Bible.

If the Bible says anything that is not in accordance with 2005 scientific theory, it should be considered as allegory. THAT is proper interpretation.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:


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.

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? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Can you first show us that every single attempt by CREATION science to show young Earth is flawed?

Can you explain to me why a NASA PHD geologist that I personally know would change his mind on "old earth" to "young earth" based on the depth of dust on the moon's surface? and can you PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that the depth of moon dust is consistent with old age? If so, please do so. This is simply one of the many creation theories.

 

[UTEOTW]

As far as the moon dust...

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

It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.

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.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
As far as the moon dust...

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]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.

This does not provide an argument against your post; however.

 

[UTEOTW]

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.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Even the most strident atheistic evolutionist agrees with Christ that from the beginning of the creation of humanity they were male and female.

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.

 

[UTEOTW]

"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.

 

[UTEOTW]

"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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
But your idea that animal death is bad is not God's idea. It is a human idea of what is bad and imperfect, and God's ways are not our ways.

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.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:


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.

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.

 

[Scott J]

"No. Frankly they don't "show" that. They are interpretted that way in accordance with the premises of evolution. That makes it an example of circular reasoning to use it as a proof for evolution."

You do not understand how science works.

The "defective vitamin c across multiple species lines, retroviral inserts across multiple species lines," etc., are the observations. Common descent is the most parsimonious explanation.

Do you have a better explanation for the retroviral inserts?

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".

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
But your idea that animal death is bad is not God's idea. It is a human idea of what is bad and imperfect, and God's ways are not our ways.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]My point wasn't so much that the verse pointed to man or beast, but that Paul mentioned that God would have considered a world with death as "good"; after he pronounced the creation "good". This verse along with the others I posted tends to point towards death as an evil thing. Remember that man was moved out of the garden to keep him/her away from the Tree of Life, which obviously would have allowed them to live forever. Of course, in your position this may be allegory, but in my position it shows death as an perfect creation mired by sin.

 

[Phillip]

For those who may be reading that need a good overview of Setterfield's theory, try this link:
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Phillip:


If the Bible says anything that is not in accordance with 2005 scientific theory, it should be considered as allegory. THAT is proper interpretation.

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.