The genre of Genesis 1

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
The Bible expresses God to us. I have no notion that the Bible is God, or that it has the power of God - I am simply stating that it has substance in reality.

That far I agree with you.

Psa 119:140 Thy word [is] very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Of course, these verses are not referring specifically to the Bible. They refer to God's word, whichever form it takes. And, the purity of God's word does not depend on it being literal or historical. The Psalms are inspired by God as much as Samuel and Kings (indeed, poetic texts are quoted more in the New Testament, including by Jesus, than historical records).

God doesn't describe the nature or scope of the first light. He does describe the nature and scope of the sun on day 4, however.

The "nature" of the light on day 1 was to divide light from darkness, causing day and night. This overlaps with the nature of the light on day 4. Genesis 1 also doesn't say that the day four light sources replace the day one light source, or even that they are different. It seems to be expanding on the description of the same light.

No where else in scripture does it give a purpose for the holy Sabbath. It is part of the 10 commandments - which is the law of Moses and the covenant between God and the Jews.

This statement is especially cute after your remark that I must not have a Bible because I don't know what it says.

Let's take a look at the Sabbath command in the ten commandments:

Deuteronomy 5:12-15: "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day."

"Therefore" means "for this reason". The purpose of the Sabbath in the ten commandments, according to Deuteronomy, is to remember God's deliverance through the exodus. Yes, Exodus 20 gives a different reason. But Deuteronomy says after the commandments are recited that aside from the words it recounts, God "added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me" (Deuteronomy 5:22). If you uphold biblical inerrancy, this means that Exodus 20:11 cannot be spoken by God as part of the commandments. At best, it is inspired commentary on the commandment by Moses or another author. It's still Scripture, but you can't claim it's on a higher level than the rest of Scripture or written directly by God's finger. It most certainly does not give the only reason for the Sabbath.

First of all, it says the "Work was ended" on day 7. It says God rested on day 7 from his work. SO what work is it talking about? The work of creating the universe. It says God himself blessed and sanctified it (made it a holy day) because it was on the 7th day that He started or entered into rest. The verse puts no limitation upon God's rest lasting only one day. The verse only says when the rest began, not how long it endured.

According to your earlier reasoning, this means the Israelites should have worked for six days and then taken an indefinite holiday. Do you now see the problem with that reasoning? Do you see how God can "rest" for far more than one day, and yet all of that rest (not just the first day of it) can be represented by a single day of rest (the Sabbath)?

So then what implications can we draw from Hebrews 4? Indeed it does say that God is still at rest - the rest he began on Day 7 of creation - immediately after creating all life on earth. The implication we can draw is that "creation" is not continuing today.

I'm glad you've come to accept that. Of course, God is still active in the world and is still creating and sustaining life and everything else, but it is different from the initial creation event.

Which means directly after creating man, God stopped his creation work. This is devastating to evolution. After all, don't we see new species being created every day? Don't we see new mutations leading to new creatures? Don't evolutionists make all this observation of evolution in progress? Well, unfortunately, MERC, God stopped creating a long time ago, and he is still at rest.

Shoot, that's devastating to far more than evolution. It means nobody living today is a creation of God! It means the psalmist wasn't really fearfully and wonderfully made by God! It must all be a lie!

Or, maybe God is still active in the midst of his rest in a different way than is represented by the six days of creation.

You have argued that God started creation and let Nature take over evolving life into what we see today.

Nope. I've said that God created nature and continues to sustain it today. God is as responsible for evolution as he is responsible for gravity, electromagnetism and every other force of nature, and no force of nature takes away from God's power and sovereignty over creation.

Therefore, if Genesis is some allegorical representation of evolution, it would STILL be an unobservable remnant of history, as God stopped after man showed up.

You're sounding very deistic here, Gup. I know you're not a deist, but whenever you try to make this attack on evolution, you end up slipping into deistic language. That's evidence that your attack is wrong, not that evolution is wrong.

Both of them are fatally flawed, however. Both of them attribute death, pain, suffering, and evil to the character of God.

You gave up defending that assertion in [another thread].

Moreover, those things are still continuing today - if those are the creative processes which brought us here, it would contradict Genesis 2 and Hebrews 4.

On the other hand, if the six days represent God's initial creation of the universe and the laws that govern it, then there is no contradiction.

No... God has been sustaining all things since he rested - nothing new has been created.

Untrue. I'm something new, and so are you. We were not in existence 6,000 years ago. Dogs did not exist before humans bred them. Neither did chickens, since they are a form of domesticated fowl (everyone should agree that eggs came before chickens, if they think about it, since other birds and reptiles existed long before chickens were bred). If you don't see every new breed of dog or chicken as a new creation, then you should realize that your argument has no force against God sustaining natural forces, such as evolution, that allow organisms to adapt and diverge.

This is why we can see so many information loosing mechanisms and no information gaining ones.

Then tackle one of the threads where you've been asked to defend this assertion, or start a new thread to do so.

 

[Gup20]

Of course, these verses are not referring specifically to the Bible. They refer to God's word, whichever form it takes.

I would disagree. I think the Bible is the written word of God. It is just as absolutely true as the spoken word of God.

The Psalms are inspired by God as much as Samuel and Kings (indeed, poetic texts are quoted more in the New Testament, including by Jesus, than historical records).

Indeed we should take literal text as literal, and poetic as poetic.

The "nature" of the light on day 1 was to divide light from darkness, causing day and night.

The Word says that God separated light from darkness.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God was the one who divided light from darkness. Light itself did not perform this function. Furthermore, God called the light day and the darkness he called night. Then God created the sun moon and stars. Therefore the 'nature' of the light God created had no function to divide day from night. God did that himself. However, once separated God named the light day and named the darkness night. You'll notice the Bible says the sun was created to rule the day. So the sun didn't do the diving either - again, this was done by God previously. It was created to assume a role that had been prepared for it.

This statement is especially cute after your remark that I must not have a Bible because I don't know what it says.

Yeah... that was a little harsh - I repent for that off the cuff remark.

"Therefore" means "for this reason". The purpose of the Sabbath in the ten commandments, according to Deuteronomy, is to remember God's deliverance through the exodus.

The seventh day sabbath goes back to Genesis - which is previous to Exodus - therefore the 'reason' for the seventh day being holy cannot be an event which has not happened yet. It is clear, then, that the phrase "You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm." is referring to the 'reason' for the previous sentence, not the reason for the sabbath day in itself. You are to give your servants the sabbath off - because you yourself used to be someone's servant. That is the context of the statement. Moreover, the reason for the commandment is given when the commmandments themselves are given.

According to your earlier reasoning, this means the Israelites should have worked for six days and then taken an indefinite holiday. Do you now see the problem with that reasoning?

You have still misunderstood. According to Genesis 2:

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Here we have one day which was blessed and became a holy day (the sabbath). Because the word "rest" has no function to modify the word "day", however the word "seventh" is an adjective of "day", we know that the number modifies the word day limiting it's meaning to a literal day by Biblical hermanuetics. While God's rest is free to continue indefinately, the day has very literal and finite duration and meaning. Therefore the sabbath - which was fashioned after the literal seventh day - lasts a literal day regardless of the state of God's rest.

Shoot, that's devastating to far more than evolution. It means nobody living today is a creation of God! It means the psalmist wasn't really fearfully and wonderfully made by God! It must all be a lie!

That's only true if you don't believe Genesis is true.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

While this mechanism for new life wasn't destroyed by sin, it was effected. But here again we have life coming from life - information from information. Nothing arising from nothing. This is the only mechanism God created for creating life.

Or, maybe God is still active in the midst of his rest in a different way than is represented by the six days of creation.

Well that's awefully inconsistent of you. You claim that evolution respresents the mechanism for the creation of all the creatures from days 1-6. But now you claim this is different from what we see today. Should I therefore assume that you have given up all reasoning that supposes that we can observe the same processes of creation by which man came to evolve from the apes?

Instead, why not believe scripture as it is written? That God created all life in six days. He created that life with the ability to reproduce pepetuating itself after it's own kind.

God is as responsible for evolution as he is responsible for gravity, electromagnetism and every other force of nature, and no force of nature takes away from God's power and sovereignty over creation. (emphasis mine)

Evolution is the process of survival of the fittest. It involves death, struggle, and suffering before sin. Moreover the Bible says that the meek shall inherit the earth... not the strong... not the most fit for survival. It says the last will be first. This is in stark contrast with evolution.

You're sounding very deistic here, Gup. I know you're not a deist, but whenever you try to make this attack on evolution, you end up slipping into deistic language. That's evidence that your attack is wrong, not that evolution is wrong.

I was simply showing you how wrong you were no matter what position you take. You claim the past to be observable - but any way you look at it, the past is history - and it's a 'one of a kind' history. No matter how 'likely' things may seem, it happened a specific and exact way. The only way to determine that is from any eyewitness or the written testimony of an eye witness. Otherwise your guesses are only going to be as trustworthy as the variables you have left out of your assumptions.

You gave up defending that assertion in [another thread].

My posting is a matter of the ammount of time I have to spend here. However, I think I gave a pretty thorough description of my point of view.

On the other hand, if the six days represent God's initial creation of the universe and the laws that govern it, then there is no contradiction.

If we both agreed on the nature of the 'laws of the universe' - specificly where it pertains to information gaining and loosing processes - I might be able to agree with this statement.

Untrue. I'm something new, and so are you. We were not in existence 6,000 years ago.

We are a result of the mechanism God created in the first week of creation - namely reproduction. That creation is being sustained by God. We know that sin had an effect on reproduction. Without God's sustaining power, none of us would be here. There is no need, nor any reason to insert the external belief of evolution into a system which works perfectly well without it. The only reason materialists hold to millions of years is because it's required to rationalize the trasformation of simple cells into human beings. People having babies leading to a higher population of people is not in question... the origin of mankind is. Were we specially created and reproduce after our own kind as the Bible describes, or are we a product of nature turning microbes into monkeys and monkeys into man. However, it goes against everything we know about genetics to see information increasing mechanisms in nature. Information decreasing mechanisms can be seen to be responsible for all observable change.

If you don't see every new breed of dog or chicken as a new creation, then you should realize that your argument has no force against God sustaining natural forces, such as evolution, that allow organisms to adapt and diverge

Actually, it shows the magnificence of the original perfect creation. Every new genetic disorder we see reminds us that death and sin are a part of this world - a perfect world which was marred by sin.

Then tackle one of the threads where you've been asked to defend this assertion, or start a new thread to do so.

I have been round and round with UTE on that one. I asked him for his best example, and then I refuted it. I don't have time to research each and every instance - I am no scientist. If you want to discuss it, show me your best example and we'll discuss that one as a representative of the whole.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I have been round and round with UTE on that one. I asked him for his best example, and then I refuted it."

If any reader is interested, he can go read the thread here and see just how well "refuted" my position was.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

In the first example two genes were duplicated and then the copies were combined to make a new gene that had a new function. Gup's answer was that this is not new information because it "is not new information as it does not give any specified complexity." Now I am not sure how a gene that did not exist before which codes for a protein that did not exist before cannot be new and why it is not "specified complexity." And Gup never actually tells us why either. He asserts it, but he gives no definition nor metric by which to measure information or specified complexity.

In the second example a gene was duplicated and then the copy mutated to perform a new role. He called this example "far easier" to refute and then gives some rambling answer about "a specific line in our 'book of copied pages' that is fucntional and useful being singled out for mass production." I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but again there was never any specific reason why a new gene that codes for a new protein is not new information. There is no metric given of just how to measure information nor how to judge whether a given process results in new information or not.

In the third example, a retroviral gene that had become a permanent part of the human genome was mutated to form a new functional gene inportant in morphogenesis, the embryological development of the structure of an organism. For this one, he simply decided to debunk a separate and unrelated case in which "one retrovirus which supposedly helps fend off another retrovirus." Again, he did not bother to define information nor provide the means to measure information so that we can quantitatively judge whether a given process gives new information.

In a related subject, he has beat the Gitt horse of information to death but when I criticize Gitt and show how these processes even fit Gitts strained and circular treatment of information, the responses dry up.

Start here for the good stuff. You may want to read the previous page, too.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000016

 

[Gup20]

And Gup never actually tells us why either. He asserts it, but he gives no definition nor metric by which to measure information or specified complexity.

I am afraid if you want a scientific response, you will need to consult a scientist. I have oft repeated that I am not one, nor do I put on pretenses to be one. I can speak in generalized terms, and that will have to do. You, however, do not even listen to the arguments I made. I encourage any one else to follow UTE's link and you will see that I did give reasoning ... despite what UTE says.

In a related subject, he has beat the Gitt horse of information to death but when I criticize Gitt and show how these processes even fit Gitts strained and circular treatment of information, the responses dry up.

More importantly we see that UTE is incapable of discerning scripture, and he refuses to use it in this debate. His notion is that "the scriptures are silent where human origins is concerned". He thinks that the "Bible is a little off" and has told us how he thinks that "God didn't think it was important to tell us the truth" in the Bible. I can't remember if he made those statements directly or if he merely supported "The Galatian" when he made those statements. Either way, he endorsed those ideas, and his arguments are consistent with that mindset. The point of that is not merely ad hominem on UTE, but to show the base for his reasoning - and my unwillingness to engage in that foolishness. He is great at debating, however he is all together uninterested in truth. We can argue until Christ returns with this argument or that - but my purpose in posting here is to find truth. UTEOTW has no interest in truth, so I find no common ground with which to have a discussion with him. I believe that the Bible is God's Word. I believe that God's Word is infallible and ultimate truth (in the original forms). UTEOTW has demonstrated that we do not share this value in scripture. He may give lip service to a belief that the scripture is true, but he refuses to give corresponding action to that professed beleif - and in fact consistently argues in opposition to it. For example, he says he believes Genesis is true, but that he doesn't think it actually happened.

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[UTEOTW]

You can follow the link provided above and compare to see Gup's revisionist history of the information debate. I showed where his claims of new information not being possible to be false by showing actual new information. He tried to handwave away the examples but never actually said anything factual to refute them.

Now he is going for more revisionist history. Here is the original quote from where he pulls his "little off" bit.

"

The key thing is this. You could not convince anyone of either a spherical earth nor that the earth orbits the sun from a purely Biblical perspective. On the other hand, you could (and historically people have, see all of Galileo's and Copernicus's problems) make the case for either from Bible quoting. You are perfectly willing to let outside knowledge influence your interpretation of these scriptures. To you the spherocity of the earth is so beyond doubt that you re-interpret these passages without giving it a second thought. IMHO, the ancient age of the earth and universe and the common descent of all life on earth is just as well established.

Take care to not read more into my words than I say. I am not advocating that these are Biblical errors. I think they were writing what they believed at the time and that their worldview on such things was a little off did not matter. I do not think that God considered taking the time to bother giving us the true shape of the world important just I do not think that He found it important enough to give revelations about evolution that the people receiving it could not understand.

In other words, the ancient Jews had a certain veiw of the world which included such things as a flat, stationary earth and a fixed firmament in the sky. The writing of the Bible reflects the influence of these beliefs. That they were wrong about such things in no way invalidates the Bible or means that it contains errors.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Gup20:
I am afraid if you want a scientific response, you will need to consult a scientist. I have oft repeated that I am not one, nor do I put on pretenses to be one. I can speak in generalized terms, and that will have to do. You, however, do not even listen to the arguments I made. I encourage any one else to follow UTE's link and you will see that I did give reasoning ... despite what UTE says.

If you can acknowledge this kind of deliberate ignorance which in essence says "I don't need to learn your reasoning to understand you", what makes you so certain the miscommunication is always the other guy's fault?

 

[UTEOTW]

"I am afraid if you want a scientific response, you will need to consult a scientist. I have oft repeated that I am not one, nor do I put on pretenses to be one."

That's fine. Then I do not expect scientific answers from you.

However, I also expect that this means that you will not make science a part of your argument. You cannot continue to advance these spam jobs or make your claims about how the data better fits a YE paradigm or say that their can never be any new "information" and then hide behind your lack of knowledge when the claims are challenged. You either make your argument solely based on your faith or you include science as part of your argument. But if you include the science then you better be able to defend it instead of hiding when your assertions are challenged.

And to head off your predictable response, I have been quite upfront that I do not think that the Bible teaches evolution. I feel that it is silent on the matter. My opinion is that the Bible is not an attempt at science but instead it lays out the need for salvation and the path to salvation while telling us about God, God's people and the interactions of the two through history. I think the Bible reflects some ways that the people who wrote the Bible saw the world. For instance, it is very easy to show that a plain reading of the Bible indicates that the writers viewed the world as a flat disk and that the sun travelled across the sky of a nonmoving earth. This is corroborated by looking at other historical data which shows that this is just what the people of the region of the time thought. This does not make an error of the Bible for it was not concerned with trying to make a science book, it is a holy book.

Even the creation account itself gives hints that it is not meant to be literal. Mainly these take the form of inconsistencies between the two if they are literal. You have days labeled as having a sunrise and sunset before there is a sun. You have different names used for God between chapter 1 nad 2. You have a different order for the creation between the two. In one God speaks and it happens while in the other GOd takes a hands on approach and physically molds man from the dirt and physically breathes life into him. These are great difficulties for a literal, recent creation but not if the attempt is to convey the spiritural truths that we both take from it. And yes I have seen your poor attempts at trying to reconcile some of these differences. Some you just ignore.

 

[Gup20]

I think they were writing what they believed at the time and that their worldview on such things was a little off did not matter.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your claim is false. It was not their worldview which inspired their writings, but God who inspired their writings. Clearly this verse describes the inspiration for the writers of scripture. You may claim their inspiration was 'a little off', but you must call God 'a little off' in order to do that. Again - with an attitude like that you and I have no framework or common ground within which to fellowship.

I do not think that God considered taking the time to bother giving us the true shape of the world important just I do not think that He found it important enough to give revelations about evolution that the people receiving it could not understand.

However, the Bible is NOT silent regarding our origins as you claim. Anyone with the ability can read Genesis and see that.

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

If you can acknowledge this kind of deliberate ignorance which in essence says "I don't need to learn your reasoning to understand you", what makes you so certain the miscommunication is always the other guy's fault?

Travelsong, the point is not that I am incapable of understanding, but that I do not already posses the understanding. Every time UTE posts these pages of evolutionary gobble-gook, I have to go piece by piece through (typically with dictionary in hand) to understand it all and formulate a response 'in his language'. I simply don't have the time to get my PHD in genetics so that I can refute a 6 page copy+paste of some evolutionary dogma and put that response in a format UTEOTW will accept.

Instead, it is much more efficient to cut-to-the-chase and deal with the wrong assumptions UTEOTW is making which can been seen easily and dealt with on an absolute level. Science is not an absolute level - as every scientific theory has revision as it's only constant. When you are dealing with Scripture, you are dealing with an absolute. The constant is the Word itself. So where ever scripture touches on any scientific topic, we can take what it says about that topic as absolute truth and build our science upon it.

For example, lets say UTE and I get into a discussion years ago about the Carbon 14 found in diamonds. The carbon 14 dating puts the age of the diamond at 40,000 years... clearly more than the 6000 given by scripture. We argue about the scientific facts and figures for years - him arguing this is evidence for and old earth, me telling him why his arguments don't stand up. Then science is revised and 40,000 years doesn't do UTE any good. Now he needs billions of years and the 40,000 years of 14C is actually evidence that the earth isn't billions of years old. Creationists argue that they shouldn't be able to measure any carbon if the rock is millions of years old.

The science we use is constantly changing. But what hasn't changed is the Bible. If I had argued from an absolute (the truth of scripture) rather than from something that changes with every breath of wind (science) then what I argue remains consistent regardless of what new discovery confirms scripture that week. What I should have argued is that the Bible advocates a young earth, and I take that by faith - believing that the Bible is absolute truth. I can then use real science to confirm scripture. The more 'in line' with scripture our science, the more 'based on absolute truth' it will be, the closer to reality our science is.

That's fine. Then I do not expect scientific answers from you.

However, I also expect that this means that you will not make science a part of your argument.

If you like I can refute your pseudo science purely with scripture. In your statement you express a false belief. You assume science and scripture are mutually exclusive - they are not. The Bible is ALL ABOUT reality. Science is all about reality. Real science corroborrates scripture. Being knowledgeable in scripture is like having memorized the answers to all the test questions. While I may not be able to explain in intricate detail why, I can rest assured that the what is 100% true.

I don't need to know a single thing about Genetics to tell you that man didn't evolve from Apes. Why? Because the Bible says that Adam was formed in the image of God from the dust - not in the image of an animal from another animal.

I don't need to know a single thing about geology to know that the earth isn't millions of years old. Why? Because you can add the geneologies in the Bible up to be ~ 6000 years.

To some of these questions we are given the answer in scripture. We need not waste our time re-inventing these answers, but should rather research why and how the answers in the Bible are that way if we care to know.

So how about this - I believe the Bible. If the Bible touches upon the origin of man, it is true. If the Bible touches upon geology, anthropology, biology, or otherwise - it's true. When your views - be them scientific or otherwise - are in conflict with what is clearly stated in scripture, I will refute them. If you will not believe the scripture what will you believe?

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

It's not for the sake of my belief, UTE, that I try to meet you where you are at. It is for yours. If you refuse to believe scripture, then I must come to what you choose to believe in it's place and show you the error of that way.

And UTE - if it doesn't matter, then why claim that one can believe evolution AND the Bible at the same time? See even you - and even the atheists - cannot divorce God from reality.

I do not think that the Bible teaches evolution. I feel that it is silent on the matter. My opinion is that the Bible is not an attempt at science but instead it lays out the need for salvation and the path to salvation while telling us about God, God's people and the interactions of the two through history.

So you refute the need for a Saviuor, but affirm that one exists and we should relate to him on some level? What kind of mixed up messages are you sending. You have clearly not followed honestly and logically through to the conclusions of your beliefs.

I think the Bible reflects some ways that the people who wrote the Bible saw the world.

Ah, but you claim much more than that. You claim that 'the way they saw the world' - which is reflected in what they wrote in the scriptures - is wrong. Let me remind you, UTE:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your claim, then, that the person's worldview skewed God's Word is refuted.

For instance, it is very easy to show that a plain reading of the Bible indicates that the writers viewed the world as a flat disk and that the sun travelled across the sky of a nonmoving earth.

This is rejected. Only those who read without any interest in understanding the author's intended meaning would come to a conclusion such as this.

I would liken it to a novel. When you read a novel you take each chapter and build upon the understandings gained. When you begin a new chapter, you take all that you have read previously as your assumptive framework from which to interpret everything. You make the connections in your mind for all the details the author DIDN'T say. Your imagination uses what is said to form a clear picture of events using what is actually revealed as the established framework.

But the way you are advocating using scripture is on a piecemeal basis. For example, in this topic we discussed Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as separately different historical narratives of creation. That would be like reading a novel and deciding that chapters 1 and 2 had no relation to one another, and that you had to reject one or the other of them. It's no wonder the 'novel' doesn't make sense to you.

You have days labeled as having a sunrise and sunset before there is a sun.

That's interesting... can you show me where the phrase 'sunrise' and 'sunset' appears prior to day 4 of creation? I see the words evening and morning... but not sunrise and sunset. For evening and morning you need only light and rotation. More specifically, you need only light and darkness to mark day and night. Every inconsistency you guys manufacture can be easily refuted with a straight forward reading of scripture.

Is there inconsistency between the following two statments:

1. I made supper.
2. I put a pizza in the oven, cooked it at 450 degrees for 10 minutes. It's ready to eat now.

There are no inconsistencies between the two statements. One is simply a more intricate, detailed look at the same fact. In the same way, Genesis 1 & 2 are harmonious. Chapter 1 is an overview of all of creation, while chapter two is a more extended, focussing on the details of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Again, your attempt to manufacture inconsistencies so that you can justify dismissing Genesis falls flat on it's face.

 

[Gup20]

PS - I realize some of us may have differnt definitons of 'supper' or think that pizza does not a meal make.

For those folks, please mentally replace the word "pizza" in my post for the word "casserole".

 

[UTEOTW]

You see folks, we have a problem here.

You will often see YEers go aroung quoting philosophy statements from atheists about how evolution somehow means the there is no God. Nevermind that this is a fallacious Appeal to Consequences and has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not.

No the problem is this. YEers make a decent case that you should view the creation as literal. Even I, dispite my protestations, am loath to take any part of the Bible as non-literal. But you see, YEers DO NOT have the ability to support their assertions that the earth is indeed young!

Now some my take a young earth on faith alone. With this folks I have no beef. They may be wrong but they are harmless. Others insist that the data also show the earth to be young. These are unable to ever demonstrate such to be true. These are dangerous. They fall into the trap of the very atheist philosophers they quote.

Once you set up the premise that Christianity is incompatible with evolution and you then follow that up without being able to demonstrate a young earth, you have given the atheists all the ammunition which they need. A CHristian who asserts that if the earth is not young then his religion is false but then cannot support his assertion that the earth is indeed young is fighting the battle for the atheists.

"2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Dude, do you really thinks that the writer meant that the Bible is good for education about scientific things? You think he might have been referring to spiritural matters? You have changed the clear meaning of the text for your own purposes. You are now misquoting the Bible.

"Your claim is false. It was not their worldview which inspired their writings, but God who inspired their writings."

I did not say any such thing! You mean to tel me that you DO NOT think that the culture of the writers influenced the way they wrote things down? Amazing!

"You may claim their inspiration was 'a little off', but you must call God 'a little off' in order to do that."

Dude, pay attention. I said nothing about their inspiration. I said that there were things about the world that they did not yet know. (For that matter, the same is true of us.) This influenced their culture and how they viewed the world. Their culture influenced the manner in which they wrote. Their inspiration was true but they did not know everything about the world.

"Travelsong, the point is not that I am incapable of understanding, but that I do not already posses the understanding. Every time UTE posts these pages of evolutionary gobble-gook, I have to go piece by piece through (typically with dictionary in hand) to understand it all and formulate a response 'in his language'. "

If you are that unfamiliar with the material then how can you so easily dismiss it?

"I simply don't have the time to get my PHD in genetics so that I can refute a 6 page copy+paste of some evolutionary dogma and put that response in a format UTEOTW will accept. "

Dude, you are the spammer here. Rarely do I copy and paste. Even then, it is most likely a journal article I use as part of a point. You are the one who spams huge copy and pastes upon us and then claims that you should not be expected to have to defend them. For most of my posts, you would be hard pressed to tell what sources I used as reference unless I give them to you myself. I am not a spammer, unlike some.

"For example, lets say UTE and I get into a discussion years ago about the Carbon 14 found in diamonds. The carbon 14 dating puts the age of the diamond at 40,000 years... clearly more than the 6000 given by scripture."

Diamonds contain many order of magnitude more C13 and N14 than C14. These two can be converted into C14 by the background radiation. This accounts for the low, equilibrium level of C14 that materials made of carbon reach.

"If you refuse to believe scripture, then I must come to what you choose to believe in it's place and show you the error of that way."

Fallacious personal attack. It is possible that you are simply wrong. Just because I do not accept your interpretation does not mean that I do not believe the Scripture.

"And UTE - if it doesn't matter, then why claim that one can believe evolution AND the Bible at the same time?"

It does matter. YEers are undermining Christianity.

"So you refute the need for a Saviuor, but affirm that one exists and we should relate to him on some level?"

Never have I done such a thing. We all sin and therefore need a Savior. As far as your insinuation, I think I have been clear that I find a literal Adam to be a strong possibility though not the only possibility.

"This is rejected. Only those who read without any interest in understanding the author's intended meaning would come to a conclusion such as this."

Huh?

It plainly speaks of a flat earth and a sun that moves. And this agree with the cosmology of the day. You would have us believe that the writers wrote in a manner consistent with the view of the world of the people of their day and time but what they really meant was to give our view of the world while. It does not even make sense.

He is one reference that shows that this is what the middle easterns believed at the time and shows how the writings of the BIble are consistent.

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/commoncosmos.htm

"That's interesting... can you show me where the phrase 'sunrise' and 'sunset' appears prior to day 4 of creation? I see the words evening and morning... but not sunrise and sunset. For evening and morning you need only light and rotation. More specifically, you need only light and darkness to mark day and night."

There you go changing the plain, literal reading again. Morning and evening are sunrise and sunset. You must twist the meaning to get your interpretation.

Just as you must twist the plain difference in order of the two accounts.

Just as you must twist the obvious reading where God speaks things into existance in one and forms them from dust with His hands in the other.

Just as you must twist the different names used for God in the two versions.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You see folks, we have a problem here.

Others insist that the data also show the earth to be young. These are unable to ever demonstrate such to be true. These are dangerous. They fall into the trap of the very atheist philosophers they quote.

Not only this but the false doctrine of YE also demonstrates misplaced faith. Look at the debate thread. Where is the presentation of the Gospel in context with their argument? It doesn't exist! The YE movement is based on fear and nothing else.

 

[just-want-peace]

The YE movement is based on fear and nothing else.

Depends on what kind of "fear" you're addressing!

If FEAR of evos, or being wrong, or some such nonsense, NO!!

If FEAR of God, then YES!

 

[Travelsong]

Irrational fear. That's exactly why none of the arguments address the evidence from God's creation.


The whole argument is "The Biblical creation account must be literally interpreted from a plain text reading because we said so".

That's it! That's all you've got! After 7 years of watching the ruin and pain the YEC movement has caused the body, I have not seen one person benefited. This false doctrine brings no one to Christ (as if it ever could) and bears absolutely no fruit.

YEC's only accomplishment is in sealing shut the minds of people who want reality simplified and truth spoon fed to them.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
A CHristian who asserts that if the earth is not young then his religion is false but then cannot support his assertion that the earth is indeed young is fighting the battle for the atheists.

Well said.

 

[Gup20]

You will often see YEers go aroung quoting philosophy statements from atheists about how evolution somehow means the there is no God. Nevermind that this is a fallacious Appeal to Consequences and has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not.

I agree - an atheist's words should never be the final say on any matter. Yet the evolutionists here never stop at providing us with frequent quotes from atheists to bolster their position. I just thought it would be pertinent to see the basis for those atheistic philosophers support of evolution. They support it BECAUSE it directly contradicts scripture. Talk about an a priori commitment to materialism!

But you see, YEers DO NOT have the ability to support their assertions that the earth is indeed young!

Actually, that is false. Just to name a few of the scientific evidences:

- The continents are eroding too quickly.
- There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.
- Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
- Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all. (for example - the formation of diamonds, coal, and oil)
- The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
- The strength of the earth's magnetic field.

Many evidences that evolutionists use to support old earth claims can be reinterpreted using Biblical assumptions (replacing the current materialistic assumptive framework). These, then, support young earth. For example, the Grand Canyon. Scientists claim that it formed over millions of years, but when you know that it didn't have millions of years to form, you start looking for other explanations. What you find is a myriad of evidence to support catastrophic forces over a shorter period of time could have accomplished the same - and it fits better with the evidence. These catastrophic forces have been observed (albeit on a much lower scale than a world wide global flood) recently, so we can make actual 'observations' to support our claims - whereas the long age believer must have faith that things happened according to their assumptions - after all no one has ever observed 10,000 years, or 100,000 years, or even a million years... let alone seeing what hundreds of millions or billions of years could do. I would much rather do 'real science' and rely on the observable to form our opinions about what is possible - especially when those observations line up with scripture!

Once you set up the premise that Christianity is incompatible with evolution and you then follow that up without being able to demonstrate a young earth, you have given the atheists all the ammunition which they need. A Christian who asserts that if the earth is not young then his religion is false but then cannot support his assertion that the earth is indeed young is fighting the battle for the atheists.

Newton, Pascal, Joule, Kelper... these men are the founders of modern science and they would disagree with you. In fact, you must accept Biblical truth as the basis of science. If the universe is indeed random, and without order or design then there would not be 'laws of nature' which are repeatable and testable. The "science" being done now in support of evolution will eventually be falsified or revised - such is man's science (as has been the case with it since Darwin - evolution has undergone TREMENDOUS revision, refutation, and much of Darwin's original work has been discarded). However the overall belief in evolution will remain unchanged. This demonstrates that evolution is a faith, not a science. However, the Bible has not changed. It remains constant. It remains absolute truth. Science will eventually come to affirm every word in the scripture, of this we can be sure. Therefore, if our doctrine and worldview line up with scripture, we can be "right" in the end when science catches up with the scripture.

Dude, do you really thinks that the writer meant that the Bible is good for education about scientific things?

T'shaw - dude. Totally. I think that the the Bible says that ALL scripture is inspired by God. Whether that scripture deals with history, science, or spiritual matters... it is all inspired.

Diamonds contain many order of magnitude more C13 and N14 than C14.

There still isn't enough N14.

Fallacious personal attack. It is possible that you are simply wrong. Just because I do not accept your interpretation does not mean that I do not believe the Scripture.

I don't think so. I am using Genesis in the same way Jesus showed us to. Moreover all the prophets and apostles viewed Genesis literally as well. In fact, no Godly person in scripture ever viewed Genesis as anything but literal. Even David - who wrote poetic and non-literal text - did so in a way that demonstrated his literal belief (for example: Psa 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created).

It does matter. YEers are undermining Christianity.

So instead of holding firm to what the Bible clearly teaches, lets change the Bible so that it's more compatible with the flaky pseudo-science of our day in which the only consistency is change? Lets teach our young people that we should believe humanism over scripture when the philosophy of outspoken atheists comes into conflict with scripture? You are actively promoting the very thing you profess to be trying to stop! In order to keep the scripture from being undermined, you undermine scripture so that atheists have nothing to complain about? What madness is that!

No, no, no. We should hold to scripture as the ultimate authority in every area of life - including it's origination. Adding or removing scripture to suit the will of those who wish to destroy it only serves to undermine it. Can't you see that?

"So you refute the need for a Saviour, but affirm that one exists and we should relate to him on some level?"

Never have I done such a thing. We all sin and therefore need a Savior. As far as your insinuation, I think I have been clear that I find a literal Adam to be a strong possibility though not the only possibility.

Do you think Jesus was a literal person? Do you think Jesus is the son of God? Where did you get those notions? A person seriously seeking truth (in honesty) can only conclude that: "From that book that science proves isn't literal? Well if creation isn't literal, than neither is Jesus."

Why do you think that the biggest atheists in the world are trying to push the message "you can believe in God and believe evolution"? It's not because they want the Bible and science to corroborate one another, I assure you. They realize what you do not - that evolution undermines scripture. Getting Christians to accept evolution leads only to the usurping of Biblical authority - which is the target of all atheism. Biblical authority is the only thing that atheists cannot challenge. Defile the scripture, and you defeat Christianity. The whole structure of Christianity and Christian morality relies on the foundation of scripture. Evolution is an attack upon the very foundation of Christianity. I wish you guys were not so much a part of the world that you were unable to recognize that.

2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

It plainly speaks of a flat earth and a sun that moves. And this agree with the cosmology of the day. You would have us believe that the writers wrote in a manner consistent with the view of the world of the people of their day and time but what they really meant was to give our view of the world while. It does not even make sense.

As do the meteorologists who use phrases like sunrise and sunset in our news broadcasts, right? You see - you have no intention of understanding the intended meaning. Moreover, you view of history is wrong. The Bible clearly supports a spherical earth:

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

It is a common misconception among evolutionists (who clearly are quite practiced at believing what they choose to believe rather than what is observable or verifiable) that early peoples believed in a flat earth.

The first time flat earth ideas began to surface is around 300AD. It was a man named Lactantius. He was an African rhetorician who converted to Christianity. When he converted, he rejected Greek philosophy, which held to a spherical earth. Even still, the majority of church leaders rejected his proposals.

There you go changing the plain, literal reading again. Morning and evening are sunrise and sunset. You must twist the meaning to get your interpretation.

Your misrepresentations of scripture knows no end. This is almost as pitiful as saying the Bible is "a little off" or that "God didn't think it was important to tell us the truth".

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There are no translations which use the words sunrise or sunset for any days prior to the creation of the sun.

Jdg 9:33 And it shall be, [that] in the morning, as soon as the sun is up, thou shalt rise early, and set upon the city: and, behold, [when] he and the people that [is] with him come out against thee, then mayest thou do to them as thou shalt find occasion.

The Bible mentions the "rising of the sun" and the "setting of the sun" in several places. Clearly, the authors could have used this terminology if it were appropriate, but they did not. No where in Genesis 1 is this used. Instead, they use evening, and morning.

 

[just-want-peace]

You believe what you will!

When we all get to Heaven we'll find out whether the earth is young or old; several thousand or several billion years old.

If I'm wrong and the earth IS truly old, my preference is for God to tell me that I goofed by believing literally what He said.

That is a far better scenario than having God tell you that the earth is young, so why didn't you simply believe what He said!

But hey, it's your perogative to believe either man or God. Be my guest!

 

[UTEOTW]

"I agree - an atheist's words should never be the final say on any matter. Yet the evolutionists here never stop at providing us with frequent quotes from atheists to bolster their position."

So, when I provide information from technical journals, how can you tell which ones are Christian and which are not?

"Actually, that is false. Just to name a few of the scientific evidences:

- The continents are eroding too quickly.
- There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.
- Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
- Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all. (for example - the formation of diamonds, coal, and oil)
- The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
- The strength of the earth's magnetic field. "

[Sigh] No explanation for any of these? These are not even complete assertions.

Continent erosion - Only if you ignore volcanoes, emplacement from rising molten rock from the mantle, mountains created from compressional forces between colliding plates and other forms of uplift.

Helium - Except that you must ignore the loss from the polar wind to get your result.

Quick fossils - Quick fossils can be formed in many different ways, what is supposed to be the probnlem here. Now the taphonomy of fossils IS a problem for you.

Rapid diamonds, coal, oil - References? The rapid coal, at least, requires temperatures high enough to have caused chemical changes in the coal that are not observed. And if you assert they can form quickly, why can they not form quickly in an old earth?

Salty oceans - Yes, we have been through this one before. Your source shows the known inputs and outputs for sodium, adds them up, and shows that they are not the same. Except that they changed one of the numbers by a factor of 35 from their listed reference. When the correction is applied, the sodium is suddenly found to be in equilibrium.

Magenetic field - Is this supposed to be the decaying field line? You're not very clear. The magnetic field of the earth decays and reverses periodically. This is all recorded in the geologic record for you.

"Many evidences that evolutionists use to support old earth claims can be reinterpreted using Biblical assumptions (replacing the current materialistic assumptive framework)."

These interpretations are generally found to do a much poorer job of matching observation and also are often arbitrary and capricious.

"These, then, support young earth. For example, the Grand Canyon."

Funny then that you flounded so badly on the Grand Canyon thread when you could be bothered to make an attempt to support your assertions.

"Newton, Pascal, Joule, Kelper... these men are the founders of modern science and they would disagree with you."

What are you talking about? You think if these guys were alive today they would be YE? What possible basis could you have for that assertion?

And you ignored the meat of my statement. I said "Once you set up the premise that Christianity is incompatible with evolution and you then follow that up without being able to demonstrate a young earth, you have given the atheists all the ammunition which they need. A Christian who asserts that if the earth is not young then his religion is false but then cannot support his assertion that the earth is indeed young is fighting the battle for the atheists."

"If the universe is indeed random, and without order or design then there would not be 'laws of nature' which are repeatable and testable."

What are you talking about? The universe functions according to the physical laws that God set up at the moment of creation.

"However the overall belief in evolution will remain unchanged. This demonstrates that evolution is a faith, not a science."

Then I suppose that chemistry and physics and medicine and astronomy and math and economics all must be faiths and not science since they, too, have changed as more has been learned.

"T'shaw - dude. Totally. [Wink] I think that the the Bible says that ALL scripture is inspired by God. Whether that scripture deals with history, science, or spiritual matters... it is all inspired. "

You did not address the point. Do you think that scientific instruction is what was intended? I assert that it is spiritural matters.

"There still isn't enough N14."

Enough for what? The levels of C13 and N14 are many orders of magnitude higher than the measured levels of C14. A very tiny amount being converted through known processes from background information is sufficient to give the observed levels.

"So instead of holding firm to what the Bible clearly teaches, lets change the Bible so that it's more compatible with the flaky pseudo-science of our day in which the only consistency is change?"

I can only assume that you think it was a mistake for believers to eventually come around to accepting the worg of those heretics Copernicus ans Galileo.

"Do you think Jesus was a literal person? Do you think Jesus is the son of God? Where did you get those notions? A person seriously seeking truth (in honesty) can only conclude that: 'From that book that science proves isn't literal? Well if creation isn't literal, than neither is Jesus.'"

This is known as the fallacy of the Slippery Slope with a bit of an Appeal to Consequences thrown in for good measure. Fallacies are not valid arguments.

"Why do you think that the biggest atheists in the world are trying to push the message 'you can believe in God and believe evolution'?"

Huh? WHich ones? Most that I have seen take your line that the two are incompatible and thus we should not believe in God.

"As do the meteorologists who use phrases like sunrise and sunset in our news broadcasts, right? You see - you have no intention of understanding the intended meaning. Moreover, you view of history is wrong. The Bible clearly supports a spherical earth:"

And you have a direct line to God and can tell which such statements are literal and which are figurative?

Have you ever considered that our modern terms might just be holdovers from when folks actually believed that it was the sun moving? Now where would they have got such an idea? Could it be from those Christians would persecuted those who claimed otherwise because they just knew that they had the right interpretation of Scripture and that it had to be literal?

As far as the verse you quote, why did the author use the word for a flat disk and not the word for a ball?

And just where have you ever seen the use of the term "morning" for a time other than the rising of the sun?

 

[Gup20]

Look at the debate thread. Where is the presentation of the Gospel in context with their argument?

You must be joking! Evolutionists here admit entirely that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with scripture. Their claims are that the Bible does not tell us how man was created, or by what forces. The evolutionists here are the ones who's posts are devoid of the Gospel!

Moreover, the claims of evolution undermine the reality of Jesus Christ!

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If Adam was a fictional character in an allegorical narrative, then so is Jesus. In fact Adam is THE REASON for Jesus. If we say that Adam wasn't a real person who's sin brought about real death, then what need would Jesus have to physically die? Under the framework of evoluton you can assert that Jesus was not a real man who did a real work, but a figurative person who performed a spiritual or mistical work.

You could say that Jesus is not the only way to salvation as he was simply a figurative character. You could say that all religions lead to God and what benefit does the Bible have over any other religion. By believing evolution, you undermine the whole foundation of the Gospel!

And what do you have all over the world in many christian arenas? You have pastors accepting homosexuality... you have pastors preaching things like "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe something". You have bible scholars getting together to cast marbles on which parts of the Bible and Jesus' life were real, and which were made up (who by the way end up with only a small handful of the 4 gospels they agree are authentic).

The YE movement is based on fear and nothing else.

Nothing else eh? So when we say that God created the earth in six days - that's a statement of fear and is not based on anything else? Well lets see here - is there anything... anything at all besides fear... that we might base it on. Is there anything besides fear. Nothing besides fear?

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

But we can ignore this scripture, right travelsong? This scripture is just based on fear and it's allegorical fairy tale - it's just mystical hand waving meant to keep those Israelites in check, right?
Afterall, travelson, it doesn't really matter if we believe in scripture - as long as we are good people and try not to hurt anyone, we'll find God.... right?

Irrational fear. That's exactly why none of the arguments address the evidence from God's creation.

Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

He said "Abraham - I need someone to bring evidence of this place back to my family. They won't believe it if someone simply tells them of this place". Abraham replies "they have the word of God - what more do they need?" The man disagrees and repeats "they need evidence". Abraham tells them - "If they can't believe the word of God, then they won't believe any evidence".

Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

All the evicence in the world isn't enough to convince people of the truth. We have presented overwhelming Biblical evidence as wells as a good deal of physical evidence.

However, the only game in town for evolutionists is to ignore the evidence presented. If you try to falsify creationist evolution, you have just admitted that creationist science is "falsifiable". You would have basically admitted that creation is science which you are desparate to avoid.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
If we say that Adam wasn't a real person who's sin brought about real death, then what need would Jesus have to physically die?

No reason at all! Unless Jesus loves people like me who can't measure up on their own.

Frankly, I am astounded at how many YECs seem to think that the only reason Jesus needed to die for them is because of what Adam did. The idea of personal accountability for falling short of God's standard seems to be an entirely foreign concept. If you can look yourself in the mirror and not see any need for Jesus to die, then I think you forgot to open your eyes.

All that aside, your argument is also flawed because many TEs believe Adam was a literal human being, and those who don't still believe that Adam stood for real human beings.

You could say that Jesus is not the only way to salvation as he was simply a figurative character. You could say that all religions lead to God and what benefit does the Bible have over any other religion.

The trouble is that in this forum, it's always the YECs who go on these dubious thought exercises. You often say we could say things like that, but it's always you who actually says them.

Maybe this is related to how it's always YECs who quote atheists as experts on philosophy and religion.

 

[UTEOTW]

I asked and you ignored how you can tell which journals I quote were written by Christians and which were not.

A 1997 Gallup poll found that 5% of scientists, of all types, were young earth while another 40% were theistic evolutionists. So the odds are close to even that any particular journal or source I may quote for you may have been written by a Christian.

So much for your assertion that I "never stop at providing us with frequent quotes from atheists to bolster [my] position."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

If you look, you will see that there is only a 1% difference in the rate of acceptance for theistic evolution between scientists and the general public.