The impossibilities of YEC

OK, but these verses do not describe a normal childbirth; they describe the creation of Adam and Eve by the direct act of God. Furthermore, the Bible refers to both man (Gen. 2:7) and animals (Gen. 2:19) as living creatures (or souls, the Hebrew is nephesh). The main distinction, as you noted, was that man was made in the image of God. How would Adam’s parents be different in any significant way from Adam? Why would we not consider them to be made in the image of God? Would it have been wrong to murder Adam’s parents (cf., Gen. 9:6)?

Andy

 

The scientific "facts" indicate no such thing. What you refer to as facts are nothing more than interpretations of the evidence. In your case, the premise for that interpretation is that all things we now see have a strictly and purely naturalistic explaination in the past. It is intellectually dishonest to call something that is simultaneously unobserved and unrepeatable, scientific fact.

Evolution is a system that attempts to explain what exists without relying on a supernatural force to get us here.

Elsewhere you said:

Your admission that "God could have" done as the Bible and creationists say He did reduces this debate to a philosophical, not scientific, one. The creative acts of God can by your own admission, albeit indirect, explain everything in nature once you stipulate the possibility that God was a direct Creator.

In the past, science has scoffed a "God in the gaps." Now, faced with folks who explain what we see in terms that still allow for a directly creative God, you reintroduce the idea that God could have but you don't believe He did.

So your philosophical viewpoint is that an omnipotent, omniscient Creator could have created the earth in a way consistent with a literal interpretation of His infallible Word but since the fallible, limited intellectual opinions of some men say He didn't- He must not have?

You are attempting to use the fallacy of limited alternatives. There is a third possibility that would be the one of my choosing: God established the natural laws as He created the universe and what you would term as a "lie" by God about the evidence is nothing more nor less than a failure by fallen, fallible men to accurately interpret the "evidence God created."

God's evidence of the resurrection was an empty tomb. The fact that many claimed/believed that Christ was stolen by His followers does not make God a liar. It made those men both scientifically and spiritually wrong.

 

This is a notion not proven nor stipulated. I would be interested in what evidence you can show that demonstrates that any biblical writer considered Genesis anything less than historical. Again, I would argue that it is a philosophical presupposition that requires this conclusion and not an incontrovertible proof.

 

I knew a guy in HS who grew pot in his closet by a lamp with a special bulb. Was God a lamp with a special bulb? He is an infinite God with infinite power that our puny minds can't begin to fathom.

Would you care to demonstrate how God raised His Son from the dead? Your salvation is based on this belief correct?

You must believe God is limited in His power.

[ June 19, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

I am not steering away from facts nor evidence. You presented your opinionated conclusions about unidentified facts and evidence. I am engaging you on that level.

There are a number of facets of my answer to this.

First, we should make such an assumption by the same reason that we assume that there is a heaven designed and created by God and that the resurrection and miracles were supernatural.

Second, I am not making any assumptions, absurd or otherwise. I am saying that you nor those whose explainations of this evidence your have adopted were witnesses to the events. I am saying that the conclusions you claim are fallible due to the limitations of the minds from which they originated. I am saying that human concepts of time, space, and matter do not limit God. I am saying that God does what He does for His own sovereign reasons by His own perfect will... man's freedom to misinterpret God's actions notwithstanding.

That's great, please read the thread to see what is being discussed here.</font>[/QUOTE] No need. By this statement, I am simply establishing that evolution is premised on philosophical predispositions, not hard scientific fact.

Um, did you read what I was responding to? All the evidence indicates an old earth.</font>[/QUOTE] With all due respect, this is an interpretive opinion, not a reliable, provable scientific fact. If God "could" do something you cannot summararily dismiss explainations of how He did it without evidence that is not open to interpretation or bias.

You have not burst my bubble. You are simply denying reality. These two are not mutually exclusive with regard to evolution. Evolution is not testable, not repeatable, not observable, and not the exclusively valid explaination for origins. It is at its core philosophical, not scientific.

Your acceptance or rejection of Genesis, again, is philosophical and has absolutely nothing to do with whether creation occurred in a way consistent with a literal interpretation. You are not dealing in the realm of fact. You have accepted opinions as fact and argue from that premise.

I couldn't disagree more. You have already demonstrated intellectual dishonesty by claiming that anyone who disagrees with your interpretations makes God a liar.

Having no more information on what your "faith" actually is, I couldn't go any further on your side but I suspect that your insenuation is that YECreationists are intellectually dishonest. I would reject that as well. Searching for theories of how creation was performed with respect to natural science while accepting the premise of an active, direct creator is no less valid than searching for answers while denying this same premise. In either case, the philosophical starting point goes a long way towards limiting what can be acknowledged as a viable option.

Operating under my beliefs on sotierology, evolution negates original sin and therefore the need for a Savior. Paul's explaination takes more faith than YEC as it is not proven by scripture, science, nor history. It is an assumption based on a presupposition. How can you say that this is more intellectually honest than accepting that because God could do something and said He did it... He did it?

That is an philosophical opinion not based in fact of any kind. Your rejection of a literal Genesis is by no means authoritative or conclusive. You seem to be the one now intent on steering the conversation away from the weaknesses in your position. Your presuppositions are philosophical and they do not limit science nor religion for anyone but you. In my opinion, you are simply denying these realities for convenience sake.

The scripture does not have unexplainable contradictions (the logical leaps you suppose). In my opinion, any form of evolution requires far more extreme leaps of logic whether dealing with the scientific or philosophical aspect.

How long did popular science say that Mt. St. Helens' ecosystem would take to recover? Compare to how long it did. How many fraudulent and misinterpretted "human ancestors" have been discovered and discredited within the secular scientific community itself? How many different estimates have been forwarded as scientific fact? How about that very simple black box that Darwin conjectured?

There are numerous examples where science has catagorically declared something true then found it to be false. You don't even need the creationists to find numerous examples.

Funny, no one is debating this issue in this thread. Nice strawman, try to stick to the actual issues instead of creating strawmen to valiantly destroy. </font>[/QUOTE]Not a straw man at all. It is simply a very valid demonstration that man's rejecting something supernatural based on a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence does not make God a liar.

 

I know of no plant that cannot survive without sun for several days. The northern dark winters demonstrate that some plants can survive for months without direct sunlight. Do you need further demonstrations or more specific illustrations?

 

This is a moot point anyway since God created plants on day 3 and the sun on day 4; plants can very easily survive a 24-hr period, as demonstrated by Scott J.

Under the millions of years to create theory. I’d like to know how did Adam, being created on day 6, only live to be 930 yrs old? Under the millions of year’s theory, Adam should be millions of years old. Somewhere, someone goofed. I’m betting my marbles on science.

 

Oh please, spare me your 'holier then thou' attitude. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you jump to this conclusion rather than dealing with the objection?

By what naturalistic means is God limited? What is your proof of that limitation?

I don't assume that you believe that God is limited in His power but you have certainly limited His options by stating definitively that God did not do what Genesis says.

 

I see, so you have biblical support for the meteor strikes? Let's see it then.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I am arguing that there is biblical support for the conclusion that "In the beginning God created..." followed by a timed account of that creation given in a manner that is not allegorical in nature nor assumed allegorical by other writers of scripture.

I am not arguing mechanics since events can be explained in all sorts of highly improbable but none the less possible ways. I am arguing presuppositions and their bearing on what you regard to be "fact" in this case and others.

No. I am saying that you can only say something unobserved is absolutely true if it is provable to the exclusion of all other options.

You cannot demonstrate that what you observe as a meteor strike is not some other act of God that resembles a meteor strike. Perhaps it is simply the detail that God created from the beginning without the use of meteors.

If you acknowledge an omnipotent God then you cannot discount these possibilities even if you think their probability is remote.

If you cannot disprove all possibilities that do not contradict God's direct creation of the earth in six days then your premise that YEC is impossible fails.

As I am not arguing evolution in this thread, I'm going to completely disregard this comment.</font>[/QUOTE] I see. So unless those that disagree with you submit to your presuppositions while debating this issue then you will close your ears and sing "Lalalalalalalala..."?

Right back at you. You can claim your naturalistic presuppositions as fact all you want (handwave) but that does not make them correct.

Common knowledge does not conclude a "fact". As rightly pointed out, many people in the past "commonly knew" that the earth was flat. And who says it is commonly known? If you accept an active omnipotent Creator these "commonly known" scientific facts fly out the window.

That was not my intent nor seemingly the purpose of the thread you started. You submitted that natural occurrences that appear to be meteor craters disprove YEC. I rejected your presuppositions that limit explainations because I disagree with you first and foremost on a philosophical level. We could go out and measure these craters and compare them to known craters and conjecture about their history and environmental impact all day long. You would favor explainations that agreed with your philosophical starting point and I would just as surely favor explainations that do not contradict the Genesis account of creation.

You continue to assert this but I am not the one who is offhandedly limiting your possible explainations nor denying the plausibility of their philosophical underpinnings- That would be you.

You said that this damage could not have been done within two days. Why? Is it physically impossible? Do you assume the same natural limitations for the world while being directly formed by God that we now see?

You said that it would raise too much dust for life to exist a few days later. However, this assumption discounts the supernatural completely and assumes to a great extent a uniformitarian model for natural history... a model that evolutionists are willing to dispense with if it becomes too inconvenient. We do not know what other completely natural forces might have been at play during this time.

I am not even drawing a conclusion that this is what occurred. I am saying that it is possible and as long as alternative explainations are possible your contention about the impossibility of YEC falls flat.

YEC is an impossibility for you, not because it is physically impossible but because it contradicts your presuppositions. Since your presuppositions are philosophical opinions and not unquestionable facts of any type, your argument fails.

 

First, God demonstrates throughout the scripture that He is not limited by natural laws.

Second, you still miss the point- purposefully I suspect. The "appearance of age" is an interpretation. Your fallible interpretation does not require God to be a liar if your interpretation is incorrect.

 

You are kidding, right? It means that there are short periods of twilight for parts of the northern winter that would be of little benefit to the plants.

This presupposes that God was not directly active in the first three days of creation. Since I accept that a literal interpretation is not only possible but preferrable, I reject this fallible presupposition.