How do you literal YECer's "defend" your position in light of such overwhelming evidence....

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Do you think the Bible teaches Darwinism? Was Moses a Darwinist?

No and no. Just as it does not teach heliocentrism, the role of bacteria in causing disease, the existence of galaxies, gravity, electromagnetism, or plate tectonics. Moses knew nothing about any of these things, nor did any other biblical writer, so none of them feature in biblical teaching. So? Should we teach none of these in high school?


Do you think the fossil record shows one thing evolving into another??

Depends on what you mean by this. The fossil record clearly provides evidence for evolution, but it rarely shows a transition from one species to another for reasons well set out by Gould and Eldredge. In fact, if we did have all the fossils in a transition from one species to another, you would not be able to pick out the generation in which species X became species Y. Nor would you be able to pick out which of several similar fossils (X1, X2, X3, etc.) was the direct ancestor of species Y. Yet it would be clear that species Y emerged as a variant of species X or one of its near relatives.

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

As do I. But it also means the author never intended to write an objective, scientific account to be understood as literally as a lab report. Nevertheless, all attempts to reconcile the biblical story with the scientific understanding are IMO strained and weak. We should just accept that the biblical author was not writing science or even history in the sense used by modern standards and focus instead on understanding it as it was meant to be understood in its own time. There is great wisdom there but it is not meant to be used as a weapon against scientific discoveries about the age of the earth or the origin of humanity.



That pesky fossil record. :)

Patterson: "You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.

This old chestnut has been thoroughly refuted and is only used by people who do not understand the context.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The evidence is ridiculously inconclusive and the age of the earth is irrelevant.

I see. You just close your eyes to the evidence and use these mantras to justify deliberate obtuseness.



Don't you think it odd that there are no chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record and yet we have hundreds of fossilized ancestors in ours? Every time a fossilized ape is dug up in Africa it's automatically our ancestor and if there were no chimpanzees alive today there would be no evidence they ever existed.

Nothing automatic about it. The jungle environment in which chimpanzees live and lived is notoriously poor in fossils of any kind. But the assignment of whatever fossils are found is based on anatomy, not automatic assumptions.



Simple, the heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning', life was created about 6.000 years ago. I don't see the problem.

The problem, as if you did not actually know it, is the evidence----abundant evidence---of life, including human life, populating the earth at much earlier times.



If you mean a literal interpretation of Scripture, God did.

A private revelation?



When the New Testament describes miracles is that literal or figurative?

One would have to check that out on a case-by-case basis. Some scholars believe at least some miracle stories are parables in disguise.



The historical narratives of the New Testament, literal or figurative?

Mostly literal, but not necessarily historical.



We love you to, how do you discern between figurative language and literal historical narratives in Scripture?

Discerning figurative from literal language is not terribly difficult. But distinguishing between literal narrative and literal historical narrative can be almost impossible. But omitting the option of literal narrative which is not historical, you have assumed something which cannot be taken for granted--namely that "literal" includes the characteristic of "actual" or "historical". That conflates two different categories altogether: the literary category of "literal" vs. "figurative" language and the scientific category of whether or not the account concords with the evidence of actual events. Each of these should be considered separately.

It is not uncommon for a narrative to be literal but not refer to actual events. For the most part, Jesus' parables were literal, but also fictional. There was no apparent symbolism in them. Yet the disciples understood them to be symbolic and asked for the symbolic interpretations.

Now how do you distinguish between literal narrative that is not historical and literal narrative that is historical?
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The fossil record is some of the best evidence for creation and against evolution.

"If one politician is running a negative campaign against another politician, and the most (condemning) thing he can say is that the other guy got one parking ticket 28 years ago, the weakness of the charge is better evidence of innocence than guilt. If the best transitional form evolutionists can come up with is Tiktaalik, then the weakness of their claim is better evidence against evolution than for it."
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v10i8n.htm

An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported — a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms’ lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
No evolution supports evolution? I wish that would work at my job. My absence would be evidence I'm there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Do you think the Bible teaches Darwinism? Was Moses a Darwinist?
Do you think the fossil record shows one thing evolving into another??

No and no. Just as it does not teach heliocentrism, the role of bacteria in causing disease, the existence of galaxies, gravity, electromagnetism, or plate tectonics. Moses knew nothing about any of these things, nor did any other biblical writer, so none of them feature in biblical teaching.

So then what "do you think" the Bible teaches in Gen 1:2-2:3 and Ex 20:11?? A literal 7 day creation week?

Clearly the subject is "origins"

Clearly the timeline is given "Six days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the 7th day" Ex 20:8-11

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68192486"]Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How do you literal YECer's defend your position in light of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary...?
Since YEC is based on supernatural creation -- or miracles -- we would expect that there be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In fact, a prediction of YEC is that there be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We would expect that natural evidence is incapable of explaining supernatural events and will sometimes contradict them.

The virgin birth of a human and the resurrection of that same human are two examples of supernatural creation being contradicted by natural evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
The evidence is ridiculously inconclusive and the age of the earth is irrelevant.

Your wrong, have you seen the person who posts here regularly with a skeletal chart that clearly shows that some of us, maybe not today, but in the past (pre-flood) "evolved"

How can you say that the age of the earth is irrelevant, it is clearly much, much older than six-thousand years old, how do you explain the dinosaurs?

Don't you think it odd that there are no chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record and yet we have hundreds of fossilized ancestors in ours? Every time a fossilized ape is dug up in Africa it's automatically our ancestor and if there were no chimpanzees alive today there would be no evidence they ever existed.

We have a common ancestor, that was between ape and humanoid, some call caveman, or neanderthal...


Simple, the heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning', life was created about 6.000 years ago. I don't see the problem.

Wrong, you beliefs need to "evolve" think higher, consider "all" the possibilities...


If you mean a literal interpretation of Scripture, God did.

That's a major assumption on our part, and you know what they say about assumptions, God never said "interpret these things literally" or literal truth is the only kind of truth there is...


When the New Testament describes miracles is that literal or figurative?

The NT, and everything in the OT, post flood is literal, but the more important interpretation (that gives us spiritual revelation) is another interpretation, that you call figurative, that can also be symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, and I can't think of the rest, but the more important interpretation is the one that gives us spiritual revelation, and this is, in most cases not from a literal interpretation...



The historical narratives of the New Testament, literal or figurative?

Answered above.



We love you to, how do you discern between figurative language and literal historical narratives in Scripture?

Baloney!

Grace and peace,
Mark

Answered above...

God Bless!, Jay
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Or, do you suppose when Jesus said "You must be born again" implying that you must die to your former self, did he mean a "literal" death or "literal" new birth? No, he meant this in another way... "Spiritually" or spiritual interpretation seems to be something different from literal...

Or, was Jesus "lying" because he didn't mean this literally?

And in his parables, he oftentimes said, "what shall I "liken" the kingdom of God too?", then he would say what it was "like" or alike to, but not literally, but perhaps symbolically, but not literally...

But, I guess by your definition, if Jesus didn't mean these literally, then he was a liar, right?

God Bless!, Jay
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

random person

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20
Dec 10, 2013
3,646
262
Riverside California
✟14,087.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The creation story is a poetic, psalm-like rendering not literal.

The fossil record suggests the world would be a crowded place full of deadly and/or giant oversized pursuit and ambush quadrupedal, bipedal, and winged predators that might discover humans more manageable than their favorite prey items.

dinos.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You'll need to open the quote to see most of my response.

Sure, but what percentage of the earth's surface do any of them cover at one time? There is no way you can get more than a minuscule sampling of any generation from such sources. And in any one place, you will not get a continuous record. So the very nature of fossilization is that the record must be spotty---a bit here, a bit there--very seldom any continuous record for an extended period of time.

Admittedly they cover a very small percentage of the earth's surface, but they do occur and there are living organisms that become trapped within them. I'm not sure that a 'continuous record in one place' is even what we are looking for. I'm perfectly happy to take a continuous record built up from hundreds or thousands of places.

Sure, here's a Wikipedia article on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters
Anoxic conditions are not at all uncommon and can be ideal for fossil preservation. As the article says, one anoxic basin in the Baltic Sea "has left remarkably preserved fossils retaining impressions of soft body parts, in Lagerstätten."

I read the article and you have a couple of misstatements that are not supported by the article. It does mention that 'anoxic conditions' are common in muddy ocean floors. It does not ever allude to the fact that they are just common across the surface of the earth as a whole. The article never even touches on its effect or probability of creating fossils. It merely says that natural decomposition takes longer.

Well, there are plenty of pictures of the Baltic Sea fossils. See what you get when you do a search for them.

Don't doubt that there are, just not sold on the anoxic condition as being the cause of the fossils. It is just as possible that like many other places where we seem to find more fossils than others, that there is some other reason that this also includes the area of the Baltic Sea.

The thing is with ordinary dirt, there are plenty of micro-organisms living in them which cause the decomposition and lots of water to keep them alive. But in the desiccated conditions of a sand desert, there are few decay organisms, so decay is slower, and slowed further still as the body or bones are covered with more sand. Of course, the burial can also happen very quickly during a sandstorm.

Ok, I get that. So, why don't we find a slew of dead bodies still lying in the sand. Surely in the middle east there have been dozens of wars and conflicts over the last few millenia where people have just fallen down dead where they were slain. Yes, today most nations make an effort to pick up the bodies of their slain countrymen, but not so much 1,000 - 2,000 years ago or more. Most living organisms contain within their own bodies, the bacteria that cause tissue breakdown. Today, when a person dies, in very short time their bodies become bloated and it isn't because some outside bacteria has gotten to them. It is because the bacteria within their stomach and colon at the time they died have begun to destroy their host.

Well, except for meteorites, all the material of which rock is formed has been here from the beginning. But rocks change over time like anything else. Water and wind and exposure to freezing temperatures erodes rock and creates sediment: the source of eventual sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is folded and deformed by pressure and heat. Ocean sediments are sub ducted into the earth's mantle and become molten, and molten rock comes to the surface again in volcanoes. From what I have heard, no rocks found on earth are in their original condition, so none can be dated to the time of their original creation. They can only be reliably dated to the last time they were in a molten condition. This is why sedimentary rock cannot be used in radiometric dating. We wouldn't get the date the sedimentary rock formed, but the older date of the igneous rock from which it was eroded. The best that can be done with sedimentary rock is to find layers of datable rock that "frame" the sediments so we have a before and after date. In a number of places, this is provided by layers of ash from recurring volcanoes.

Well, that would be true if rocks 'formed'. All indications I've seen is that rocks don't form. Sedimentary or shale construction can form, but rocks, as far as I know, have never been proven to form. I'm also not sure that your 'subduction' process is carried on across the globe. Yes, in areas where we do have a lot of volcanic activity there is magma expelled from the hotter confines of the earth's lower core, but there are honestly not enough volcanoes to support that this is some chain of events that effects all the rock and dirt surfaces of the globe.

I also full understand how fossils and sedimentary rock are dated, my point is that I don't think the base line that is assumed is correct. Therefore, what you refer to as 'datable' rock is what actually confounds the process. When you speak of 'datable' rock, you are referring to the rocks that are dated using the various methods of dating. I'm not convinced that those methods are based on what is true, but rather on what we assume to be true.

As I've previously claimed and supported on many of these threads, my conviction is that nothing, from one end of the known or unknown universe to the other, existed more than about 6,000 years ago. God created this realm. This entire physical 'place' that we call the universe, in the beginning. He then roughly dated that beginning as being from five days before Adam was created through a chronology of time based on the the ages of the descendants of Adam to about the time of the exile in Egypt. From there we get a list of judges and kings who ruled over Israel from which we can continue this 'rough' timeline of history until Jesus. Once Jesus came, the whole earth set a timeline which we call A.D. To me, it is merely amazing that the whole earth, up until we started using the 'common era' designation, has been dating time from pretty much what is believed to be the coming of the Lord.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
You'll need to open the quote to see most of my response.



Well, that would be true if rocks 'formed'. All indications I've seen is that rocks don't form. Sedimentary or shale construction can form, but rocks, as far as I know, have never been proven to form. I'm also not sure that your 'subduction' process is carried on across the globe. Yes, in areas where we do have a lot of volcanic activity there is magma expelled from the hotter confines of the earth's lower core, but there are honestly not enough volcanoes to support that this is some chain of events that effects all the rock and dirt surfaces of the globe.

I also full understand how fossils and sedimentary rock are dated, my point is that I don't think the base line that is assumed is correct. Therefore, what you refer to as 'datable' rock is what actually confounds the process. When you speak of 'datable' rock, you are referring to the rocks that are dated using the various methods of dating. I'm not convinced that those methods are based on what is true, but rather on what we assume to be true.


The only reason you are not convinced of the reliability of the dating methods (which you agree you are not familiar with) is that the results obtained contradict your beliefs. You have no evidence which casts doubt on them. I understand your conviction. Your beliefs are important to you. But what this leads to is that such strong beliefs cancel out evidence; evidence is to be ignored and not allowed to influence beliefs.

I consider this to be a travesty of faith. I do not accept that faith can be immune to evidence. For me, faith must accept well established natural evidence as the testimony of God. Whatever is, in nature, is the work of God, for it is certainly not the work of human beings. How else, I ask, can we believe that this world is God's creation, if we do not accept the actual creation we experience and learn about as God's work? If instead of the creation as it is, we claim falsehoods about it, depict it as it is not, and say: "I believe this non-existent fairy-tale is what God created six thousand years ago", not because we have to, but because we give more importance to a man-made dogma of literal interpretation than to what God actually made.

Calvin and other great teachers of the faith had it right: we need to recognize that we have two books from God: the testimony of Holy Scripture and the testimony of Holy Creation. We cannot come to a clear understanding without using both of them.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Or, do you suppose when Jesus said "You must be born again" implying that you must die to your former self, did he mean a "literal" death or "literal" new birth? No, he meant this in another way... "Spiritually" or spiritual interpretation seems to be something different from literal...

Or, was Jesus "lying" because he didn't mean this literally?

And in his parables, he oftentimes said, "what shall I "liken" the kingdom of God too?", then he would say what it was "like" or alike to, but not literally, but perhaps symbolically, but not literally...

But, I guess by your definition, if Jesus didn't mean these literally, then he was a liar, right?

God Bless!, Jay
Why do you think something spiritual things is less real than physical? Jesus told Nicodemus " If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, If I tell you of heavenly things?" Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Both the literal heaven and literal earth.

You must literal be born again.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Why do you think something spiritual things is less real than physical? Jesus told Nicodemus " If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, If I tell you of heavenly things?" Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Both the literal heaven and literal earth.

You must literal be born again.

I believe that spiritual things, and spiritual interpretations are MORE REAL, not less real, than physical or literal... (haven't you paid attention to my other posts, if you had, this should be obvious)

When Jesus spoke of heavenly things, usually by "relating" it to something earthly, or literal, or physical, he did not mean "heaven" is "literally" like this, but that it is "spiritually" like this, which; what is "spiritual" interpretation?, since it's not literal, what is another word for spiritual interpretation?

When Jesus said to cut your hand off, or pluck one of your eyes out, or eat his flesh and drink his blood, did he mean this "literally"? I don't think so, he was speaking spiritually, but I guess since he wasn't speaking literally, and for those of you who think literally is the only truth, then I guess Jesus was lying...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The only reason you are not convinced of the reliability of the dating methods (which you agree you are not familiar with) is that the results obtained contradict your beliefs. You have no evidence which casts doubt on them. I understand your conviction. Your beliefs are important to you. But what this leads to is that such strong beliefs cancel out evidence; evidence is to be ignored and not allowed to influence beliefs.

I consider this to be a travesty of faith. I do not accept that faith can be immune to evidence. For me, faith must accept well established natural evidence as the testimony of God. Whatever is, in nature, is the work of God, for it is certainly not the work of human beings. How else, I ask, can we believe that this world is God's creation, if we do not accept the actual creation we experience and learn about as God's work? If instead of the creation as it is, we claim falsehoods about it, depict it as it is not, and say: "I believe this non-existent fairy-tale is what God created six thousand years ago", not because we have to, but because we give more importance to a man-made dogma of literal interpretation than to what God actually made.

Calvin and other great teachers of the faith had it right: we need to recognize that we have two books from God: the testimony of Holy Scripture and the testimony of Holy Creation. We cannot come to a clear understanding without using both of them.

Hi glaudys,

Well, in a way you're correct. My greatest reason for denying that dating methods used are correct is that they are not in line with what I believe the Scriptures teach. However, I have done some study of them and it was during that study that I came across a piece of Scripture that I had never really paid a lot of attention to before.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I will admit that I found that when I considered and studied the dating methods, in almost those exact words, people would proclaim that the particular science that 'proved' such things was based on the basic principles of this world. The belief that the universe is so old because of starlight is based on the basic principles of how starlight acts and it is an amazingly deceptive philosophy that turns us away from the truth of God to the truth of men. Friend, you are free to believe what you have convinced yourself is the truth, just as I hope you will allow me, but that is my explanation for 'why' I believe as I do. All the dating methods of men are all based on the basic principles of the world and are insidiously deceptive. I mean, look, there are people who believe these things and also believe that they are following God.

Jesus spoke of a time coming when men will kill other men and think to themselves that they are doing it for God's glory. This same basic principle of human nature is at work in the dating of the earth also. Men think to themselves that because they have found the 'truth' about the age of the creation that they are showing God's glory. Each one of us must go with what we have convinced ourselves in our heart is the truth.

The God I know did merely say that the earth should exist and it did! He did then give the earth all the necessary ingredients needed to support the life of man and to cause the earth to exist from millenium to millenium of its own accord. Then when all was ready and in place, He created the man for which He created the earth to sustain. That all took place about 6,000 years ago, according to the timeline of the Scriptures. Do men say that that isn't true? Of course! Men have always denied the truth of God.

Unfortunately, I'm not so convinced that the men whose testimony you give to support your understanding were any more 'religious' than you are. You seem to obviously be a very wise person who thinks himself to be right and finds confirmation of that among other men who believe as you do. I am the same, but the place I find my confirmation is the Scriptures and insofar as others agree with the Scriptures, I am in agreement with them.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I believe that spiritual things, and spiritual interpretations are MORE REAL, not less real, than physical or literal... (haven't you paid attention to my other posts, if you had, this should be obvious)

When Jesus spoke of heavenly things, usually by "relating" it to something earthly, or literal, or physical, he did not mean "heaven" is "literally" like this, but that it is "spiritually" like this, which; what is "spiritual" interpretation?, since it's not literal, what is another word for spiritual interpretation?

When Jesus said to cut your hand off, or pluck one of your eyes out, or eat his flesh and drink his blood, did he mean this "literally"? I don't think so, he was speaking spiritually, but I guess since he wasn't speaking literally, and for those of you who think literally is the only truth, then I guess Jesus was lying...

God Bless!
Again literally doesn't always mean physically.
You only know what you already know. If I don't know a definition of a word I look it up to find more words ... hopefully words I already know. The same when Jesus taught spiritual things he often define it to earthly things the person already knows. "You must be born again" for example.

It's like "apples are red". A-p-p-l-e-s are not red but what those letters represent. Just because the symbols that I used are not literally red doesn't mean the statement "apples are red" can't be taken literally.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The short answer is that it is simpler and safer to believe God than men, and some of the smartest men believe God. The fossil record simply shows that large numbers of animals died and were fossilized after the Flood. It does not disprove creation unless you invent a myth about the fossils.

BTW a Theistic Evolutionist is as much an oxymoron as a Believing Atheist. If indeed God's creation evolved then it would falsify the 4th commandment.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The short answer is that it is simpler and safer to believe God than men, and some of the smartest men believe God. The fossil record simply shows that large numbers of animals died and were fossilized after the Flood. It does not disprove creation unless you invent a myth about the fossils.

BTW a Theistic Evolutionist is as much an oxymoron as a Believing Atheist. If indeed God's creation evolved then it would falsify the 4th commandment.

It seems to me that a greater oxymoron is a person who calls themselves a "creationist" defending the doctrine of "creation" who dares not study created things because they contradict his/her preconception of when and how creation occurred.

If the light of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, then turning away from the evidence in creation itself is effectively saying that Christ is a liar. Creation is God's primary Word to all of us; that is why scripture so often appeals to the testimony of the creation. So, in a strangely contorted way, "creationism" which turns its back on the creation is also turning its back on the scripture it appeals to. It has no basis in either God's Word or God's works, but only in a dogma of literalism that comes from men, not God.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Hi glaudys,

Well, in a way you're correct. My greatest reason for denying that dating methods used are correct is that they are not in line with what I believe the Scriptures teach. However, I have done some study of them and it was during that study that I came across a piece of Scripture that I had never really paid a lot of attention to before.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I will admit that I found that when I considered and studied the dating methods, in almost those exact words, people would proclaim that the particular science that 'proved' such things was based on the basic principles of this world.

I think you had better study some Greek, both the Greek in which the NT was written, and something of the current philosophies of the time. Then you might have a better understanding of what Paul was referring to here.

It's not the natural laws by which God governs the universe.


Jesus spoke of a time coming when men will kill other men and think to themselves that they are doing it for God's glory. This same basic principle of human nature is at work in the dating of the earth also.

Oh, that is really a stretch. Unfortunately, people of many beliefs have justified atrocities in God's name. All too many of them have been Christian. But as many or more of them denied science as supported it. In fact, studies show that on average, atheists are less violent and less prone to kill people for their beliefs than theists of any stripe are. That just data, not me promoting atheism.


Men think to themselves that because they have found the 'truth' about the age of the creation that they are showing God's glory. Each one of us must go with what we have convinced ourselves in our heart is the truth.

That's true. And I do think that the more we learn of the world, whether it is its age, its composition, the details of biological phenomena, the interconnections of food webs, all sorts of things, it does show God's glory more and more and more. I don't believe at all in the value of ignorance.


The God I know did merely say that the earth should exist and it did!

Same here. I just don't think we should insert an "instantly" that is not in scripture anyway. I can see God enunciating the divine Fiat and the material world responding through whatever period of time it needs to accomplish God's will. After all, scripture also tells us God is patient.

He did then give the earth all the necessary ingredients needed to support the life of man and to cause the earth to exist from millenium to millenium of its own accord. Then when all was ready and in place, He created the man for which He created the earth to sustain. That all took place about 6,000 years ago, according to the timeline of the Scriptures. Do men say that that isn't true?


No, men, and women, don't say it isn't true. They say it isn't intended to be a literal number. The scriptures are filled with many symbolic numbers, and a good many students of scripture considered the number of days to be one of them millennia before any one could begin to measure the age of the earth. It didn't take knowledge of science to come to that conclusion. Science just corroborates the long-standing view that the creation story of Genesis 1 is much more like a hymn of praise to the Creator than a literal description of the event of creation. There are good symbolic reasons for the choice of one week as the time-frame of creation. And no need to insist on literal days, much less a particular number of years which is not mentioned in scripture at all.

BTW, are you sure God created the earth primarily to sustain human beings? According to scripture God created humans to sustain what he had created.



Unfortunately, I'm not so convinced that the men whose testimony you give to support your understanding were any more 'religious' than you are.

Do you know how arrogant that sounds? Who are you to make judgments of people honoured for centuries as great men (& women) of God? This is what excessive skepticism comes to: complete solecism.


You seem to obviously be a very wise person who thinks himself to be right and finds confirmation of that among other men who believe as you do.

The correct pronoun is "herself". I thought you knew that Ted.

I am the same, but the place I find my confirmation is the Scriptures and insofar as others agree with the Scriptures, I am in agreement with them.

No, you are in agreement with those who have interpreted scripture for you and given you a way to understand it. I just think your teachers were wrong and (probably inadvertently) misled you. You might try some of your skepticism on them. Why, really why, should we default to a literal interpretation of scripture at any point? And even if there are passages where a literal interpretation is justified, why is it justified in Genesis 1? I know of no satisfactory answer to that question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please open quote to see entire response.

I think you had better study some Greek, both the Greek in which the NT was written, and something of the current philosophies of the time. Then you might have a better understanding of what Paul was referring to here.

It's not the natural laws by which God governs the universe.

Well, you are certainly free to believe that. I don't.

Oh, that is really a stretch. Unfortunately, people of many beliefs have justified atrocities in God's name. All too many of them have been Christian. But as many or more of them denied science as supported it. In fact, studies show that on average, atheists are less violent and less prone to kill people for their beliefs than theists of any stripe are. That just data, not me promoting atheism.

Yes, and that is pretty much my point. Men have, since the beginning, worked to deny the reality of God and who He is by their great wisdom. You probably use a much looser definition of 'christian' than I do. To me, a 'christian' is one who follows the teachings of Christ. So, while some of those involved in these events that we are discussing surely self-identified themselves as 'christians', I'm not so convinced that God ever counted them among those who followed the teachings of His Son. When I read Jesus' words to his disciples about the day of judgment in which many will be crying out to him, "Lord, Lord. Did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons?" I'm fairly confident that those people who are crying out, when they lived upon the earth, identified themselves as 'christians'. The problem is that Jesus seems to hold a different understanding than they had about what it meant to follow him.

I'm sure that your data is probably correct. Atheists don't really have anything to defend. We're all nothing and will be nothing and nothing follows. What's to defend in that. I have always agreed that many who emblazon the name 'christian' over their heads are a murderous lot, but the question above still stands. Are they 'christians' as Jesus defines 'christian', or are they 'christians' as they define 'christian'. We all lie to ourselves and most often think the best of ourselves and believe that what we believe is the truth. Is it? I'm not particularly swayed by statistics that say a body of people who self-identify as 'christians' are more murderous than atheists. I just don't agree that such people are 'christians'.

When the pope in the days of the inquisitions were approving of murdering heretics, I don't define them as 'christians'. Yes, if you were to have asked them they would certainly say they were, but a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. So, if by their actions they were showing bad fruit, then they weren't good trees to start with.


That's true. And I do think that the more we learn of the world, whether it is its age, its composition, the details of biological phenomena, the interconnections of food webs, all sorts of things, it does show God's glory more and more and more. I don't believe at all in the value of ignorance.

Well, personally I value wisdom over knowledge and would rather be ignorant and wise than knowledgeable without wisdom.

Same here. I just don't think we should insert an "instantly" that is not in scripture anyway. I can see God enunciating the divine Fiat and the material world responding through whatever period of time it needs to accomplish God's will. After all, scripture also tells us God is patient.

I will allow you the right to insert or not insert as you see fit.

No, men, and women, don't say it isn't true. They say it isn't intended to be a literal number. The scriptures are filled with many symbolic numbers, and a good many students of scripture considered the number of days to be one of them millennia before any one could begin to measure the age of the earth. It didn't take knowledge of science to come to that conclusion. Science just corroborates the long-standing view that the creation story of Genesis 1 is much more like a hymn of praise to the Creator than a literal description of the event of creation. There are good symbolic reasons for the choice of one week as the time-frame of creation. And no need to insist on literal days, much less a particular number of years which is not mentioned in scripture at all.

Yes, that's what men and women say. Yes, the Scriptures are full of many symbolic numbers. Yes, if we believe science than that is what we must believe about the Genesis account. Fortunately, I don't suffer that problem.

BTW, are you sure God created the earth primarily to sustain human beings? According to scripture God created humans to sustain what he had created.

Yes, absolutely! And no, God did not create man to 'sustain' what He had created. He asked man to care for that which He created. It is sustained by Him.

Do you know how arrogant that sounds? Who are you to make judgments of people honoured for centuries as great men (& women) of God? This is what excessive skepticism comes to: complete solecism.

I'm just a person the same as you with the freedom to make decisions about others and their actions the same as you. So, you think it bad manners on my part to make judgments concerning what long dead people have believed and taught. You are free to think that.

The correct pronoun is "herself". I thought you knew that Ted.

Oh, we may have discussed your gender in some time past, but I'm old, I forget. Please accept my apologies. It wasn't written to offend. The legends don't tell us anymore about one's gender and so I just usually accept the male pronouns if I don't know which I'm responding to. Thanks for the correction.

No, you are in agreement with those who have interpreted scripture for you and given you a way to understand it. I just think your teachers were wrong and (probably inadvertently) misled you. You might try some of your skepticism on them. Why, really why, should we default to a literal interpretation of scripture at any point? And even if there are passages where a literal interpretation is justified, why is it justified in Genesis 1? I know of no satisfactory answer to that question.

I understand that you believe that you have me all figured out and know with certainty how I came to believe as I believe and I will admit that it may have been earlier training that started me on this path of believing God's word as a literal explanation of how we got here, why we're here and who God is, although I'm not absolutely sure myself that it was, but no, my convictions today regarding all that God has caused to be written to me that I might know these things comes purely from the Scriptures and, I believe, the truth that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would give those who are so born.

For me, the satisfactory answer comes from God's own defining of the days as consisting of a morning and an evening. Ages are never so defined. For me, the satisfactory answer comes because I know that a day does not mean daylight and nighttime, but merely is defined as a rotation of the planet. Therefore, day one, whether there was a sun or moon in the heavens, passed when the earth completed its first rotation on its axis. For me, the satisfactory answer comes when I read that God did twice more in the Scriptures, several thousand years after the creation when men would know what an age or a day was, did continue to define the creative event as consisting of six days. When He established the practice of the Sabbath in Israel He clearly said to them, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth..." This is being written some 2,000 years after the creation event and I'm confident that had God meant that we not understand that they were six literal days just like men had lived some 720,000 of up to that point, He would have found a better way to say it. Lastly, for me, the satisfactory answer comes because I know God. I know that God can speak this universe into existence in exactly the time that He claims to have done it and whether men will ever be able to figure that out... not so much. By the time that the 12 sons of Israel made it to Egypt, men were already worshiping sun gods and moon gods and a god for this and a god for that. People are no different today than they were 4,000 years ago. We have greater technology for sure, but our nature is still the same.

We all believe things to be true. The question for each of us is... is it? What is the truth? Many look to man to answer that question. I look to God. God has given a reasonably concise explanation that He created this realm in which we live in six days. The earth and all the stars and heavenly bodies of our entire universe came to exist by the command of God within that six day time frame. On the sixth day He created the first man, Adam, and then gently holds our hand as He lists the descendants of Adam and the years of their age so that we can make a fairly precise calculation as to 'when' the creation event - the days in which God commanded the building of this realm - took place. And yes, God's sole purpose for creating this realm was that man, the magnum opus of His creation, could live. Man, whose life and duty is to sing His praises and glory for the very air that we breath and food that we eat and life that we live, is why God created the heavens and the earth. Angels certainly don't need it and God doesn't need it. God existed long before He ever spoke the heavens and the earth to exist and the Scriptures allude that the angels also lived before the heavens and the earth were commanded to exist. God could have continued His eternal existence with just the angels, but God is love and part of that love is shown by His creating creatures to love. Both the angels and man serve this purpose for Him.

One day, God is going to bring this realm to a close and on that day all the angels who reside in the heavenly realm and all people who reside in the physical realm in which we live will be judged and will receive their due recompense. On that day, those who marvel at God's abilities will actually see a city come down from heaven. Just like the universe that we live in today, it will just appear. The walls of that city will be made of stone that is new and on that day we will be able to ask scientists how old those stones are and find out whether their measuring devices tell us the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

random person

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20
Dec 10, 2013
3,646
262
Riverside California
✟14,087.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
It seems to me that a greater oxymoron is a person who calls themselves a "creationist" defending the doctrine of "creation" who dares not study created things because they contradict his/her preconception of when and how creation occurred.

If the light of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, then turning away from the evidence in creation itself is effectively saying that Christ is a liar. Creation is God's primary Word to all of us; that is why scripture so often appeals to the testimony of the creation. So, in a strangely contorted way, "creationism" which turns its back on the creation is also turning its back on the scripture it appeals to. It has no basis in either God's Word or God's works, but only in a dogma of literalism that comes from men, not God.

Well put. The Genesis creation account is written like a psalm or a Biblical piece of poetry. What is literal and what is metaphor is far too flexible.

When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden, what type of world would have greeted them if there were hundreds of competing species of carnivorous giant amphibians, carnivorous therapods, crocodiles, megafauna, and pterosaurs.

Some were pursuit predators and others were ambush predators.

It wouldn't be safe in the open spaces, it wouldn't be safe in the woods, it wouldn't be safe in the caves, it wouldn't be safe near the water.

From walking in the cool of the day in the presence of God in the Garden to cast out into a wilderness represented by every predator found in the Paleozoic ages, Mesozoic ages, and Cenozoic ages respectfully.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Please open quote to see entire response.



I understand that you believe that you have me all figured out and know with certainty how I came to believe as I believe and I will admit that it may have been earlier training that started me on this path of believing God's word as a literal explanation of how we got here, why we're here and who God is, although I'm not absolutely sure myself that it was, but no, my convictions today regarding all that God has caused to be written to me that I might know these things comes purely from the Scriptures and, I believe, the truth that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would give those who are so born.

You are kidding yourself, Ted. Nobody, and I mean nobody, not you, not me, not anyone gets their beliefs "purely from the Scriptures". Everyone has only heard the scriptures as someone has interpreted to them. There is no way to come to any belief relative to the scriptures other than by choosing the interpretation that makes sense to you.

No doubt the preachers and teachers you learned from emphasized the importance of a literal understanding of Genesis; no doubt they affirmed that a young earth made in six days is what the scripture literally taught. No doubt you respect them and have no reason to consider they might be mistaken. And indeed, as long as you focus on scripture and read it as you were taught to read it, the way you understand it makes sense. But you no more learned this way of understanding scripture purely from the scriptures than I did.
 
Upvote 0