I'm wondering ...

[RichardT]

What do TE's think of these verses ?

II Peter 3
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

hahaha.... Got you there !

 

[gluadys]

What do TE's think of these verses ?

II Peter 3
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

hahaha.... Got you there !

Is the fire by which this world will be destroyed physical fire or spiritual fire? Remember, Peter is invoking a past judgment to warn of a future judgment.

 

[RichardT]

Is the fire by which this world will be destroyed physical fire or spiritual fire? Remember, Peter is invoking a past judgment to warn of a future judgment.

I would say physical

 

[gluadys]

I would say physical

Then, of course, you understand the water of the flood to be physical as well.

But one can equally well understand both to be non-physical.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So, you believe that all TE's scoff at any idea of future judgment? Care to fill us in on how you came to this idea? Did you actually talk to any TE's that said things like this? Did some radio show or preacher tell you that TE's scoff at the idea of judgment?

 

[shernren]

This passage does not condemn the TE view of a universe with a long age, a finite beginning and a linear history. It instead speaks against a classical Greek view of infinite age, no beginning and a cyclic history. Their reasoning was that as far back as we have seen history repeats itself; that there has been no judgment in history so far; and therefore that there will be no judgment in the future to come.

Thus Peter's answer was that they forget that the world was created (has the world ever been created again? therefore history is not cyclic) and that the world has been judged before (so that even if history is cyclic, there has been judgment before and there will be again).

Note that TEs disagree with none of this. They agree that the universe has a finite age with a definite beginning. They agree that God created it, and they agree that Genesis says it was made from water. Or what else do you have in mind that TEism cannot accommodate.

 

[WAB]

Is the fire by which this world will be destroyed physical fire or spiritual fire? Remember, Peter is invoking a past judgment to warn of a future judgment.

and so... since the Flood was "spiritual" water, it really did not have any physical effects?

 

[RichardT]

and so... since the Flood was "spiritual" water, it really did not have any physical effects?

I was also wondering the same thing ...

 

[gluadys]

and so... since the Flood was "spiritual" water, it really did not have any physical effects?

That would certainly explain why we don't find any of the physical effects we would expect from a global flood. And find instead physical evidence which could not exist if a global flood had occurred.

 

[WAB]

That would certainly explain why we don't find any of the physical effects we would expect from a global flood. And find instead physical evidence which could not exist if a global flood had occurred.

Beg to differ... there are many sources of information on the effects/evidence of the world-wide flood available. One such is the extremely well put together book "In The Beginning... Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" by Walt Brown, Ph.D.

 

[gluadys]

Beg to differ... there are many sources of information on the effects/evidence of the world-wide flood available. One such is the extremely well put together book "In The Beginning... Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" by Walt Brown, Ph.D.

Walt Brown's "evidence" is far from compelling. It is better described as nonsense. Yes, I have read it. I even have the on-line version bookmarked for easy reference. So if you want to discuss some of his "evidence" more specifically, just name something in it that you find compelling.

 

[WAB]

Walt Brown's "evidence" is far from compelling. It is better described as nonsense. Yes, I have read it. I even have the on-line version bookmarked for easy reference. So if you want to discuss some of his "evidence" more specifically, just name something in it that you find compelling.

Well, the Poynting-Robertson effect might be one... On pages 75,76 under the heading "Index Fossils" we find: "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks have been determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." R.H. Rastall, "Geology" Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954. p.168.

There follows over 20 citations from evolutionists that in and of themselves contradict the very hypotheses of evolution. Several of which deal with the Coelacanths which were declared to be progenitors of "rock crawlers" yet after the discovery of live fishes of the same specie, strangely no one ever found any tendency among these fishes to crawl, and stated as much.

"I confess I'm sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins... we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so." Fricke.

Plus there are many such declarations from well-known evolutionists that have been collected over the years, quite a few of which appear in Brown's book.

 

[notto]

Well, the Poynting-Robertson effect might be one... On pages 75,76 under the heading "Index Fossils" we find: "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks have been determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." R.H. Rastall, "Geology" Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954. p.168.

Quote Mine Alert!

Guess what this author does in the very next paragraph? He defines the logical method that is used and shows why it is valid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html#quote5.4

I'm guessing that Brown doesn't really address this at all and cannot show any real problem with the methodology that is used with index fossils. Of course that is besides the point because the validity of their use can and has been confirmed with other dating methods.

I think it is safe to say that if Brown doesn't include the context of the quote or the very logical explanation that comes after it, that his intellectual honesty can be called into question.

He quote mines for effect and to pursuade, not to inform. The hallmark of a poor source of knowledge.

A quote mine is not evidence of anything.

 

[gluadys]

Several of which deal with the Coelacanths which were declared to be progenitors of "rock crawlers" yet after the discovery of live fishes of the same specie, strangely no one ever found any tendency among these fishes to crawl, and stated as much.

"I confess I'm sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins... we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so." Fricke.

Plus there are many such declarations from well-known evolutionists that have been collected over the years, quite a few of which appear in Brown's book.

Since Notto provided the quote mine which undoes Brown's erroneous portrayal of faunal succession as circular reasoing, I'll deal with the coelocanths.

I don't know of anyone who ever suggested that coelacanths walked or crawled or even tended to crawl. All I know is that they were once considered possible progenitors of animals that do. But even so, it was also recognized that they were only only one of a group of lobe-finned fish and lungfish, any one of which could be the ancestral group from which terrestrial vertebrates came. Today, lungfish are considered the more likely ancestors of terrestrial vertebrates than coelacanths as shown in this cladogram.

We also know now that feet developed in water for mobility in water and only later were they used for mobility on land. Here is a detailed description of some of the stages of tetrapod development.

btw, even if some scientist did assert that ancient coelacanths crawled, it would only mean s/he was wrong about the coelacanth. It would not affect the theory of evolution at all, since we still have plenty of evidence as to the origin of tetrapods from the Sarcopterygii, if not from the coelacanth in particular.

 

[WAB]

Since Notto provided the quote mine which undoes Brown's erroneous portrayal of faunal succession as circular reasoing, I'll deal with the coelocanths.

I don't know of anyone who ever suggested that coelacanths walked or crawled or even tended to crawl. All I know is that they were once considered possible progenitors of animals that do. But even so, it was also recognized that they were only only one of a group of lobe-finned fish and lungfish, any one of which could be the ancestral group from which terrestrial vertebrates came. Today, lungfish are considered the more likely ancestors of terrestrial vertebrates than coelacanths as shown in this cladogram.

We also know now that feet developed in water for mobility in water and only later were they used for mobility on land. Here is a detailed description of some of the stages of tetrapod development.

btw, even if some scientist did assert that ancient coelacanths crawled, it would only mean s/he was wrong about the coelacanth. It would not affect the theory of evolution at all, since we still have plenty of evidence as to the origin of tetrapods from the Sarcopterygii, if not from the coelacanth in particular.

Why of course... if previous declarations are proven to be false, then all that is necessary is to come up with another declaration/supposition.

Including notto's "guessing"!

 

[gluadys]

Why of course... if previous declarations are proven to be false, then all that is necessary is to come up with another declaration/supposition.

That is the way science works. Throw out what is proven false and look for an explanation that fits the facts better.

Can you suggest a better modus operandi?


Perhaps you think scientists ought to cling to what they know is false?

Including notto's "guessing"!

He referred you to the context from which Brown took his quote on "circular reasoning". A context which is fully referenced and which you can check out for yourself if you wish to.

How is that "guessing"?

 

[RichardT]

That is the way science works. Throw out what is proven false and look for an explanation that fits the facts better.

Can you suggest a better modus operandi?


Perhaps you think scientists ought to cling to what they know is false?




He referred you to the context from which Brown took his quote on "circular reasoning". A context which is fully referenced and which you can check out for yourself if you wish to.

How is that "guessing"?

I wish I had a better understanding of science to make claims against evolution , maybe I should become a scientist.....

 

[gluadys]

I wish I had a better understanding of science to make claims against evolution , maybe I should become a scientist.....

I would certainly recommend getting a better understanding of science. I regret that I did not take an interest in it when I was much younger.

And today, with access to the internet, it is not all that difficult to learn science, even when you are not majoring in it.

I found this a good place to start for a beginner. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/historyoflife/histoflife.html