Creation started with nothing?

[gluadys]

My heavens! What a dog's breakfast. You have mixed things up so much, I scarely know where to begin untangling them. I can see that I will need to place clear separations between different topics, so that you can focus on one at a time and not scramble them higgledy-piggledy as you have done in these responses.


On links: There have been three separate conversations on different topics; two of which involved you posting links and a third in which you forgot to post a link. But you have taken all the references in my post to be to the same conversation.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what link you couldn't open so that I can do what you ask.

This has to do with conversation #1 (re: chronology/length of days/framework interpretation). Several links were posted back and forth, and I was unable to open one that you posted. I don't know why you are still waiting for me to tell you what link it was as I told you that three days ago in post 253. The sentence you are responding to here really belongs in conversation #3, but you have confused it with conversation #1.

now I am extremely confused. You said you couldn't open my link and wanted me to show you the quotes that talked about chronology, and when I ask you what link you couldn't open you go off about margin of error.

Yes, you are confused, because this not about the chronology conversation. This is about conversation #2. I had noticed some of your remarks about "huge margins of error" suggested you did not really know what a margin of error is and how it is used. I spent some time explaining the difference between an error and a margin of error. To this you responded by posting three links on margin of error with the comment:

and there you have it folks, the explainations of margin of error that have been removed by science because gluady's says they have.

I have challenged you to show where those articles disagree with what I said about margin of error.

This was a completely separate conversation, not a spin-off from the chronology one.

As for conversation #3, it is short enough to show the whole exchange again. It is not about either the chronology conversation, nor about margin of error, but about the analogy of the teacher who misgrades a test and then refuses to correct the grade.

And this is where science differs from the teacher. The scientist is like a teacher who not only posts the grades, but includes all the marked tests on which the grades were based. So anyone coming along later can see where the teacher made a mistake in the marking and correct for that.

see the evidence that would say you are wrong.

Can't without the link. Remember to point me to evidence you wish me to see.

 

[gluadys]

before we discuss bias any more please answer this question for me. What do we gain from discussing it further?

We get an end to a fruitless circle of you claiming you showed evidence of bias and me claiming you didn't.

You helped by providing a criterion of bias which I have accepted. Here is that exchange again:

you still have not accepted the fact, that it isn't the test that is flawed but the lack of acceptance of the known variables, that make the conclusions flawed.

Actually this is what I call a good definition of bias. "lack of acceptance of the known variables". So now, we have a way to establish bias. What known variables are not being accepted by whom? Whenever we can fill in the "what" and the "who" we have a right to claim bias.

Yet later we got this exchange.

gluadys: What lack of acceptance of the known variables? Please either provide an example of a known variable deliberately ignored to get a biased answer or drop the accusation of bias.

razzelflabben: Done in the sites I referenced you to that showed the lack of what science knows. If we factor these variables into the equasion, our answer is much different than what science currently claims.

I am not sure which sites you are referring to. But let's look at the sites you posted re Chicxulub crater and dinosaur extinction. These were:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/912662044.Ev.r.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061130-dinosaur-asteroid.html
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/06-47.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1885.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192530.htm

The first is a Q&A from Mad Scientist on what relation, if any, exists between human evolution and the Chicxulub meteor strike.

Is the person who wrote this a biased scientist? If so, what known variable did s/he not accept? How did it bias his/her answer to the question?

The National Geographic article reports the theory of Dr. Gerta Kellar. Is Dr. Kellar a biased scientist? What known variable is she not accepting and how does that bias her theory?

The geocities site and the Science Daily site are also reporting on Dr. Kellar's theory, but if you can't find evidence of bias in the National Geographic report, perhaps you will find it in one of these reports..

That leaves the report on the work of Darren Grocke from McMaster University. Is he a biased scientist? What known variable is he not accepting? How does this bias his findings?

This is what I mean when I say you have not presented evidence of bias. You have not shown who it is that is not accepting a known variable, nor which known variable it is that they are not accepting.

With something like bias, it is not enough to speak in generalities. Not everyone is biased, and not everyone is biased in the same way. So when you make a charge of bias, you have to back that up by referencing both the person who is biased and the specific data (variable) that is not being accepted.

 

[gluadys]

Ah a different question, cool, at least this one makes some sense. I had a long answer all laid out and the computer lost it, let me see if I can recreate it.

Not a different question. Exactly the same one I have asked three times before.

Anything that creates an environment where unique life exists is necessary for sustaining life.

Sorry, but you are changing the premise again. Here is the original premise from post 141

Therefore, an "illusion" of history would be automatically built into the original creation, not as a trick or disception, but as a necessary part of life.

"as a necessary part of life". Not as "a necessary part of unique life".

Besides in a young-earth perspective all life, including every form of unique life, was created in the space of four days (vegetation, day 3, water and flying creatures, day 5, land creatures, day 6) and everything necessary to all of that life must have been created then. No later event like a meteor impact could be necessary to sustain life. Life was already being sustained by the original creation of the world.

That is why the crater from the meteor impact is a problem for the young-earth perspective. It clearly happened after life existed, but it appears to be older than the earth can be (according to yec). So it has the appearance of age one would find in the original 6-day creation, but it is not a necessary part of life or necessary to sustain life. Why then, does it look old?

But let's take this idea one step further, let's say that the earth changed dramatically after A. sin entered the world and B. the flood.

Why should we say something that is not suggested by the text of Genesis? Even when we go elsewhere in scripture the new creation is to occur with the coming of the kingdom of God. The bible doesn't suggest any new creation after the fall or the flood.


I hesitate to include the next section here, although it is related, because I am afraid the issues will be confused again. However, I'll give it a try.

You did not start the discussion by saying let's discuss the conclusions the scientists have about the age of the earth, but instead you said, let's discuss what reasons God could have for creating the earth to look old.

Actually, I did not start the appearance of age discussion at all. You did. Post 141. And you proposed the reason to be the necessity of sustaining life (e.g. the fruit tree needing to be mature).

Therefore anything that falls into this category though admissible for discussion is not admissible as evidence of an old earth

And I specifically agreed with that. The scientific claim is not evidence of an old earth. That claim has to be examined. But the scientific claim is evidence of appearance of age.

You were rejecting the scientific claim, not only as evidence of age, but also as evidence of appearance of age. But the scientific claim is the source of the appearance of age, so of course it is evidence for appearance of age. Had science never claimed the earth was old, no one would have any reason to counter that it only appears old.

now to recreate this argument. there are two different claims made here. 1. the appearance of an old earth and 2. what scientists conclude is the appearance of an old earth. The first of these is what we spoke of in the original discussion as put forth. The second was your assumption and assertion based on your own bias and beliefs.

The second is not an assumption, as any glance at a textbook on geology will tell you. Scientists do really claim that the earth is old and give specific ages to specific rock formations. In fact, science is the sole source of the claim that the earth appears to be old. The only difference between scientists and yecists is that they give different reasons for the appearance of age.

 

[gluadys]

The only reason it came up is that you had nothing to offer the discussion of chronology and so you needed a way out and chose to change the topic, try to frame me for doing so and thus declare yourself honest.

The reason it came up was that in a clumsy attempt to respond to the information I gave you on the framework theory and why the sequence of days in Genesis need not be considered chronological, you did a knee-jerk search for a counter site that led to you posting links about a different topic, namely: were the days solar days?

I attribute this wholly to your carelessness. Had you read the links before you posted them, you would have realized they were not relevant to the question of chronological sequence.

The assumption is always that a referenced site is referencing the discussion at hand and if you had read the entire site you would have seen the parts that talk about chronology, which was the discussion

A good assumption, until you open the site and find it does not reference the discussion at hand. I did read the entire site (all of them). There were no parts that talked about whether the sequence of days was chronological. They talked about whether the days were solar days or days of indeterminate length. One also talked about whether the days were historical or a literary analogy.

just as a scene from shakesphere is admissible as evidence of the quote "to be or not to be" and thus does not give you the right to change the discussion to another quote, the site referenced does not give the right to change the topic just because it includes more than the discussion at hand.

Unless you post the wrong scene---one which does not contain the quote at all.

Both the articles I posted dealt with chronology which was the topic you brought up for discussion.

You still haven't read them, have you? Both dealt with whether the days were solar days or days of indeterminate length. Go see for yourself.

If you want to add the topic of length of days, you at least need to present it for discussion, and not as an excuse for discussing a topic you brought up for discussion.

I didn't add or present it. You added it by posting the links.

 

[gluadys]

What I was suggesting is that all the evidence you presented us was with evolutionist sites, not ancient heb. scholars,

When I reference science, I reference sites about science. I suppose you would call them "evolutionist". But when I reference theology or hermeneutics I reference people who are expert in those areas. So now I have given you five references to people who are competent "ancient heb. scholars". In four cases I have given you something they themselves wrote. In one case (Hummel) I was only able to give a book review because I found nothing on line by that person. However, I did find him cited in other scholarly works as a biblical scholar of some repute.

Two things are missing 1. credetials for being a scholar of ancient hebrew and 2. evidence that he thinks chronology is not part of the text.

1. Come on, razzel. Even the thumbnail sketch says Irons is the "author of several scholarly essays". Have you read any of them? There are 994,000 references to him on the internet if you wish to check out his credentials more thoroughly. As for Meredith Kline, did you notice he taught Old Testament at no less than five seminaries? Believe you me, you are not hired to teach Old Testament at that level without a thorough grasp of biblical Hebrew. And should you need further reassurance, there are 539,000 internet references to Kline. So you should have no difficulty discovering his scholarly credentials.

2. So you skimmed over that part, eh?

[SIZE=-1]Although the temporal framework has a non-literal meaning, the events narrated within the days are real historical events of divine creative activity. What is the exegetical support for such a view? [1][/SIZE]

This is about whether the creative events are historical, not about whether the creative days are presented in chronological sequence. Different topic, and I am not about to get involved in a different topic again until you are ready for it.

The second reference is somewhat hard to follow on this topic because it is theological in nature not grammatical.

It is the length-of-days arguments that were based on grammar. The framework theory is based on exegesis.

But it seems to be saying that if we want to be able to wrap our mind around God we should look at it this way because I say so.

I suggest you not attempt to summarize it from a brief skimming. This is the sort of thing a seminary student would read carefully several times before claiming to grasp it. And then several times more while writing the assigned critical essay about it.

when held up to the ancient hebrew scholars

Aren't you forgetting that the "ancient hebrew scholars" ( I assume you mean scholars of ancient Hebrew) count Irons, Kline, et al as being their colleagues and equal in competence to them?

By the way, here is a simpler article by Kline which contends a careful exegesis of Genesis 2:5 "constitutes a decisive word against the traditional [i.e. chronoogical] interpretation."

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

I prefer to call the two views 11 categorically complementary" because they differ in the categories of questions which they address. Each view is blind to those dimensions of the material world that are visible in the other. Either view must be complemented by the other in order to obtain the unified and all-encompassing understanding of the cosmos that we seek.

I think I recognize this one as being from the Van Til article. Why are you citing it?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this review are the opinion of the author of this review alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization.
The last two are book review for heaven's sake and tells us nothing about the views of the "scholar".

They do when they directly quote the scholar. The disclaimer says the reviewer's opinion of the book is his own. But the scholar's opinion is not the reviewer's opinion.

So what we have is a bunch of essays by non ancient Heb. scholars

All but the book reviewer are bona fide scholars and their work is regularly cited in scholarly journals.

who do not discuss at all the grammer of the text,

Why should they discuss the grammmar about 'yom'? That has to do with length of day. Framework theory is not about grammar.

but all seem as best we can tell to agree that the text is both chronological and structual,

Kline most certainly does not, and IIRC neither do Ward, Van Til or Hummel. I believe Irons correctly says the framework may be both structural and chronological, but I believe he personally takes the structural only position. I will read him again to make sure.

ancient Heb. scholars which discussed the grammer of the text.

Framework theory is not about grammar. You are getting confused with length of day arguments which are heavily dependent on grammar.

Hummm what is your problem with the claims I made?

That you didn't include scholars who don't see the Genesis sequence as chronological. You assumed that all biblical scholars affirmed chronology because the ones you knew did. Now I have provided you with at least four (possibly five) that don't. Did you also know that some early Church Fathers such as Origen and Augustine also did not believe the Genesis sequence of days was chronological?

Because you only looked at a few scholars who all took the same position, you thought it was a settled matter that the Genesis sequence represents a chronological sequence. A broader search of scholarly opinion shows that it is not a settled matter. Different scholars have come to different conclusions, some in favour of a chronological reading (with or without a framework) and some opposed to a chronological reading (with or without a framework).

 

[razzelflabben]

My heavens! What a dog's breakfast. You have mixed things up so much, I scarely know where to begin untangling them. I can see that I will need to place clear separations between different topics, so that you can focus on one at a time and not scramble them higgledy-piggledy as you have done in these responses.

of course, blaming me is your only argument of any weight. Please, by all means.....Hopefully now you see the importance of staying focused on a topic until we can move on, like the discussion on framework vs. chronolgoy discussing where you insisted on adding length of day for not apparent reason. Doing this kind of thing, only confuses the discussion.

This has to do with conversation #1 (re: chronology/length of days/framework interpretation). Several links were posted back and forth, and I was unable to open one that you posted. I don't know why you are still waiting for me to tell you what link it was as I told you that three days ago in post 253. The sentence you are responding to here really belongs in conversation #3, but you have confused it with conversation #1.

actually, this discussion was only about framework vs. chronology and in reality the response was one of answer the question or drop it because I don't know what it is you are waiting for. But go ahead, you don't even know what you are discussing yet and we are suppose to keep up.

I have challenged you to show where those articles disagree with what I said about margin of error.

Not a disagreement as such but rather an explaination that goes beyond your elementary understanding, exploring the vaiables and how they affect the margin of error. A couple of quotes for you to chew on.

[SIZE=-1]The margin of error is an estimation of the extent to which a poll's reported percentages would vary if the same poll were taken multiple times. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one has that the poll's reported percentages are close to the "true" percentages, i.e. the percentages in the whole population.

[/SIZE]Don't overlook that fact that the margin of error is a 95 percent confidence interval, either. That means that for every 20 times you repeat this poll, statistics say that one time you'll get an answer that is completely off the wall.

The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have that the poll's reported results are close to the "true" figures; that is, the figures for the whole population.

If the exact confidence intervals are used, then the margin of error takes into account both sampling error and non-sampling error. If an approximate confidence interval is used (for example, by assuming the distribution is normal and then modeling the confidence interval accordingly), then the margin of error may only take random sampling error into account. It does not represent other potential sources of error or bias such as a non-representative sample-design, poorly phrased questions, people lying or refusing to respond, the exclusion of people who could not be contacted, or miscounts and miscalculations.

Note that there is not necessarily a strict connection between the true confidence interval, and the true standard error.

The term can also be used to mean sampling error in general.

That is a brief sampling to control space.

As for conversation #3, it is short enough to show the whole exchange again. It is not about either the chronology conversation, nor about margin of error, but about the analogy of the teacher who misgrades a test and then refuses to correct the grade.

Right, bias.

 

[razzelflabben]

Is the person who wrote this a biased scientist? If so, what known variable did s/he not accept? How did it bias his/her answer to the question?

now since I will be deleting most of this, let me put my two cents in here and leave it at that. The articles were not presented to show biased scientists but rather to show that science does indeed need to factor in what is not known and that doing so even in this one area would indeed result in a margin or error greater than 1%. So in order to understand the references, you must first understand the argument and the evidence that goes along with it. You don't get any of them, and it is evidence by this post.

With something like bias, it is not enough to speak in generalities. Not everyone is biased, and not everyone is biased in the same way. So when you make a charge of bias, you have to back that up by referencing both the person who is biased and the specific data (variable) that is not being accepted.

Everyone is biased, it is human nature, but if you actually read my posts, you will see that I said several times now that the referenced sites you are trying to pick apart show variables that must be taken into consideration and calculated, not biased scientists showing their bias. You really do need to learn to read for comprehension.

 

[razzelflabben]

"as a necessary part of life". Not as "a necessary part of unique life".

The claim was that God could have made the earth appear old for the purpose of sustaining life. Now, unless we are going back to the discussion about man being unique, your picking apart every word I say to create an issue that doesn't exist so that you can avoid the actual discussion at hand, it fruitless. Offer evidence to support your claims or accept that you are wrong.

Besides in a young-earth perspective all life, including every form of unique life, was created in the space of four days (vegetation, day 3, water and flying creatures, day 5, land creatures, day 6) and everything necessary to all of that life must have been created then. No later event like a meteor impact could be necessary to sustain life. Life was already being sustained by the original creation of the world.

That sustaining, ended when sin entered the world according to the bible. so the next question is how did it change?

That is why the crater from the meteor impact is a problem for the young-earth perspective. It clearly happened after life existed, but it appears to be older than the earth can be (according to yec). So it has the appearance of age one would find in the original 6-day creation, but it is not a necessary part of life or necessary to sustain life. Why then, does it look old?

Now let's look at it from a yec ist view, the age is not necessarily accurate. In addition, we know from Gen. that the earth after the fall of man was no longer the same, that death entered. How does that death entering affect the environment and how would the environment need to change to accomidate that change of death? All questions to be explored, not dismissed.

Why should we say something that is not suggested by the text of Genesis? Even when we go elsewhere in scripture the new creation is to occur with the coming of the kingdom of God. The bible doesn't suggest any new creation after the fall or the flood.

I'm not suggesting a new creation, only a change in this creation. something we see daily happening.

Actually, I did not start the appearance of age discussion at all. You did. Post 141. And you proposed the reason to be the necessity of sustaining life (e.g. the fruit tree needing to be mature).

wrong again dear one. someone else suggested the appearance of age, I only offered a possible explaination for appearance of age. You could at least get your facts straight when they are before your eyes.

And I specifically agreed with that. The scientific claim is not evidence of an old earth. That claim has to be examined. But the scientific claim is evidence of appearance of age.

no, the scientific claim is evidence of the scientific claim of appearance of age. This is the problem, you aren't understanding how science works. evidence is evidence only for what it tests, conclusions are never evidence. You are trying to make the scientific conclusions evidence.

You were rejecting the scientific claim, not only as evidence of age, but also as evidence of appearance of age. But the scientific claim is the source of the appearance of age, so of course it is evidence for appearance of age. Had science never claimed the earth was old, no one would have any reason to counter that it only appears old.

The scientific claim is evidence of the conclusion that science holds the earth to be old. Nothing more, nothing less. If I were arguing that science questions an old appearance, then the evidence would be admissable, but the argument is not about what science thinks or concludes, therefore the only evidence admissible is that evidence which is conclusive as to the appearance of age. Scientific test of age, are not conclusive which we have been discussing at length.

The second is not an assumption, as any glance at a textbook on geology will tell you. Scientists do really claim that the earth is old and give specific ages to specific rock formations. In fact, science is the sole source of the claim that the earth appears to be old. The only difference between scientists and yecists is that they give different reasons for the appearance of age.

so now you are starting to get the picture. No one is right and no one is wrong from the standpoint of the actual evidence at hand, both come to the conclusions they do by looking at the evidence with different glasses on so to speak, different assumptions, different premises. Therefore the debate is not one of who is right or wrong, but rather whose premise is right or wrong. To add to this mix, we have people like you who twist the premis a bit more and so we have a host of evidence, a host of premises, and a host of ideas, none can be conclusive enough to tell us the truth from a scientific standpoint and yet so very many people try to claim to know that truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

The reason it came up was that in a clumsy attempt to respond to the information I gave you on the framework theory and why the sequence of days in Genesis need not be considered chronological, you did a knee-jerk search for a counter site that led to you posting links about a different topic, namely: were the days solar days?

this is one of those false accusations you wanted me to point out to you that is made without evidence to support the claim. Both sites referenced, talked about the grammer of the chronology/framework debate. Thus the evidence shows that there was no knee jerk response at all, only you who didn't read the article but instead stopped at something you thought you could win.

I attribute this wholly to your carelessness. Had you read the links before you posted them, you would have realized they were not relevant to the question of chronological sequence.

both discuss not only chronology, but the grammatical struction of ancient Heb. text, which was in direct discussion to your assertion that it is not grammatically correct. In fact, for further evidence of your false accusations, if I had offered a knee jerk response, it would have looked much like your references, which offered no grammatical evaluation at all. Instead, I took the time to find sites that evaluated the grammar, but instead of dealing with the grammar that was the heart of your argument, you changed the topic to length of days. And btw, just to hammer in the point, the references you provided could be used the same way against this argument by picking any of the many topics looked at on the referenced articles and thus change the topic but I don't believe in doing that. So I'll leave it up to you.

A good assumption, until you open the site and find it does not reference the discussion at hand. I did read the entire site (all of them). There were no parts that talked about whether the sequence of days was chronological. They talked about whether the days were solar days or days of indeterminate length. One also talked about whether the days were historical or a literary analogy.

they both dealt with the grammatical interpretation of chronology, as did my husband. BAM! you are wrong again. Enough said, read it again.

Unless you post the wrong scene---one which does not contain the quote at all.

only problem is, the sites referenced, did contain the information and they also addressed your argument, something that you yourself haven't even done yet. How does it feel to be so wrong that you can't even offer anything in defense of your own argument? Okay that comment was over the top. I appologize. But please at least offer references that support your claim if you are going to waste my time to look at them and read them. It is only curteous to do so.

You still haven't read them, have you? Both dealt with whether the days were solar days or days of indeterminate length. Go see for yourself.

They covered both, which I never claimed they didn't. What you are claiming is that they only dealt with one, which is a bold face lie when you actually take time to read them.

I didn't add or present it. You added it by posting the links.

shall I pick some point out of the references you provide to make an argument for something you didn't argue and call it your burden? Na, I believe in owning what is mine and nothing more. This blunder is yours alone to own. Have fun with it.

 

[razzelflabben]

When I reference science, I reference sites about science. I suppose you would call them "evolutionist". But when I reference theology or hermeneutics I reference people who are expert in those areas. So now I have given you five references to people who are competent "ancient heb. scholars". In four cases I have given you something they themselves wrote. In one case (Hummel) I was only able to give a book review because I found nothing on line by that person. However, I did find him cited in other scholarly works as a biblical scholar of some repute.

First false accusation, you wanted me to point them out to you, I wouldn't dismiss any scientific work as evolutionist even if it fit the devil's advocate argument at that moment. In fact, it has never been an argument of mine as it is with you to dismiss evidence as only creationist. In fact, though I am sure both sides dismiss evidence because it comes from the opposing side, it is something I seldom here done by the creationists, but always here from the evolutionists. Now that is a personal observation and I have already stated that I am sure both sides do it, so you can twist it anyway you want, I already covered it. If you want to make your argument here otherwise, you will have to show someplace where I dismissed anything because it was provided by an evolutionist. In fact, you should know by now that my preferred way of arguing is to turn your own claims back on you, rather than creating new claims.

Now as to the scholars, try to stay with me here. There are many scholars in this world. They are scholars of a host of different topics. Your argument was that the grammatical structure of the text did not allow for chronology. So in order to understand if you are right or wrong, we don't go to a history scholar, or a math scholar, or an art scholar, or even an american literature scholar, instead we go to an ancient Hebrew lang. scholar. Of this category you provided no one at all. Of the references you provided we see many scholars, but none that will know the grammatical structure of the ancient Hebrew text from thier scholarly studies. Of those scholars of sorts that you referenced, one even agreed with what you were told by the actual ancient Heb. scholars you were shown. And so what we are left with is ancient Hebrew lang. scholars all saying that it is both framework and chronological, we have your hand full of scholars none of which are qualified educationally to speak of the grammer of the text, saying different things, one says both, one says it isn't a conflict for the religious beliefs of our group and two others that we don't know what their opinions are because we have only book reviews to go by. In my book that makes your argument tooooooooo unsubstanciated to even be taken seriously. But we each have a right to our own beliefs. So go after it if you want. But if you want to be taken seriously, then present evidence from ancient Hebrew lang. scholars that the grammatical structure of the text does not allow for chronology. It's all about the validity of your argument at this point, because the opposing side of your argument has been evidenced, documented, and discussed at length, leaving no room for your interpretation.

1. Come on, razzel. Even the thumbnail sketch says Irons is the "author of several scholarly essays". Have you read any of them? There are 994,000 references to him on the internet if you wish to check out his credentials more thoroughly. As for Meredith Kline, did you notice he taught Old Testament at no less than five seminaries? Believe you me, you are not hired to teach Old Testament at that level without a thorough grasp of biblical Hebrew. And should you further reassurance, there are 539,000 internet references to Kline. So you should have no difficulty discovering his scholarly credentials.

I have never questioned them as scholars. where did you get the idea that I did. What I pointed out to you is that none of them are ancient Heb. lang. scholars as were the references that I showed you. In addition to that, one of the one's you presented agreed, though none of them dealt with the grammatical structure as per your claim. One said that it did not conflict with the religious beliefs of the group. That isn't very strong evidence. Now on the other hand, I respect and appreciate their scholastic accomplishments and would not hesitate to look at them for information on other things they would have to teach us. Like ancient egypt or old testament. But when we want to deal with anceint Heb. grammer, we want to go to anceint Heb. lang. scholars, not scholars of Egyptology or theology. It is all a question of addressing the claim not changing the claim. Your claim centered around the grammatical structure alone. Thus that is the point we argue. None of your so called ancient Heb. lang. scholars even touched on the grammar.

being their colleagues and equal in competence to them?

are you forgetting that neither looked at it grammatically nor disagreed with the assertion that it is both? You were shown the answer grammatically as well as that it is both but refuse to accept it.

By the way, here is a simpler article by Kline which contends a careful exegesis of Genesis 2:5 "constitutes a decisive word against the traditional [i.e. chronoogical] interpretation."

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

Note that this quote does not remove the chronology but only says that both are true of the text, again, what you where shown by me.
Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts. And if it is a figurative week then it is not a literal week of twenty-four-hour days. Furthermore, once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is appreciated the literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the duration of the days in this figurative week.

So you have still failed to show and ancient hebrew lang. scholar who disagrees with what I claimed. That both are interpreted into the text. BTW, you should understand the difference between grammar and exegesis. Look it up it might help.

 

[gluadys]

I had to get some sleep last night before finishing. I had hoped to have these next points posted before you logged on today, but I see I was not able to. So I will finish up what I started and come back later to respond to new posts.

I am encouraged in that the separation of different points into different posts has so far kept them from being inappropriately mingled.

that doesn't make me an evolutionist by default, nor an old earth creationist, or an aleins did it advocate either.

I didn't say it made you any of those. I observed that most Christians don't have a problem with the concept life, the earth, the solar system, stars & galaxies and the universe as a whole are old (i.e. more than a million years old.) I included you among these since you have repeatedly said you are not a young-earth creationist.

Christians who are not young-earth creationists still have many differences and can be slotted into different groups, like those you mentioned, but I did not mention any of those groups or suggest that you adhered to one of them.

Light is absolutely necessary to support life, so you are wrong on that one.

Is it? We know that life on earth would not be possible without the sun. We also know that most life on earth needs oxygen, and oxygen is produced via photosynthesis, which requires sunlight. But there are many forms of life on earth which live in darkness or near darkness, such as the deep-sea creatures that live well below the depth light penetrates water. Some forms of life do not require oxygen. For some oxygen is even a poison.

The principal reason why these life forms need the sun is for heat not light.

Finally, although our local star, the Sun, is necessary to life on earth, no other star is. No other star provides sufficient heat or sufficient energy to fuel photosynthesis. We would have life on earth if the only light in the sky was the sun. Conversely, with all the stars in the sky, we would not have life on earth if the one light, the sun's light, was missing.

Stars, other than the sun, are not necessary to support life on earth. Therefore they do not need to appear old. But they do.

and in addition, visible light being old doesn't equal an old earth. Light can be much older than the earth.

That's what I said. In fact the earth IS younger than many stars. The Sun is younger than many other stars. It is the age of the stars that is the problem for yec in this instance.

Light cannot be much older than the earth in a young-earth view. It was created on day one and by day three we have a planet with vegetation on it. So light more than two days older than the earth is a problem for yec.

But as I said, this argument can be concluded by looking no further than scripture itself, you just have to be willing to think instead of regergitate what you have been taught. If God is the light talked about, and God is eternal, then light is also eternal and the earth is not. Therefore, the measure of light is not equal to the age

The actual age of eternal light is infinite and immeasurable. All we can measure is how long that light has been in the physical universe. And for a young-earth perspective that can be no more than two days longer than the fully-formed earth. But we have lots of light that appears to have been in the universe much, much earlier than that.

 

[gluadys]

but not sustained if that life was becoming extinct because of something in the environment.

There is no suggestion, either biblically or scientifically, that life was becoming extinct. So stop making things up. No one needs to take your imagination into account. Extinction of some life was a consequence of the meteor, not a reason for it to happen. The only mass extinction reported in scripture occurred in the days of Noah. And the flood was the cause of the extinction, not vice versa.

yes to the first question

Are you sure? You dispute that scientists set the date of the Chicxulub impact at 65 million years ago?

no to the second.

I am confused. How can you agree that scientists came to the conclusion on the date of the impact based on their tests and still dispute that they concluded what they did, namely that it happened 65 million years ago?

apparently, the dr. disagrees with you, apparently the dr. believes that me having no issues with it, even when it rains, is not natural or he would not have been surprised.

Well, next time you see him you can ask him what natural laws have been suspended in your favour. You also once mentioned birth is a miracle. Does God turn off the natural laws of the universe for every birth?

If God is eternal, then He would indeed be the only natural thing in existance.

Turning language inside out again. God IS eternal. God IS NOT a part of nature. Hence God is supernatural, not natural. Natural refers to what God created, not to God. Nothing natural is eternal.

Not so, there are many things in the bible that are known as miracles that science does study.

Of course there are. Not every miracle in the bible requires overruling natural laws. Many scholars have suggested that the miracle of manna was not supernatural, but consisted in introducing the people of Israel to a food source they were unfamiliar with. And that the miracle of the quails came about through the migratory pattern of the quails.

It is only those miracles, such as the resurrection, which require acting against natural law that science cannot study. These fall into miracle defined in the first set of definitions. e.g striking interposition of divine intervention by a God in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified, an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature or contrary to the laws of nature.

When something by definition is "inexplicable by the laws of nature" it cannot be studied by science which is the study of the laws of nature.

 

[gluadys]

I have shown that accepting the variables for what they are and figuring them into the equasion would give us a much different answer than the one we claim to have.

Well that is a very different thing than saying people are deliberately ignoring the variable. So are you dropping the accusation of bias?

Done in the sites I referenced you to that showed the lack of what science knows. If we factor these variables into the equasion, our answer is much different than what science currently claims.

But bias is about overlooking what science does know. This is a different matter. So are you dropping the accusation of bias?

not adequately accounting for the variables...

First, you have not shown that the variables have not been adequately accounted for. But let's assume you are right, and they have not been adequately accounted for.

Why haven't they been adequately accounted for?

I have addressed it many times in many different ways, If I am understanding you wrong, don't assert I haven't addressed it but rather rephrase it to show what I have missed.

I only raised it once before, and you did not respond then, so don't claim to have addressed it many times.

...No, that is your error because the analogy is about the variables not about what we are measuring. By claiming there are no variables, or that the variable that we plopped the fish down in the middle of the stream, is not possible, then we have made a false conclusion and called it truth.

But the variable we were talking about in this case was the age of light, not the age of the earth, so the analogy doesn't apply.

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't say it made you any of those. I observed that most Christians don't have a problem with the concept life, the earth, the solar system, stars & galaxies and the universe as a whole are old (i.e. more than a million years old.) I included you among these since you have repeatedly said you are not a young-earth creationist.

actually my claim is that I am agueing a devil's advocate. Nothing about yec ist beliefs. I fact, I have stated my personal beliefs, and my money is on you not knowing what they really are.

Is it? We know that life on earth would not be possible without the sun. We also know that most life on earth needs oxygen, and oxygen is produced via photosynthesis, which requires sunlight. But there are many forms of life on earth which live in darkness or near darkness, such as the deep-sea creatures that live well below the depth light penetrates water. Some forms of life do not require oxygen. For some oxygen is even a poison.

and life is all interconnected and therefore, needs each other to sustain itself.

Stars, other than the sun, are not necessary to support life on earth. Therefore they do not need to appear old. But they do.

Light is what we are talking about here, and it necessary, you are simply assuming that that light is coming from the sun.

That's what I said. In fact the earth IS younger than many stars. The Sun is younger than many other stars. It is the age of the stars that is the problem for yec in this instance.

not when you think it through.

Light cannot be much older than the earth in a young-earth view. It was created on day one and by day three we have a planet with vegetation on it. So light more than two days older than the earth is a problem for yec.

not if the light is God and God is eternal, but you have touched on one of the textual falsifications, just tie it together now.

The actual age of eternal light is infinite and immeasurable. All we can measure is how long that light has been in the physical universe. And for a young-earth perspective that can be no more than two days longer than the fully-formed earth. But we have lots of light that appears to have been in the universe much, much earlier than that.

this all depends on what light we are measuring. You are assuming light sources that are not identified in the text. or in science, only assumed. Base your argument on what we know not what we don't know.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is no suggestion, either biblically or scientifically, that life was becoming extinct. So stop making things up. No one needs to take your imagination into account. Extinction of some life was a consequence of the meteor, not a reason for it to happen. The only mass extinction reported in scripture occurred in the days of Noah. And the flood was the cause of the extinction, not vice versa.

we already talked about how imagaination is what fuels science and would require study to falsify rather than a simple dismissal because it is imagination. Without imagination, science wouldn't exist.

Are you sure? You dispute that scientists set the date of the Chicxulub impact at 65 million years ago?

dealt with repeatedly but without comprehension from you. I think it is a hopeless cause to ask you to comprehend anything that even looks like it might disagree with you.

I am confused. How can you agree that scientists came to the conclusion on the date of the impact based on their tests and still dispute that they concluded what they did, namely that it happened 65 million years ago?

I have told you so many times now my head and fingers both hurt. It is a fact that the scientists make the claim and conclude the crator occured 65 million years ago, what is not fact is that it did occur 65 million years ago.

Turning language inside out again. God IS eternal. God IS NOT a part of nature. Hence God is supernatural, not natural. Natural refers to what God created, not to God. Nothing natural is eternal.

if he exists he is natural. In fact, He would be the only natural thing in existance.
[SIZE=-1]existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation; "a natural pearl"; "natural gas"; "natural silk"; "natural blonde hair"; "a natural sweetener"; "natural fertilizers"[/quote] is God artificial? an imitation?

existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"

last time I checked, God existed in and conformed to the natural laws, in fact, even the miracles of Jesus Christ worked within the laws of nature, consider the calming of the waves. It was said that even the wind and waves obey Him. Thus an authority over nature but within the laws none the less.

functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies; "it's the natural thing to happen"; "natural immunity"; "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild"

How does God not act naturally? Have you ever looked into His nature? Don't be too quick to dismiss God and our ability to test for HIm when it is our unwillingness to do so that drives our conclusions.

[/SIZE]
It is only those miracles, such as the resurrection, which require acting against natural law that science cannot study. These fall into miracle defined in the first set of definitions. e.g striking interposition of divine intervention by a God in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified, an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature or contrary to the laws of nature.

now think gluady's, how did God make man originally? To not die, thus life eternal is an natural law of nature. So God is not opperating outside natures laws when we are resurrected but rather working within the laws.

When something by definition is "inexplicable by the laws of nature" it cannot be studied by science which is the study of the laws of nature.

see above then try to make your case.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well that is a very different thing than saying people are deliberately ignoring the variable. So are you dropping the accusation of bias?

not at all, the arguments all work together to show that bias does exist. Like putting all the evidence together so that we can make a conclusion. YOu should know the process by now, in fact, I remember you lecturing me on it once. Do you forget your own lectures?

First, you have not shown that the variables have not been adequately accounted for. But let's assume you are right, and they have not been adequately accounted for.

Why haven't they been adequately accounted for?

bias

But the variable we were talking about in this case was the age of light, not the age of the earth, so the analogy doesn't apply.

we don't know the age of light because we don't know the source of light. Come on, this is too easy.

 

[gluadys]

Everyone is biased, it is human nature, but if you actually read my posts, you will see that I said several times now that the referenced sites you are trying to pick apart show variables that must be taken into consideration and calculated, not biased scientists showing their bias. You really do need to learn to read for comprehension.

This is getting nearer to the crux of the problem for me. You talk in a general way about bias. "Everyone is biased". Yeah, who could disagree with that?

And you talk in a general way about variables.

Somehow you see those as connected. And I am sure the connection is so blindingly obvious to you that you can't fathom how anyone could miss it.

But the connection between variables and bias is not clear to me at all. I don't really see what one has to do with the other.

Everyone is biased, but not all bias is relevant. I still need to see a who and a what. Who is biased? What are they biased about? How does that affect the conclusions they personally come to? How does that affect the conclusions the whole community comes to?

Bias can be individual or it can be collective.

For example, if Joe prefers punk rock while Susan prefers classical opera, each is expressing an individual bias. If you send both of them to review an opera, Susan's review will be different from Joe's review.

But this doesn't mean either of them will be wrong. Nor does it mean the community of music-lovers as a whole will be misled. They can read both reviews, take into account the bias of each person, and come to their own conclusions about the reviews. And, if they wish, they can go to the opera themselves and make their own conclusions about the opera.

So although bias exists, it is not a huge problem for the community Joe and Susan are communicating with.

Then we have collective bias. This is when a whole group of people is identified by a bias they share. e.g. young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists. Young-earth creationists will interpret the Bible and science in line with their bias and old-earth creationists will interpret the Bible and science in line with their bias.

But for an observer, the two biases cancel each other out. Someone who hasn't made up their mind can read both, evaluate the reasoning and evidence behind both, check both against their own experience and sense, and come to their own conclusion. One group or the other may be wrong about something, but this is no bar to discovering the truth.

Scientists, as individuals, come with all sorts of personal biases. But how does that become a problem for the whole scientific community? Other scientists can study the questions from all points of view and come to their own conclusions. Nothing is missing or suppressed or not accounted for, since whatever is downplayed by one person is given prominence by another.

Sometimes, there are differing schools of thought in science that provide examples of group bias. e.g. some scientists think the Chicxulub meteor was very influential in the K-T extinction and some think it had only a minor role. But the scientific community as a whole does not subscribe to one position or the other. Other scientists can read both positions, evaluate both sets of arguments and check out which seems to correlate best with the observations.

So when it comes to "biased scientists" who are they? If not as individuals, which group of scientists is biased? And is not the other group also biased? Why do the opposing biases not cancel each other out?

Just as important, what is the nature of the bias? You mention "variables". But which variables in particular are the problem? Which ones are not adequately accounted for?

And is it really bias that leads to them not being accounted for, or is it a different factor all together?

 

[gluadys]

we already talked about how imagaination is what fuels science

And we also talked about what science does with imagination. It takes a "what if" and asks: what observable consequences would we see if this is true?

At this point the speculation becomes a testable hypothesis. And testing the hypothesis leads to conclusions about the "what if?"

You never make the second step. Examine the consequences of your imaginary ideas. Determine what those consequences would be.

When you find the consequences really exist, then you have a variable that can be included in science. Not before.

It is a fact that the scientists make the claim and conclude the crator occured 65 million years ago, what is not fact is that it did occur 65 million years ago.

Yes, that is the point I wanted clarified. It is indeed a fact that scientists claim the crater is 65 million years old. And, as you already agreed, they base this claim on the tests they have done.

Now, here is the next question.

Why does any non-scientist think the crater is too old for a young earth? Or at least looks too old for a young earth? Why do young earth creationists think we need to explain its appearance of age?

if he exists he is natural. In fact, He would be the only natural thing in existance.

Wow! Now that blows my mind. I've seen you come up with unexpected ideas before, but this is a really new idea. And an intriguing one.

It's too big an idea to add to an already overburdened thread, so I have given it a thread of its own.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5623010-is-god-natural.html#post36181976


We can continue discussion of this point there.

 

[gluadys]

First false accusation, you wanted me to point them out to you,

You quote a paragraph in which I talk about myself and you find an accusation in it? Who am I accusing? Myself? What of?

you will have to show someplace where I dismissed anything because it was provided by an evolutionist.

Why should I have to show this? I never claimed that you did. (You can refute that by showing me where I did. Please quote my exact words and provide the post number.)

instead we go to an ancient Hebrew lang. scholar. Of this category you provided no one at all.

On the contrary, I provided five. Good heavens, one of them (the late Meredith Kline) was a full professor in this category. What more do you want?

But if you want to be taken seriously, then present evidence from ancient Hebrew lang. scholars that the grammatical structure of the text does not allow for chronology.

You are getting mixed-up again. The only point of grammar discussed was the so-called rule that 'yom' used with a number (as in "day one", "a second day", "the fifth day") signals that the day in question is a 24-hour day. Young earth creationists have offered this interpretation of the Genesis days. But you gave me a link to an old-earth creationist site that refuted it.

Grammatical structure is irrelevant to whether a text is literal or figurative. So it is irrelevant to whether the chronology of Genesis 1 is a literal or figurative one.

Your claim centered around the grammatical structure alone.

The claim about chronology did not centre on grammatical structure at all. It centred on framework structure.

Grammar was mentioned only in connection with a young-earth claim that it supports the thesis that the Genesis days were ordinary 24-hour days, not days of indeterminate length. That was a different question entirely from the topic of whether the sequence of days is chronological.

None of your so called ancient Heb. lang. scholars even touched on the grammar. are you forgetting that neither looked at it grammatically nor disagreed with the assertion that it is both?

Because, for the most part, grammar is irrelevant to the question of literal vs. figurative sequence. But if you must have some grammar, look at the second Kline article I gave you. It does briefly mention a grammatical point.

As for whether the sequence is chronological, the very paragraph you quoted says:

Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week ...​

Do you see that? Exegetical considerations, not grammatical considerations. Even "purely exegetical considerations".

Note that this quote does not remove the chronology but only says that both are true of the text, again, what you where shown by me.

Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts. And if it is a figurative week then it is not a literal week of twenty-four-hour days. Furthermore, once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is appreciated the literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the duration of the days in this figurative week.​

Let's see.

"imagery of an ordinary week"

"a figurative chronological framework"

"a figurative week"

"not a literal week"

"figurative nature of the chronological sequence"

"literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct..."

Oh it's very plain he is arguing for a literal chronological sequence [/sarcasm]

So you have still failed to show and ancient hebrew lang. scholar who disagrees with what I claimed.

I showed you five. You have some bloody nerve to think you can hand-wave away their expertise on the basis of reading a couple of thumbnail sketches of their curricula vitae .

That is over-the-top arrogance with no basis in fact. And just plain insulting, not to me, but to them.

 

[gluadys]

The claim was that God could have made the earth appear old for the purpose of sustaining life. Now, unless we are going back to the discussion about man being unique,

I don't know. Was is your intention when you added the word "unique" to go back to that discussion? I am just saying that "to support life" and "to support unique life" are different premises and I am not accepting a change in the original premise.

That sustaining, ended when sin entered the world according to the bible.

We must have different bibles then. Mine is full of many references to God sustaining his creation well after the fall. To take only one example: in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refers to God feeding the birds, clothing the grass of the field, and sending sun and rain to all.

so the next question is how did it change? Now let's look at it from a yec ist view, the age is not necessarily accurate. In addition, we know from Gen. that the earth after the fall of man was no longer the same, that death entered.

That is one interpretation. Not everyone agrees. Many hold that plant and animal death was part of creation, and that the death which entered was human death, since it is related to sin, and only humanity is capable of sin. Some also hold that even human death, in the physical, biological sense, was a possibility (else why did Adam and Eve have to eat? Why did they need the Tree of Life?) and that the death that entered with the fall was spiritual, not biological.

From either of these perspectives, the natural environment did not change. Although the relationship between humanity and the natural environment did.

I'm not suggesting a new creation, only a change in this creation.

Depends on when you are situating the event of the meteor impact. Are you assuming that God created the earth with it already there? Or that the meteor collided with the earth sometime after creation?

In the latter case, if it is necessary to support life, what life was it necessary to support? All the life God had originally created was already supported.

someone else suggested the appearance of age, I only offered a possible explaination for appearance of age.

But it was your post I was responding to.

no, the scientific claim is evidence of the scientific claim of appearance of age. This is the problem, you aren't understanding how science works. evidence is evidence only for what it tests, conclusions are never evidence. You are trying to make the scientific conclusions evidence.The scientific claim is evidence of the conclusion that science holds the earth to be old. Nothing more, nothing less.

So tell me, why is anyone talking about appearance of age? What is the source of the idea that some things look older than they are? Did anyone ever raise the possibility of appearance of age before there was a scientific claim of age?

Without the scientific claim of age, "appearance of age" is a meaningless concept.

Scientific test of age, are not conclusive which we have been discussing at length. so now you are starting to get the picture.

It is because the scientific test of age is conclusive on scientific grounds that the claim of appearance of age is made by those who disagree with the scientific conclusion.

No one is right and no one is wrong from the standpoint of the actual evidence at hand, both come to the conclusions they do by looking at the evidence with different glasses on so to speak, different assumptions, different premises. Therefore the debate is not one of who is right or wrong, but rather whose premise is right or wrong.

And it is the evidence which decides whose premise is right or wrong.

There are only two ways for people to come to differing conclusions based on the same evidence.

The legitimate way is when the evidence is not sufficient to support any of the proposed conclusions. This is when one gets scientific controversy, as in to what extent, if any, the Chicxulub meteor played in the K-T mass extinction.

The illegitimate way is to come to a conclusion in spite of evidence which falsifies the conclusion. In this situation, there is no scientific controversy. There are only illegitimate objections to the scientific conclusion that all but one available possibility has been eliminated by the evidence. A case in point would be the date at which the Chicxulub crater was formed. Note that despite all the controversy on what its effects were, there is no scientific controversy about when it happened. All the scientists presenting various points of view on whether it was or was not important to the K-T extinction agree that the K-T extinction occurred 65 million years ago, shortly after the Chicxulub impact.

The date is only controversial to those who reject the science. And they only reject the science because they disagree with the scientific conclusion.

Appearance of age is an attempted compromise solution. It allows one to assert that the scientific conclusion is wrong, even though it has every appearance of being right.