They've found the "missing link"! Yeah, right!

[herev]

So then are you are you using the world to disprove the Bible?

this is a false dichotomy and assigns false motives. No one is trying to disprove the Bible--we just interpret it differently

 

[LightHorseman]

So then are you are you using the world to disprove the Bible?

No, I'm using God's creation to disprove your interpretation of the Bible. Big difference. The world is perfectly in sync with MY interpretation of the Bible... i.e. that Genesis is an ALLEGORY of man settling and developing civilisation while forgoing the hunter gatherer lifestyle

 

[rcorlew]

scientifically, I don't know where to begin. Since there are none that suggest a young earth--ALL OF THEM?
see Lighthorseman's answer

Would you agree that one of the most provable methods of proofing old earth theory is the speed of light and the distance of stars?

 

[rcorlew]

Which one Did God personally create without any interference or interpretation from Man ?

Hmm... you might want to read all 60 or so pages on this thread, just kidding. One of the much discussed proofs for evolution was a common European mouse that was introduced to an island that in only like 20 years had changed so much that the mouse was completely different.

Man has played an important part in the changing of everything on this earth since we first stepped foot on it.

And remember creation was not done on day 6, because we fell (sinned) God again went to work to make the earth unforgiving of us.

 

[ebia]

What evidence do you have that it is not supposed to be taken literally?

As others have indicated in bits, but let's put some of the bits together again (it's not like you haven't heard this before):

• The two accounts are clearly different in their 'facts' unless you throw the baby out with the bathwater reconcilling them.
• Each of the creation accounts, and for that matter the whole of Genesis 1, carries lots of markers characteristic of myths.
• The accounts borrow from surrounding myths and, in places, give every indication that they are written to subvert those myths with the story of the one true God.
• The accounts are not factually consistant with any consistant model of the data we see in creation itself.
• The highly structured and poetic nature of Genesis 1 simply does not look like history told for history's sake.
• The theological messages - the real guts of the stories -are not dependent in any way on the 'facts' of the story being true.
• Virtually every society constructs myths to teach their most important truths, and Genesis 1-11 looks like exactly that sort of thing.
• Viewed as myth it forms the perfect prolog for the call of Abraham and the rest of the meta-narrative of scripture.
• Viewed as myth it forms a coherent whole with the rest of scripture.

Jesus and Paul both quoted from Genesis chapter 1 to reinforce their points.

So do I. That doesn't mean I take it literally.

 

[ebia]

So then are you are you using the world to disprove the Bible?

No, he is using external data to help interpret the bible. Something we all have to do, or it remains a load of black sqiggles on white paper.

No-one here is disproving the bible.

 

[Drekkan85]

Breath deeply, let's go over this one more time -

non-literal does not mean false.

Let's get that down one more time because given the absolute disregard some have had for the point (which has been made time and time again), it's obvious some people's reading comprehension isn't all that high:

non-literal does not mean false.

If I say, "He carried the weight of the world upon his shoulders" to speak of a man that's taken huge responsibilities and now is being weighed down by them... is what I say false? No, it's not. But it's also not literal. If I say "I saw red" talking about when I was furious - am I lying? No, I'm not - I'm using a literary device to communicate my emotions in a sophisticated manner.

In the same way, as we've discussed, the entire Bible is filled with simile, metaphor, parable, and allegory. The literary style is not one of a factual history, but rather a story. Does that make it worthless? Does that make it false? No, it doesn't. We've already talked about springs of the deep - and you've implied atoms are spoken of in the Bible. However, God did not say "You will find that everything is made up of tiny things, so small you cannot see them. They'll have a center made of one particle that has no charge, and one positively charge particle. They'll be circled by a negatively charge particle... or wave... depending on how you look at it. These negatively charged particles will circle in different orbits depending on their energy levels. Heck, their movement between energy levels is what gives fire its colour!"

Rather, I would assume, you're taking a poetic or metaphorical interpretation to show the Bible 'predicted' atomic theory. That's exactly what we're doing - it's just our interpreted passage is Genesis.

It's partly because the Bible CANNOT be taken 100% literal. By that I mean 100% word for word, at face value. Don't even apply what many creationists call a "common sense reading". Look at the orders of the two accounts. Genesis one has God creating animals, then creating man (and he creates man and woman together at the same time). Genesis two has God creating man, then animals, then woman from man. Creationists argue that Genesis 2 is merely the details of 1 (ignoring that the orders are wrong). But THAT'S AN INTERPRETATION! That's not a 100% face value literal reading.

So it's not about "I'm literal and you're not". It's "this is my interpretation, that's yours" - and we have no definitive ruling on which one is "best".

 

[pgp_protector]

Hmm... you might want to read all 60 or so pages on this thread, just kidding. One of the much discussed proofs for evolution was a common European mouse that was introduced to an island that in only like 20 years had changed so much that the mouse was completely different.

Man has played an important part in the changing of everything on this earth since we first stepped foot on it.

And remember creation was not done on day 6, because we fell (sinned) God again went to work to make the earth unforgiving of us.

See once again we've got issues in how data is handled
There are only 16 pages in this thread right now

 

[LightHorseman]

Would you agree that one of the most provable methods of proofing old earth theory is the speed of light and the distance of stars?

That is ONE of the pieces of evidence that suggests an old earth... there are many others... and heres the important bit... EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE INTERLOCKS TO SUGGEST AN OLD EARTH!

If you are going to make some completely unsupported claim about light speed changing over time, well, thats fine... but you THEN need to explain why geological aging, chemical and radiometric aging and the many other forms of age estimation all interlock so neatly with what astronomical aging suggests?

 

[rcorlew]

See once again we've got issues in how data is handled
There are only 16 pages in this thread right now

The default setting yields 65 pages now, you have changed the setting not I.

 

[LightHorseman]

Oh... and also, may I add, that simply saying "the speed of light might have changed", doesn't magically vanish away the 15 billion year age of the universe as simply as you might think... because if you are going to claim the speed of light has changed, you need to explain why oibservations of 15 billion light years in any direction (i.e. across 15 billion years of time) show light behaving the same way whereever we look. If light's speed was NOT a constant, we would expect to see it behaving in different ways in different parts of the universe (i.e. at different times in the universe's history) The fact that we do NOT see light doing this, strongly suggests light's speed, "C", is a constant.

 

[ebia]

That is ONE of the pieces of evidence that suggests an old earth... there are many others... and heres the important bit... EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE INTERLOCKS TO SUGGEST AN OLD EARTH!

If you are going to make some completely unsupported claim about light speed changing over time, well, thats fine... but you THEN need to explain why geological aging, chemical and radiometric aging and the many other forms of age estimation all interlock so neatly with what astronomical aging suggests?

Not just that, but that the models used produce useful predictions that work. They require refinement, but not lots of ad-hoc exceptions and tinkering.

Conversely, Creation-Science explanations seem to be nothing but a string of ad-hoc stuff with no consistancy, no cohesiveness and no predictive power.

 

[LightHorseman]

Not just that, but that the models used produce useful predictions that work. They require refinement, but not lots of ad-hoc exceptions and tinkering.

Conversely, Creation-Science explanations seem to be nothing but a string of ad-hoc stuff with no consistancy, no cohesiveness and no predictive power.

Indeed.

And... further to this... when asking Creationists to provide "evidence of Creationism", the best I have ever seen them come up with is (supposed, often flawed) reasons to consider evolution false. But I'd just like to remind everyone once again that, even if definitive proof was discovered tommorrow that evolution is false, that STILL wouldn't be evidence that Creationism is true and accurate. There is a lingering false dichotomy that seems to posit that "if we can just prove evolution false then Creationism wins by default". It doesn't. There are about a million other religious creation myths equally valid, not to mention whatever alternate scientific theories may be proposed, starting with Lamarckianism.

So when I ask for evidence of Creationism, I'd REALLY like to avoid being handed the same old PRATTs allegedly disproving evolution again... I want to see some actual evidence that supports Creationism. Since there are so many claiming that such evidence exists, and is, indeed, bountiful, I am at a total loss as to why all Creationists here refuse to show me any.

 

[rcorlew]

That is ONE of the pieces of evidence that suggests an old earth... there are many others... and heres the important bit... EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE INTERLOCKS TO SUGGEST AN OLD EARTH!

If you are going to make some completely unsupported claim about light speed changing over time, well, thats fine... but you THEN need to explain why geological aging, chemical and radiometric aging and the many other forms of age estimation all interlock so neatly with what astronomical aging suggests?

No I am not claiming that the speed of light changes over time, it changes over force. The speed of light remains roughly 182,000 miles/second unless acted on by a force greater than the force contained in the light.

Huh you ask, where in the world is this guy coming from and what point is he trying to make?

Glad you asked, the speed of light in a black hole is 0 feet/second, it cannot escape because the gravity force is greater than force of motion in the light waves and particles also called photons.

Likewise, the theory of special relativity which was proved during the total eclipse of 1918, actually proved that the speed of light is not constant. Typically when light is bent it splits into different parts of its spectrum, most commonly observed using a prism and seeing the rainbow so to speak. Yet when the stars behind the sun were observed and verified, there was no red shift which would indicate that the speed of light in each wave varied. This is proved with simple mechanics, when turning left in a car, the left side tires will have to decelerate and the right side tires will have to accelerate, the left side of the car will be moving slower than the right side.

Are you with me so far?

 

[LightHorseman]

No I am not claiming that the speed of light changes over time, it changes over force. The speed of light remains roughly 182,000 miles/second unless acted on by a force greater than the force contained in the light.

Huh you ask, where in the world is this guy coming from and what point is he trying to make?

Glad you asked, the speed of light in a black hole is 0 feet/second, it cannot escape because the gravity force is greater than force of motion in the light waves and particles also called photons.

Likewise, the theory of special relativity which was proved during the total eclipse of 1918, actually proved that the speed of light is not constant. Typically when light is bent it splits into different parts of its spectrum, most commonly observed using a prism and seeing the rainbow so to speak. Yet when the stars behind the sun were observed and verified, there was no red shift which would indicate that the speed of light in each wave varied. This is proved with simple mechanics, when turning left in a car, the left side tires will have to decelerate and the right side tires will have to accelerate, the left side of the car will be moving slower than the right side.

Are you with me so far?

I am familiar with the action of gravity on light, yes. I am sure, however, you are not about to propose that there is some unobserved massivre gravitational force making all light in the observable universe change its speed to give a uniform appearance of age so that we mistake 6000 odd years of light for 15 billion.

Please also remember to tie in your continuin explanation with all other forms of age estimation, and be sure to explain why we can see 15 billion light years in any direction if the universe is younger than that age, since that would rather require the speed of light INCREASING rather than decreasing.

Other than that, do go on...

 

[rcorlew]

I am familiar with the action of gravity on light, yes. I am sure, however, you are not about to propose that there is some unobserved massivre gravitational force making all light in the observable universe change its speed to give a uniform appearance of age so that we mistake 6000 odd years of light for 15 billion.

Please also remember to tie in your continuin explanation with all other forms of age estimation, and be sure to explain why we can see 15 billion light years in any direction if the universe is younger than that age, since that would rather require the speed of light INCREASING rather than decreasing.

Other than that, do go on...

You seem very disingenuous, but I will continue, as much of my position has already been stated.

One often misunderstood, though I am not claiming you fall into this camp by any means, is that the light we are seeing from any given star was originally created while the star is at its relative current position. Yet the evidence suggests that the universe is expanding as seen through the appearance of red-shift from star light.

A light year is roughly 5.9 trillion miles, so if the universe is 6,000 years old that would mean that light could travel unaided 35,194,176,000,000,000 miles, a staggering distance indeed. Many scientists are now beginning to see the innate possibility of a big-bang/big-crunch where the universe ceases to expand and begins to contract, but at its current state the speed of expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, in fact it is now believed that the universe has actually seen two different acceleration eras meaning the current rate of acceleration is not constant.

I will get back to that later.

If an object emitting light begins traveling away from you even at the speed of light or greater, the original light emitted will continue to exist even though the object were moving away though it would produce red-shift as blue-shift indicates light moving closer. Another part of the equation is the fact that as an object accelerates its mass increases, and at the speed of light even a hydrogen atom would have infinite mass which would generate infinite gravity drawing all matter towards it at an increasingly accelerated rate until all matter was traveling at the speed of light, only problem this would require more energy than exists in the universe.

No problem, remember it only requires one atom to achieve the speed of light to begin acceleration, not that all matter will likewise achieve this rate.

Are you still with me?

 

[LightHorseman]

You seem very disingenuous, but I will continue, as much of my position has already been stated.

Disingenuous? I beg your pardon? How so? I'm shooting perfectly straighht here!

Yes, I'm still with you... but I don't think stars are travelling away from us at anywhere near the speed of light. But please, do go on...

 

[Rosalila]

Jesus wouldn't have come to teach people science 2000 years ago, so it may have appeared he accepted a literal interpretation.



I wholeheartedly disagree. It's a tricky a path to walk as any other.



No, it can't mean "almost anything". And a literal definition does not always provide one meaning.



If I were sitting on the fence, I'd be running away in the opposite direction by the sheer number of creationists accusing their brothers in Christ (like it or not) of not being genuine. Trust me, this kind of crap is making me feel like doing so right now, and I'm a Christian.

And if God is not the author of confusion, that doesn't explain why there are so many different strains of young-earth-creationism.

So, as far as I can tell, you haven't posted a single Bible verse to back up your "literal if possible" interpretation method. So...you have an interpretation of your own. Just as I do. You are in no stronger or weaker a position than I am.

It is more than likely that Jesus did accept a literal interpretation. And that's not to say that that's because science wasn't around. His mind wasn't limited. He was God. Surely Jesus knew of all the advances that would have been made in our time as well as in the future. He knew all about the theory of evolution and all the confusion that has arisen because of it. But He didn't teach it. Rather, he taught from scripture. This should tell you something. All I have said is based on the fact that Jesus was God. As God, He's omniscient. He could have started the scientific revolution early if it was so imperative. I think something so revolutionary as evolution would have been a big deal.

And when I said that metaphorical interpretations can mean 'almost anything', of course, that was an exaggeration. But it's not far from the truth. The meaning is left up to the readers interpretation and it can mean so many things. With a literal interpretation, the meaning is narrowed down a whole lot. It means what it says and it says what it means. Makes things a lot easier.

When I said that 'god is not the author of confusion', that is a Bible verse (for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.1 Corinthians 14:33).God is not the 'author of confusion not because I or anyone else says so, but because HE says so. And that is all the authority I need.

The confusion has arisen because the devil has infiltrated the Church. It's not of God. His specialty, as we all know, is mixing the truth with lies. Josephus,the historian,would agree with me as well.

Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God 'made them male and female'..."

Jesus said very clearly here that Adam and Eve were created from the BEGINNING of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.

Not once did Jesus contradict the accepted literal interpretation.

It is also interesting to note that if you believe Jesus was God, Jesus WAS the Creator. Therefore, as I said before, why did he not set the record straight, as he did on many other issues?

In the Bible 'The Word' means Jesus.

John 1:1 In the beginning was 'the Word', and 'the Word' was with God, and 'the Word' was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus was the Creator so what would you expect His view of the Creation story to be? HE WAS THERE so he knew it was literal.

no actually it IS original. it is the DIFFERENCES that are so striking.

whoa---no one said fallacious
they may indeed argue that, I don't, and this is not that argument.
I am a fan of studying the scriptures to see what we can learn. I am learly when someone suggests that academic study is a slippery slope that will by necessity lead to having no faith. Academics are not the enemy of faith

Well, that is certainly your right to see it that way. I disagree
blessings

I thought you were implying that it was made up since it was borrowed from other myths. I would only say that academics are the enemy of faith when they CONTRADICT what God tells us. It is beneficial to study and learn as much as possible but if our faith is real then nothing will convince us otherwise.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Indeed.

And... further to this... when asking Creationists to provide "evidence of Creationism", the best I have ever seen them come up with is (supposed, often flawed) reasons to consider evolution false.

Theres plenty of reasons why evolution to the extent asserted by darwinists is false.However it seems you havent done any research to the extent that you should of, before typing.

But I'd just like to remind everyone once again that, even if definitive proof was discovered tommorrow that evolution is false, that STILL wouldn't be evidence that Creationism is true and accurate.

This is the same guy who says he loves God.I guess you can say you love someone and not believe they exist.

There is a lingering false dichotomy that seems to posit that "if we can just prove evolution false then Creationism wins by default".

Wow,it means that what you believe in is wrong though.Thats a start.

It doesn't. There are about a million other religious creation myths equally valid,

Lack of knowledge on the topic again,The "myth" of Genesis aligns with science,however doesnt seem to align with your understanding.Whos at fault here?

So when I ask for evidence of Creationism, I'd REALLY like to avoid being handed the same old PRATTs allegedly disproving evolution again... I want to see some actual evidence that supports Creationism. Since there are so many claiming that such evidence exists, and is, indeed, bountiful, I am at a total loss as to why all Creationists here refuse to show me any.

Hmm take a good long look at the hand you use to type with,try to figure out how many nerve impulses it takes to make a response to what im saying.Thats a tip of the iceberg.Will you understand what im getting at?Probably not.
Theres zero proof for intelligence that made us, according to your mind that is making over a trillion processes as you read...

 

[ebia]

It is more than likely that Jesus did accept a literal interpretation. And that's not to say that that's because science wasn't around. His mind wasn't limited. He was God. Surely Jesus knew of all the advances that would have been made in our time as well as in the future.

It's not directly relevant to the point in question, but the incarnate Jesus set aside his 'omniscience' to be fully human. Start talking about Jesus during his earthly, pre-resurrection life as omniscient and you have thrown one of the two most important aspects of good Christology out of the window.

If you really believe what you have just written you have thrown good theology out of the window to try to defend a theological irrelevancy.

And when I said that metaphorical interpretations can mean 'almost anything', of course, that was an exaggeration. But it's not far from the truth. The meaning is left up to the readers interpretation and it can mean so many things. With a literal interpretation, the meaning is narrowed down a whole lot.

This simply isn't true.

It means what it says and it says what it means. Makes things a lot easier.

So when Jesus said "A man went out to sow some seed..." he was simply recounting an event in the life of a (very inefficient) farmer.

When I said that 'god is not the author of confusion', that is a Bible verse (for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.1 Corinthians 14:33).God is not the 'author of confusion not because I or anyone else says so, but because HE says so. And that is all the authority I need.

The most misquoted verse in scripture, I think.

Not once did Jesus contradict the accepted literal interpretation.

Neither did he contradict a mythical interpretation. Everything he said is compatible with either.

It is also interesting to note that if you believe Jesus was God, Jesus WAS the Creator. Therefore, as I said before, why did he not set the record straight, as he did on many other issues?

I thought you were implying that it was made up since it was borrowed from other myths.

Genesis 1 (and other bits) does borrow from other myths - to subvert them and tell of the one true and living God: "Our God is the real God who created, yours are just created things. God created for humanity, not humanity as slaves for the gods, etc, etc"