ATTENTION YECs: Why do you think scripture is incompatible with mainstream science?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sinai,

It sounds as if we are in agreement regarding the nature of science. Cool.

Your post did not ask for evidence of the age of the earth, you specifically asked me the following:

"Identify those scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position."

My quoting of the passage from Romans honors that request sufficiently. The first 11 chapters of Genesis also require me to deny billions of years, for that matter, as well as Job's lesson regarding having expectations of God's need to explain His ways to man and many excerpts from the Psalms that touch on creation and the Flood. What exactly are you expecting? No one is going to pull out a verse written x,000 years ago that is going to state an age that depends on a perspective from the time of the reading of it.

The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook per se. It is not a scientific treatise designed to defend itself. Everything written in its pages assumes that the reader would not dare to question what preceded and what follows. Creationists such as myself specifically evaluate all theoretical assertions of those laboring in science in relation to their potential to do harm to the clear teachings of the Word. That's why we have no problem with natural selection, for example, besides the obvious fact that it also satisfies the requirement of direct observation. Natural selection does no violence to Scripture. The chronicling of God's interaction with the world and its inhabitants, the consumation of His plan of salvation in Messiah and the teachings of Messiah and those he left to establish the Church are what is written. In those words order and sequence, cause and effect are clear. If one begins to arbitrarily insert huge periods of time where no mention of such is made and asserting that events occured in a contradictory progression, it takes what begins as ordered Truth and distorts it to the point where it loses all meaning and logical sense. God's Word documents a specific order to Creation and places the fall of man and the entrance of sin into nature in precise cadence. Evolutionary theory changes that progression of events, placing death before sin, thus invalidating the cause and effect so carefully outlined and consequently, the solution - Christ. As a Christian I am bound to honor God's Word as it is written and am forbidden to tinker with it. Grave penalties are assigned to those who dare to do so - and yes, I shake in fear at the mere thought of those penalties. Anything that proceeds from the mind of man that contradicts or changes one single jot of the Word of God will immediately be rejected by me. The theme found in the Word is the same from start to finish: Choose God or choose man. I tell you now that the latter will never be an option for me. No matter how plausible something may look, if it does harm to the Word, I can rest assured that I am merely not perceiving it correctly, and so will discard it without a care.

Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

You see, it has nothing to do with evidence put forth - it is a simple matter of deference to the Word, which by far surpasses anything that could possibly be conceived in the mind of man. That is why no words of persuasion will move me so much as a hairsbreadth on this issue, no matter how eloquently presented it may be.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Promises said:
Sinai,

It sounds as if we are in agreement regarding the nature of science. Cool.

Your post did not ask for evidence of the age of the earth, you specifically asked me the following:

"Identify those scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position."

Right. This thread is intended to examine just the YEC position regarding the age of the universe. That should be enough to hold us for a while. If and when we finish examining the scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, we can broaden the search a bit or move on to other topics.

My quoting of the passage from Romans honors that request sufficiently.
It still appears to me that Romans 5: 12-17 says nothing about the age of the universe, but rather contrasts Adam's fall to sin and spiritual death with Christ's victory over sin and spiritual death.

The first 11 chapters of Genesis also require me to deny billions of years, for that matter, as well as Job's lesson regarding having expectations of God's need to explain His ways to man and many excerpts from the Psalms that touch on creation and the Flood. What exactly are you expecting?
Young earth creationists generally reject scientific data showing that the universe is billions of Earth years old primarily because they think they must do so in order to be true to the teachings of the Bible. What I am seeking to understand is which scriptures require you to deny that the universe is billions of years old. I propose that we study those verses together to see if the YEC interpretaion is the only viable interpretation.
No one is going to pull out a verse written x,000 years ago that is going to state an age that depends on a perspective from the time of the reading of it.
I agree.

The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook per se. It is not a scientific treatise designed to defend itself.
Again, I agree. The fact that it takes the Bible only 31 short verses to cover the entire creative process from creation of the universe to creation of man probably indicates that the Bible was ready to move on to the greatest love story ever told: God's love for us, man's sin and rebellion against God, and God's means of reconciling man to Him so that we may have everlasting life and fellowship with God. And thus we can appreciate that even that first chapter is part of that love story.....
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Sinai said:
Young earth creationists generally reject scientific data showing that the universe is billions of Earth years old primarily because they think they must do so in order to be true to the teachings of the Bible. What I am seeking to understand is which scriptures require you to deny that the universe is billions of years old. I propose that we study those verses together to see if the YEC interpretaion is the only viable interpretation.




Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


If God formed the earth to be inhabited, are you telling me that it took a "perfect" God billions of years to create an imperfect being like man to inhabit it?


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0
(Verses in NASB)

It would never "take" God that long. He exists outside our boundaries of time and space... time is TOTALLY irrelevant when we are talking about something like this (how long it would take God). Time is irrelevant to Him. Our dimensions of time just don't apply. Now, five-thousand years ago, two million years from now... it's all the same with God.

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

In other words, God could do it in a day or in ten trillion years and it would all be the same to Him.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
My proposal to you:
Sinai said:
Young earth creationists generally reject scientific data showing that the universe is billions of Earth years old primarily because they think they must do so in order to be true to the teachings of the Bible. What I am seeking to understand is which scriptures require you to deny that the universe is billions of years old. I propose that we study those verses together to see if the YEC interpretaion is the only viable interpretation.
The verse you chose:
Malaka said:
Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
I fully agree with and believe Isaiah 45:18: God created the universe; he formed our planet with a purpose in mind. Personally, I am glad God loved us enough to include us in his plan....

Your question regarding that verse:
If God formed the earth to be inhabited, are you telling me that it took a "perfect" God billions of years to create an imperfect being like man to inhabit it?

As I told you previously, time is not a limiting dimension with God. He could have created the universe and everything in it in a nanosecond--or even instantaniously--if he had chosen to do so. But the evidence is that he chose to use a few billion Earth years (measured looking back toward the beginning of creation). Is he any less God for choosing to do it that way instead of some other way? I don't think so. I am not questioning God's power or his right to do things the way he chooses. Are you?
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
bulldog86 said:
(Verses in NASB)

It would never "take" God that long. He exists outside our boundaries of time and space... time is TOTALLY irrelevant when we are talking about something like this (how long it would take God). Time is irrelevant to Him. Our dimensions of time just don't apply. Now, five-thousand years ago, two million years from now... it's all the same with God.

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

In other words, God could do it in a day or in ten trillion years and it would all be the same to Him.

Right you are, bulldog. Our God is not limited by the dimensions (width, height, depth, time, etc.) that limit the dimensions of the universe He created.

I am also glad that God loves us enough to give us both physical life now and everlasting life so that we may worship and fellowship with Him for eternity. His love is sufficient to overcome all obstacles and dimesional limitations. Romans 8: 38-39: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, wll be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
obediah001 said:
Try Genesis chapter one, starting at verse one & read on.

Thank you for posting a response. I have tried Genesis chapter one in both the Hebrew and in various English translations. In order to do the type of study that might be helpful, however, we need to center our attention on those particular verses that you (or other young earth creationists who wish to participate) believe are compelling enough to cause you to disbelieve scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

I therefore request that you identify those scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position. Thank you.

The key to the comparison of the Big Bag THEORY with the Bible is easy, it BB only exists inthe mind of rebelious man. Th known principals of science (not to omit common sense) have totlally demolished the theory.

Although your response makes me wonder whether you are really familiar with either the big bang theory or with the scientific evidence supporting it, that is the topic of an entirely different thread. If you wish to discuss the big bang theory, I suggest that we do so on that thread. Again, thank you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Obediah, please read the following article, written by anti-evolutionist Christian scientists, describing the history of the Big Bang:

Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First!
By Hugh Ross and John Rea

Most science textbooks that address cosmology credit Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson with the discovery that the universe arose from a hot big bang creation event. While it is true that they were the first (1965) to detect the radiation left over from the creation event,1 they were not the first scientists to recognize that the universe expanded from an extremely hot and compact state. In 1946 George Gamow calculated that nothing less than the universe expanding from a near infinitely hot condition could account for the present abundance of elements.2 In 1929 observations made by Edwin Hubble established that the velocities of galaxies result from a general expansion of the universe.3 Beginning in 1925 Abbé Georges Lemaître, who was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest, was the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.4

The first direct scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916. That is when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of general relativity predicted an expanding universe.5 Unwilling to accept the cosmic beginning implied by such expansion, Einstein altered his theory to conform with the common wisdom of his day, namely an eternally existing universe.6

All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”7 The proclamation that God created (bara’) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18). This principle of transcendent creation is made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that the universe that we humans can measure and detect was made out of that which we cannot measure or detect. Also, Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe’s existence. Biblical claims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causing certain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found in Colossians 1 but also in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.

The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being “stretched out.” Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for “heavens” or “skies” is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth’s atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.

What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. Four verses, Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 use the Qal perfect form. This form literally means that the stretching of the heavens was completed or finished some time ago.

That the Bible really does claim that the stretching out of the heavens is both “finished” and “ongoing” is made all the more evident in Isaiah 40:22. There we find two different verbs used in two different forms. In the first of the final two parallel poetic lines, “stretches out” is the verb natah in the Qal active participle form. In the second (final) line the verb “spreads them out” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) is mathah (used only this one time in the Old Testament) in the waw consecutive plus Qal imperfect form, so that literally we might translate it “and he has spread them out . . .” The participles in lines one and three of Isaiah 40:22 characterize our sovereign God by His actions in all times, sitting enthroned above the earth and stretching out the heavens, constantly exercising his creative power in His ongoing providential work. This characterization is continued with reference to the past by means of waw consecutive with the imperfect, the conversive form indicating God’s completed act of spreading out the heavens. That is, this one verse literally states that God is both continuing to stretch out the heavens and has stretched them out.

This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics (specifically, the laws, constants, and equations of physics) are instantly created, designed, and finished so as to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe at exactly the right rates with respect to time so that physical life will be possible.

This biblical claim for simultaneously finished and ongoing acts of creation, incidentally, is not limited to just the universe’s expansion. The same claim, for example, is made for God’s laying Earth’s foundations (Isaiah 51:3; Zechariah 12:1). This is consistent with the geophysical discovery that certain long-lived radiometric elements were placed into the earth’s crust a little more than four billion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continual building of continents.

Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space.

[quoted from the Reasons to Believe website]
 
Upvote 0

nami

Active Member
Aug 25, 2003
29
0
✟141.00
Hello, I think that the question in hand is interpreting the Bible.
If you looked at history backwards,from the end of time(?),given that the Bible is prophecy; then one could fit events/dynamics broadly under the scope of His Word. I do believe this 'must' be the case, being that I believe The Bible is direct from the Divine. This brings up many issues of who/why we allow others to dictate what the Word is saying (without question.) The Word of God can not change, our concepts of it must.
 
Upvote 0
Sinai said:
On several threads in another CF forum, I have asked several young earth creationists to identify which portions of the original Hebrew text they believe are not compatible with the big bang theory and to state why they think it is contrary to scripture.

I don't speak Hebrew. But, the English translation is not at all compatible with the Big Bang. Your question is purely absurd.

Since I am not so sure that is really the case, I would like to explore why YECs seem to feel so threatened by scientific findings

I'm not at all threatened by scientific findings. But, why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it or otherwise play absurd word games? Incidently, the Big Bang is incompatible with science.

The challenge is quite simple: Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text you believe are not compatible with the big bang theory and to state why you think it is contrary to scripture.

Hmmm, where to start in yoru absurd game. How about: Hmmm, God created land and plants and then the next day, mere hours later, he created the sun. But, the Big Bang, if you know anything about it, says that the sun was created first and that plants came many millions of years later.
 
Upvote 0

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Saint Philip said:
I don't speak Hebrew. But, the English translation is not at all compatible with the Big Bang. Your question is purely absurd.
Well the hebrew is the language in which the authors spoke and wrote, so reading in the Hebrew will help us understand what the author is trying to say.

I'm not at all threatened by scientific findings. But, why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it or otherwise play absurd word games? Incidently, the Big Bang is incompatible with science.
We aren't threatened by creationism, we just don't want to lie to anyone and tell them it's true when God's Creation clearly says it is not.

What absurd word games?

What is the Big Bang?

Hmmm, where to start in yoru absurd game. How about : Hmmm, God created land and plants and then the next day, mere hours later, he created the sun. But, the Big Bang, if you know anything about it, says that the sun was created first and that plants came many millions of years later.
Oh yes, like Genesis 1 says animals were created first then men and women at the same time, but Genesis 2 says man was created, then aniamls, then woman. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But Phil, why is his question absurd? Was the Bible written in English?

BTW, what do you think of the article I posted above from a Christian astro-physicist? He, being one who should know, thinks that not only is it scientifically sound, it is strong evidence of God's creative force at work.

In short, God spoke and "BANG" it happened.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
wblastyn said:
We aren't threatened by creationism, we just don't want to lie to anyone and tell them it's true when God's Creation clearly says it is not.

Wblastyn, is English not your first language? Owhay boutaay iglatinpay? Or, maybe you're just suffering from a terminal case of disingenuousness (a pervasive condition of Evolutionists)?

I asked, "Why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it." You reply, "We just don't want to lie..."

Your response shows a complete lack of understanding of my simple statement. I asked about censorship. I did not ask why Evolutionists (ignoring for the moment that they're total liars) don't want to lie.


Oh yes, like Genesis 1 says animals were created first then men and women at the same time, but Genesis 2 says man was created, then aniamls, then woman. :rolleyes:

Improve your English skills and then try re-reading Genesis. 'Cause, you are wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Well, Saint Phil, way to be inflammatory and angry towards your fellow believer... attaboy... Totally Christ-like.

Saint Philip said:
Wblastyn, is English not your first language? Owhay boutaay iglatinpay? Or, maybe you're just suffering from a terminal case of disingenuousness (a pervasive condition of Evolutionists)?

I asked, "Why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it." You reply, "We just don't want to lie..."

Your response shows a complete lack of understanding of my simple statement. I asked about censorship. I did not ask why Evolutionists (ignoring for the moment that they're total liars) don't want to lie.


Improve your English skills and then try re-reading Genesis. 'Cause, you are wrong.

To begin... Attacking the boy's English is entirely childish, especially when your's isn't quite perfect. The word "plank" comes to mind (See Matt. 7:5). To note:

"I asked, "Why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it." " Questions end in question marks, NOT periods.

"Improve your English skills and then try re-reading Genesis. 'Cause, you are wrong." "'Cause you are wrong" is not a sentence... the proper structure would be the following: "...Genesis, because you are wrong."

"But, the English translation is not at all compatible with the Big Bang." No comma is needed after "But." It's improper English. Addtionally, if we are dealing with proper English (instead of journalistic English, which this is), one should not start a sentence with a conjunction.

"But, the Big Bang, if you know anything about it, says that the sun was created first and that plants came many millions of years later." Same rule applies. Additionally, there is a comma needed before "and that plants."

Look, I'm not one to be anal about grammar. Mine is certainly no better than yours (you actually have fine grammar). However, when you ignore someone's argument and just attack their grammar... I feel the need to step in. It is SO childish. Additionally, saying, "You're wrong" without backing up your argument is very immature.

Moving on to your actual arguments:

"Incidently, the Big Bang is incompatible with science." This is always interesting to note that unqualified kids know more than the thousands of scientists with PhD's. I just always find it hard to buy the argument that the majority of qualified are totally wrong, and a few unqualified yet zealous Christians are really the ones who are right.

"God created land and plants and then the next day, mere hours later, he created the sun."

Oh really? And you would... a Hebrew scholar? The Hebrew word "yôm" (translated day) is furiously argued. The majority of Hebrew scholars say it means a strict 24-hour-day, though it is a very slim majority. It is still too debated to say that it CONCLUSIVELY and UNDENIABLY means a 24-hour-day. It seems like it might be more akin to the English word "day." "Day" doesn't always means twenty-four hours. Says Grandpa, "Back in my day..." (time period). Additionally, "evening" and "morning" aren't nearly as conclusive as some would claim. I/e Psalm 90:5-6 "You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning ? though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered."

"But, the Big Bang, if you know anything about it, says that the sun was created first and that plants came many millions of years later."

Funny, that's not what the Big Bang says at all. The Big Bang simply explains how our Universe expanded from a very dense, small size to the gigantic size it is now. Nothing more. Nothing about the origin of matter. It doesn't even necessarily talk about the origin of life.

"Oh yes, like Genesis 1 says animals were created first then men and women at the same time, but Genesis 2 says man was created, then aniamls, then woman."

Do a study in Hebrew poetry (and, to an extent, Hebrew and ancient literature as a whole), particularly the "state, restate unchronologically" pattern often found.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Saint Philip said:
I don't speak Hebrew. But, the English translation is not at all compatible with the Big Bang.
Thank you for posting your response. Which English translation(s) do you use, and why do you think it is incompatible with the big bang theory?
Your question is purely absurd.
And why is that?

Incidently, the Big Bang is incompatible with science.
Really? And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

But, the Big Bang, if you know anything about it, says that the sun was created first and that plants came many millions of years later.
Yes. That is what scientific evidence indicates. However, this thread attempts to center our attention on those particular verses that you (or other young earth creationists who wish to participate) believe are compelling enough to cause you to disbelieve scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old. That should be enough to hold us for a while. If and when we finish examining the scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, we can broaden the search a bit or move on to other topics.

I therefore request that you identify those scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0
bulldog86 said:
"I asked, "Why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it." " Questions end in question marks, NOT periods.

Didn't your English teacher ever tell you to use single quotes within double quotes? Besides, I wasn't picking on the guy's punctuation, grammar, spelling. I was taking him to task for his gross twisting of what I said.

"Incidently, the Big Bang is incompatible with science." This is always interesting to note that unqualified kids know more than the thousands of scientists with PhD's.

I find it interesting that unqualified Evolutionists always know what thousands of scientists with PhDs believe. You also know that "appeal to authority" is listed as a logical error in every book on logic. In this case it matters because the Big Bang and Evolution are the State's religion. Few of those PhDs were educated in academically open schools and few of them can openly object and hope to keep their jobs. Never mistake the fruits of fascism for the inherent strength of a belief.

"God created land and plants and then the next day, mere hours later, he created the sun."

Oh really? And you would... a Hebrew scholar? The Hebrew word "yôm" (translated day) is furiously argued. The majority of Hebrew scholars say it means a strict 24-hour-day, though it is a very slim majority. It is still too debated to say that it CONCLUSIVELY and UNDENIABLY means a 24-hour-day.

The driving force behind those who deny that the Genesis 1 days are 24-hour are the same ones trying to force the Bible to fit with Atheist doctrine. Besides, the subject of my sentence was the order of creation. Did you think it easier to attack the parenthetical remark? Were you trying to find a strawman?

"But, the Big Bang, if you know anything about it, says that the sun was created first and that plants came many millions of years later."

Funny, that's not what the Big Bang says at all. The Big Bang simply explains how our Universe expanded from a very dense, small size to the gigantic size it is now. Nothing more. Nothing about the origin of matter. It doesn't even necessarily talk about the origin of life.

So, no Big Banger is going to tell me some story about energy cooling and becoming matter then that matter clumping together and forming stars? Do you not know what an axiom is, like life forming after planets? Do you not know that if the Big Bang is true, it didn't end 17 million years ago (or whatever number Big Bangers pull out of their rear)?

Do a study in Hebrew poetry (and, to an extent, Hebrew and ancient literature as a whole), particularly the "state, restate unchronologically" pattern often found.

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

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, that is it. Either Phil is a troll or he is pulling another Dayton on us.

For those who don't know, Dayton was someone who pretended to be a YEC and took the most idiotic YEC positions as vehemently as possible so as to make YECists look even worse. If Phil is doing this, he is doing an even better job of discredting YECs by adding rudeness in as well.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.