A question for Young Earth Creationists

[Calminian]

Maybe not faulty so much as completely lacking. You admit yourself that the Hebrew writers had no concept of planetary orbits. And so God inspired them to describe the sun's seeming rotation about the Earth from their limited POV.

From our point of view the heavens do rotate around us. Do you not know the difference between the term rotate and orbit?

Do you also believe speed limit signs to be completely lacking? Do you think stop signs are lacking? Everyone knows that the earth is moving at high speeds relative to the sun, so of course it is fallacious to say we are going 60 MPH. Just as it is fallacious to say we can actually stop. Should we correct those signs? Or better can we interpret them allegorically? Try that with a human judge.

What about this passage?

Mark 10:49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him here.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take courage, arise! He is calling for you.”

But everyone knows that Jesus didn't really stop. He was traveling at high speeds on the earth relative to the sun.

How about this one?

Prov. 22:28 Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set.

Is this also lacking scientifically, for everyone knows that these boundaries are moving through space on the earth at high speeds relative to the Sun? And since this is scientifically flawed maybe it wasn't meant literally. Maybe that bit about moving the ancient boundaries was all just figurative?

Can you see now how utterly silly these arguments are?

Why could God not also have inspired them to write about the creation based on their limited understanding of Earth's history?

They did write based on their own understandings of earth history! And their writings were accurate in every sense.

 

[vossler]

The whole fact that man can develop theories at all goes to show how "real" the universe is. Theories are simply descriptions.

Great, let's just not call theories which are not observable science.

Every time I try a certain something with the universe, it does this or it does that. When I let go of a ball above clear space it falls down. Every time I breed bacteria they are able to adapt to changing environments through random generation of new genetic material. Science tells us that the universe behaves consistently at a materialistic level, and that's all.

Here you see a logical pattern and then take some big liberties with the facts and present a theory that projects out into a very distant past and wish to call it science. Why not call it what it is, a calculated theory base on scientific principles. I don't want to give it the same credibility as other sciences which are fully supported by direct evidence.

The whole problem is that by your perspective, anything in the past is going to be pure speculation. I put an orange on the table. "Prove to me that this orange grew on an orange tree," I ask you. By your standards of proof it would be impossible. No matter how many orange trees you grow and how many oranges you harvest you may never be able to convince me that this particular orange did not, say, arrive on Earth in a ship embedded in a great meteor from the planet Kripton.

I don't know but if I saw an orange on a table and have seen them in the past on trees, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to assume they came from trees. How you compare that to saying man came out of a primordial soup and evolved into his present form is beyond me. Does common sense even enter into such an assessment for you? I'm confused.

There are scientific standards of observing the past which substitute well enough for actual repeatability. And by those standards evolution works.

Anytime you substitute something else for the real thing it needs to be properly identified as a substitute and not the real thing. If you and others wish to use those substitute standards I have no problem with it, let's just not call it science or at least put a modifier on the term.

On a more fundamental level, man is a created being, on equal footing with every other created being in the universe (at least from a scientific point of view, not a theological one). Atoms don't behave differently inside a human body and out. When I drop a corpse from 200 meters it bursts open on the ground, and when I drop a live person from 200 meters (if I ever wanted to) s/he becomes a corpse and then bursts open on the ground. Humanity is subject to physical laws just like the rest of the universe, so why should there be any physical laws we experience which we should expect never to understand?

Again, I don't have a problem with sciences that measure information that can be observed and repeated. However that isn't molecules to man.

My basic position is that science is empirical and observational in nature even when it examines what you call "the past", since it never observes anything but the past. But this takes a bit of thinking to fully unravel and so we'll only go down this rabbit hole if you want to.

I don't know how you can claim science to be emprical and observational when it speaks of things before the arrival of man. If something happened before man existed, how can it possibly be observed?

 

[shernren]

I'm going to open a separate thread to address the specific issue of the knowability of the past.

EDIT: rmswilliams has done just that. see the thread "demarcation line". I'll continue my train of thought concerning the past there.

 

[Mallon]

Can you see now how utterly silly these arguments are?

To be honest, the only thing that seems silly to me is your unwillingness to admit that 400+ years ago, people actually thought the Earth was at the centre of the universe (based on the Scriptures, nonetheless!).

They did write based on their own understandings of earth history! And their writings were accurate in every sense.

Couldn't disagree with you more. But there's a dead horse that doesn't need to be flogged again.

 

[djbcrawford]

To be honest, the only thing that seems silly to me is your unwillingness to admit that 400+ years ago, people actually thought the Earth was at the centre of the universe (based on the Scriptures, nonetheless!).

What scriptures did they base this on?

Incidentally, if the universe is infinite, then the earth is an equal distance from it's edge in all directions which means, technically, it is at the centre.

 

[RealityCheck]

What scriptures did they base this on?

Incidentally, if the universe is infinite, then the earth is an equal distance from it's edge in all directions which means, technically, it is at the centre.

I think numerous posts have already covered the Psalms that describe the "pillars" on which the earth rests.

Then too there is the infamous passage in Joshua (chapter 10 IIRC) in which God stops the sun and moon in the sky from moving, so that Joshua can continue his battle to victory.

The first chapter of Genesis also supports this view of the earth at the center, because "in the beginning" earth and heaven were created by God. Nothing else existed - not sun, moon, stars, nothing else. It is only after God has organized the waters of the earth and heavens that the sun and moon and stars are created and placed in their spots in the heavens.

 

[RealityCheck]

Oh, and you're right about the earth - but you could just as easily state that any other spot in the universe is at the center.

 

[djbcrawford]

Oh, and you're right about the earth - but you could just as easily state that any other spot in the universe is at the center.

I know, I was going to type that bit but in the end couldn't be bothered.

 

[djbcrawford]

I think numerous posts have already covered the Psalms that describe the "pillars" on which the earth rests.

Doesn't mean it's at the centre. Could mean the pillars of gravity and momentum. Besides, Psalms are songs which would be allegorical in nature. If you sing my heart soars like the eagle, it doesn't mean it bursts out of your chest and takes off round the room.

Then too there is the infamous passage in Joshua (chapter 10 IIRC) in which God stops the sun and moon in the sky from moving, so that Joshua can continue his battle to victory.

That would be a miracle. You either believe in them or you don't. If they were describing what they saw, that would be how it looked to them. If this is an eyewitness account then it would be written that way.

The first chapter of Genesis also supports this view of the earth at the center, because "in the beginning" earth and heaven were created by God. Nothing else existed - not sun, moon, stars, nothing else. It is only after God has organized the waters of the earth and heavens that the sun and moon and stars are created and placed in their spots in the heavens.

How does this imply earth is the centre. Apart from the earth and the heavens, what else is there. What are the heavens if not the whole universe - which would include sun, stars, etc... This verse is saying in the beginning, God created everything. Alternatively earth and heavens could be translated as matter and space. It says the earth was without form and void - not exactly the rough globe shape it is now. There are several words used in Genesis to describe creation. Some seem to be talking about creating something out of nothing, while others seem to be relating to forming something out of an existing substance. These are very old manuscripts that are being translated and the english words chosen are more likely to be similar rather than exact.

I think it's not a matter of whether you take Genesis literally or not, but how literally. Since humans weren't around at creation, then God must have told them or showed them what happened, which they then passed on or wrote down. One extreme is to look at what they said and take each word literally (he said 'put', so he must have picked it up and 'put' it there). The other extreme is to say it didn't happen like that at all, God just told them a nice wee story to let them know he had made it all. Personally I think the truth lies some where in the middle.

 

[shernren]

What are the heavens if not the whole universe - which would include sun, stars, etc...

The firmament of the heavens and the atmosphere enclosed therein. A Jew born any time before the first century AD (and probably even after then) would never have conceived an infinite universe of vacuum with the stars as flaming balls of gas. It's a modernist interpretation that says that "the heavens" are the universe.

 

[djbcrawford]

The firmament of the heavens and the atmosphere enclosed therein.

Never really understood the word 'firmament'. It sounds too 'solid' to describe air. If the atmosphere is enclosed within the firmament then the firmament is outside the atmosphere which leads us towards space again. If space doesn't stop then we have earth, atmosphere and then firmament (everything else).

A Jew born any time before the first century AD (and probably even after then) would never have conceived an infinite universe of vacuum with the stars as flaming balls of gas.

They wouldn't have any concept of atmosphere enclosed within anything either. The universe is made be made up of matter/energy in various states and nothing else, as vacuum isn't technically a thing, but a word to describe the absence of thing (like darkness isn't a thing, but a word to describe the absence of light).

It's a modernist interpretation that says that "the heavens" are the universe.

Yes, but what's wrong with that.

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't it using modern science to interpret scripture? YECs seem to think it is a bad idea in itself, and TEs are wary of reading stuff into a verse that the writer didn't mean.

 

[djbcrawford]

Isn't it using modern science to interpret scripture? YECs seem to think it is a bad idea in itself, and TEs are wary of reading stuff into a verse that the writer didn't mean.

I don't have a problem with that - as long as it lines up with scripture. We don't 'know' what he meant, we can only interpret his meaning from his words and remember he is describing what he is seeing from his point of view - like a witness giving a statement. If something comes to light to contradict his statement, isn't the first thing to do to re-evaluate it to see if we misunderstood it in the first place. The next step would the to decide if he was mistaken, lying or making it all up.

With scripture, I wouldn't like to go past the first step.

 

[shernren]

Never really understood the word 'firmament'. It sounds too 'solid' to describe air. If the atmosphere is enclosed within the firmament then the firmament is outside the atmosphere which leads us towards space again. If space doesn't stop then we have earth, atmosphere and then firmament (everything else).

Bingo. The word "firmament" derives from the Hebrew "raqia", which derives (AFAIK) from another Hebrew word talking about metal-casting. More modern translations usually have "expanse" where they choose to translate it (otherwise, they drop it altogether), because there really isn't any modern-English equivalent to it.

"Raqia" has a connotation of solidity and strength, as insinuated by the link to metal-working, and this connotation has carried on to "firmament". Why? Because like almost any other ancient culture, the Hebrews could not conceive of the sky as being just a mass of air, to them the sky was a large, solid dome above their heads. rmswilliams has an excellent graphic depicting the Hebrews' cosmogony, it pops up a lot here on OT.

Now here we "know" what he meant: God created a large solid dome above our heads and called it "the sky" / "the heavens". So what do we do when it conflicts with science? Have I thrown out Scripture if I consider the "firmament of the heavens" to be not a large solid dome, but the atmosphere and the space outside it? Even if we're pretty sure that's not what Moses meant?

 

[artybloke]

With scripture, I wouldn't like to go past the first step.

Why, what are you afraid of?

 

[RealityCheck]

Why, what are you afraid of?

Fear is the mind-killer.

 

[Melethiel]

Fear is the mind-killer.

Yay, Dune.

 

[Shakespeare]

Incidentally, if the universe is infinite, then the earth is an equal distance from it's edge in all directions which means, technically, it is at the centre.

But by that logic, so is everywhere else...

 

[Gwenyfur]

Never really understood the word 'firmament'. It sounds too 'solid' to describe air.

Genesis 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kinda hard for birds to fly through solids

 

[Assyrian]

Creating the solid firmamant was a supernatural miracle, it's not subject to investigation by the presuppositions of methodological naturalism. Who is to say God couldn't create a solid firmament birds could fly through?

But seriously folks, the verse says more literally:
on, or across, the face of the firmament of the heavens.