A Request For the Theistic Evolutionists

[Sugarloaf]

Many people say that Genesis cannot be interpreted as literal history because of several reasons (which I’d like to discuss in another thread), so I want to challenge you theistic evolutionists to support your view in explaining how and what you would write to convince people that Genesis is literal history. The request and guidelines for answering are as follows:



I know that this is a tall order, but imagine just for a second that you are God. You want to tell people for many generations that you did indeed create everything in six literal days, where everything was created in chronological order as recorded in Genesis. How would you go about doing that such that it could not be shrugged off as figurative or poetical language?



Since I have an idea of how you will reply to this request, I will limit the kind of responses that you give. I don’t want anything like, “Well for starters, I wouldn’t include any figurative language,” and the other rhetoric (we can discuss the figurative language in another thread). I would like you tell me, if you can, how you would write the first chapter or two of Genesis such that people would realise that you did indeed create everything in six days as you said in your word. What kind of wording would you use?



I am thanking you in advance for any responses that you give. If you all stick to the simple literal guidelines for answering this request, this should hopefully be an insightful thread. I'll be away for a few weeks so I'll swing back after when I get the chance and see your responses.

I guess what I am trying to find out is the way that Genesis was written the most simplistic and obvious way of retelling a literal six day creation account, or is there easier and more straight forward ways? If so, please retell it because I'm interested in expanding my knowledge on this topic.

 

[ebia]

There are some questions I think need to be clarified:

1. What is God's purpose in informing us of the this information - why do we need to know it took a literal 6 days?

2. How much of the symbols have to be retained - does it still have to tell the same theological story?

The counter-question (which I have also yet to see answered) is for a creationist to tell Genesis 1's theological & symbolic story in a way that fit's literally with the scientific understanding of every age, past, present and future, without giving any of the game way (ie without revealing any scientific facts unknown to the reader).

 

[gluadys]

I know that this is a tall order, but imagine just for a second that you are God. You want to tell people for many generations that you did indeed create everything in six literal days, where everything was created in chronological order as recorded in Genesis. How would you go about doing that such that it could not be shrugged off as figurative or poetical language?

First, why do you suggest that when God decides to inspire figurative or poetic language we have any right to shrug it off?

I would like you tell me, if you can, how you would write the first chapter or two of Genesis such that people would realise that you did indeed create everything in six days as you said in your word. What kind of wording would you use?

I wouldn't change the wording at all, since poetic and figurative language should not be shrugged off but taken as seriously as plain prose.

What I would do is make nature conform to the wording. Here are some things that would be required:

The genetic markers in all species should converge on common ancestors that lived no more that 6,000 years ago (better yet, 4,000 years ago to take the global flood into account.)

The sky should consist of a solid dome overarching the earth. Sun, moon and stars should be within this dome. There should be no evidence of the universe expanding. Celestial bodies should be located not far above the atmosphere. None should be more than 6 light-days from the earth.

The earth should sit immobile under the sky-dome. Sun, moon and stars should revolve around the earth.

No fossil should date to more than 6,000 years old and most should date to around 4,000 years old since the flood was the single event of mass extinction.

The flood sediments should be well-marked and geologists should be able to clearly distinguish them from both the original created rock and from sediments formed since. Fossils in the flood sediments should be distributed according to hydrological and other relevant principles.

 

[depthdeception]

I know that this is a tall order, but imagine just for a second that you are God. You want to tell people for many generations that you did indeed create everything in six literal days, where everything was created in chronological order as recorded in Genesis. How would you go about doing that such that it could not be shrugged off as figurative or poetical language?

Nobody can answer this question, for nobody knows the mind of God. Furthermore, the accounts which we do have are not accurate examples of what you are asking, because they were written by humans in particular historical, cutlural, sociological, etc. environments which influenced the content of their writing.

If I were to venture a guess, however, I would think that if God wrote something directly, we wouldn't be able to understand it. Furthermore, if I were God, and attempting to communicate something about myself to humanity, I do not think that telling them the exact mechanism of creation would be a real high priority. In fact, I do not think I would bother telling them at all--rather, I would be interested to let them figure it out for themselves since I gave them minds and ambitions to do this very thing...

 

[Joykins]

I would make sure the text had no internal inconsistency. The order of creation would be the same in Genesis 2 as in Genesis 1.

Secondly, I would make sure the text had no external inconsistency. I would make sure that my account was supported by empirical evidence, that people could discover for themselves once they had reliable tools with which to do so.

That would be a bare minimum.

I tend to agree that we would probably not be able to understand anything God could write directly.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

There are some questions I think need to be clarified:

1. What is God's purpose in informing us of the this information - why do we need to know it took a literal 6 days?

2. How much of the symbols have to be retained - does it still have to tell the same theological story?

The counter-question (which I have also yet to see answered) is for a creationist to tell Genesis 1's theological & symbolic story in a way that fit's literally with the scientific understanding of every age, past, present and future, without giving any of the game way (ie without revealing any scientific facts unknown to the reader).

1 and 2: Don't ask questions, just do it.

3: This is metaphysics, not physics. Science has no relevance.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The genetic markers in all species should converge on common ancestors that lived no more that 6,000 years ago (better yet, 4,000 years ago to take the global flood into account.)

add to this a different tRNA codon to animo acid code specific to each kind and you have encoded both YECism and the flood into all living things.

founder's effect + kind codes = proof of YECism

why didn't God do that?
but rather make everything look very old and evolved?


.....

 

[ebia]

1 and 2: Don't ask questions, just do it.

Except the result is dependent on the answer to my questions.

3: This is metaphysics, not physics. Science has no relevance.

I agree, but creationists apparently do not.

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Hi everyone,
Just adding my two cents here.

The counter-question (which I have also yet to see answered) is for a creationist to tell Genesis 1's theological & symbolic story in a way that fit's literally with the scientific understanding of every age, past, present and future, without giving any of the game way (ie without revealing any scientific facts unknown to the reader).

Firstly, I don't believe that Genesis 1 is a symbolic story - that's for you prove. Secondly, why would one want Genesis 1 to fit perfectly with science from every age? Several thousand years ago they believed that the sun orbited the Earth, several hundred years ago they believed that the Earth was flat, and so on. Galileo showed how the Bible didn't support the geocentric view - and Galileo was a creationist himself. The Bible is above man's science. I find it interesting that science changes its ideas as though it is going out of fashion, but the Bible hasn't changed in over five thousand years. It had always maintained that the Earth was round, Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth (NIV), even when science said other wise. It has like wise maintained the closeness of the human "races" even when evolutionists were claiming that some groups came from different ancestors and others were more closer to apes then others and so on. Scientists now say that the term "race" should be discarded as it has no biological meaning. In both of these situations, the Bible has waited for science to catch up. I honestly believe that finally science will catch up with the Bible come to acknowledge what the Bible has maintained all along - that the Earth is young.

I have seen the same attitude that you portray among almost all theistic evolutionists that I have come across. By doing what you are proposing we do, you are actually placing science above the Bible's authority, i.e. making the Bible conform to science. For Christians, the Bible should be the absolute truth to which everything else, including science, should be tested against where possible. If science says something that goes against the most obvious reading of the Word, then it is wrong. For if it is right, then the Bible is wrong and it therefore cannot be the Word of God as it contains errors.

For example, the Bible was inspired by God who is all knowing, who was there and who doesn't lie. Science is done by fallible men and women who were not there, who don't know everything and who are in natural rebellion against God and His Word's truth. Can you see how it makes much more sense to trust the all knowing God who was there and who doesn't lie as opposed to trusting fallible men who weren't there and who don't know everything?

To trust man's science and opinions about our origin over what Genesis clearly says is a little silly. You are in a sense trying to tell God how you think He created everything rather than letting Him tell us how He created everything.

If God was really meaning to tell everyone that He did create over millions of years, then why not just state that? Why deceive people into believing that He created everything over six literal days by saying that "in six days God created the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11)?

Just by looking at the Hebrew word for day, yom, we can come to the conclusion that day cannot be "millions of years". The Hebrew word for day can mean only either an ordinary day or an indefinite period of time. It should be made clear that the word for day in Genesis can never mean a long period in the definite sense. It can mean something longer than a day, but only in the indefinite sense, for example, in the day of the LORD. It's interesting that perhaps one reason why God took as long as six days to make everything is to set a pattern for man to follow, as laid out in the Ten Commandments, which we still use today. God was not hinting at or trying to tell us that He worked for six million years and rested for one million years, telling us to do the same. It makes even less sense to try and proclaim that He worked for six indefinite periods of time.

There are other aspects of Genesis that we could point to that show the days must have been ordinary days; for example, Adam was created on the sixth day and he lived right through the sixth day and day seven, and died when he was 930 years old. If each day were millions of years, there are big problems here too.

Those who are familar with English should realise that the word "day", when first used in Genesis cannot be symbolic as a word cannot be symbolically teh first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically when it first has a defined literal meaning. It is given this defined literal meaning in Genesis chapter 1, the first time it is used. Also, the words used for "evening" and "morning" can mean only that. If not, what do they refer to?

The order of creation would be the same in Genesis 2 as in Genesis 1.

Genesis two not a different account of creation to Genesis 1, it is just illustrating in more detail how God created man from the dust and woman from his side and that He placed them in the Garden of Eden that He had "planted".

Secondly, I would make sure the text had no external inconsistency. I would make sure that my account was supported by empirical evidence, that people could discover for themselves once they had reliable tools with which to do so.

The account is not contradicted by the evidence. For example, can we test, observe or repeat whether or not the Earth was created before the sun and stars? Can we observe or repeat whether or not the plants came before the sun and stars? And so on. The fact is that we can't.

Another thing, the evidence always has to be interpreted by people's belief systems as it doesn't talk for itself. The conclusion that is drawn from the evidence is totally dependent on what the person's belief system is. For example, an atheist cannot accept that no matter what the evidence is, that God created the universe. Even if they found a boat on a mountain in the Ararat range that matches the sizes and description of Noah's Ark given by Genesis 6, the atheist cannot accept that the boat is Noah's Ark because it means that they would have to accept that the Flood was sent because of man's wickedness by God and hence, that they are accountable for their lives to God. The evidence is the boat with descriptions matching those given in Genesis 6. The interpretation depends on their initial belief - if they have rejected the Flood story, then this cannot be Noah's Ark no matter what. That is really about as simple as I can put it. The conclusion (interpretation) is directly related to what the person initially believes to be true (assumptions or presuppositions).

What most people do not realise is that models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not. Most scientists do not realize that it is the belief of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (interpretations or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the past and present. Just like creationists, evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes. Evolution is the belief to which they are committed. I pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal this to you if you are open minded and have not hardened your hearts to hearing things that shake your beliefs that evolution is science and has been proven true, etc, etc. No, it is a fallible belief that has not been proven to be true.

Some had stated that everything looks so old. I don't see it like that. I don't think that the Earth and stars can look "old" or "young". Further, how can one claim that the Earth looks "old" when he has never seen it "young"? People only think that the Earth looks old because they initially believe it to be old. Take off the evolutionary or long age "glasses" and put on the creationary "glasses" and you'll see a different view or interpretation of the same thing. Why? Because creationists and evolutionists have different initial or underlying beliefs that they assume to be true.

I'd like to ask a different question to that asked in the opening post:

What wording in Genesis 1 and 2 leads you to believe that it is figurative and that God did indeed take millions of years to create life?

And a second question, would an all loving God really allow all that misery, suffering and death that evolution requires? If that is what one calls "love", then I wonder what I would be called? I would never allow such misery and suffering in order to create things. I guess I'm much more loving than God. Would a good full of mercy allow a merciless process where the weak are killed and gotten rid of and where only the strong survive to create everything?

I feel like a preacher now.
Yours in Christ,
COML.

Resources:
* BibleGateway.com for NIV Translation
* The Updated and Expanded Answers Book by Answers in Genesis Ministries, edited by Dr Don Batten.
* The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham.

 

[ebia]

Hi everyone,
Just adding my two cents here.

Firstly, I don't believe that Genesis 1 is a symbolic story - that's for you prove.

That's not the purpose of the thread. There is another perfectly good thread for that discussion. The question at the head of the thread is a hypothetical one, and so is mine. I started to reply to the rest, but then realised it has absolutely no connection to the point of this thread. I couldn't resist responding to a couple though:

If God was really meaning to tell everyone that He did create over millions of years, then why not just state that?

Because that isn't what he is trying to tell us about. He is trying to explain our relationship to him and the rest of creation, and you are busy asking "how long did it take? Which bit did you create first? How, exactly did you do it?"

Why deceive people into believing that He created everything over six literal days by saying that "in six days God created the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11)?

Only a small number are deceived by that. Most of us recognise it for what it is - metaphore. Why would God decieve us by creating a universe that says it is old when it isn't?

It's interesting that perhaps one reason why God took as long as six days to make everything is to set a pattern for man to follow, as laid out in the Ten Commandments, which we still use today.

Finally you have found one of the symbols in the story.

Those who are familar with English should realise that the word "day", when first used in Genesis cannot be symbolic as a word cannot be symbolically teh first time it is used.

You think all the words used in Genesis 1 were invented by Moses (or whoever) as they wrote it down?

I'd like to ask a different question to that asked in the opening post:

What wording in Genesis 1 and 2 leads you to believe that it is figurative and that God did indeed take millions of years to create life?

See the appropriate thread in this forum.

And a second question, would an all loving God really allow all that misery, suffering and death that evolution requires? If that is what one calls "love", then I wonder what I would be called? I would never allow such misery and suffering in order to create things. I guess I'm much more loving than God. Would a good full of mercy allow a merciless process where the weak are killed and gotten rid of and where only the strong survive to create everything?

See the appropriate threads in the C&E forum.

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Hi gluadys,

The sky should consist of a solid dome overarching the earth. Sun, moon and stars should be within this dome.

Um, would you mind telling me just how exactly did you come to this conclusion?

There should be no evidence of the universe expanding. Celestial bodies should be located not far above the atmosphere. None should be more than 6 light-days from the earth.

Genesis doesn't mention an expanding universe. But there are many Biblical verses that definitely indicate that this is what happened, some time during the creation week. For example, Who alone stretches out the heavens? (Job 9:8), He has stretched out the heavens (Jeremiah 10:12), among others. Dr Humphreys in his white hole cosmology attempts to describe how God may have created the universe in six days and why we can see light from stars that are billions of light years (a measure of distance not time) away in a young universe.

The earth should sit immobile under the sky-dome. Sun, moon and stars should revolve around the earth.

No fossil should date to more than 6,000 years old and most should date to around 4,000 years old since the flood was the single event of mass extinction.

Dating methods have their own fallible assumptions, e.g. how much daughter element was there initially and so on, that we can't prove to be true. They fail on rocks of known ages, so why should we trust them on rocks of unknown ages. How do we know that the rock age is accurate? If you answer saying that the line plotted from the information gathered is straight (which supposedly means that the sample is free from contamination), then you should believe that the Grand Canyon formed up-side-down as Dr Steven Austin's research found out - I can't post the link, but the name of the article is: Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows from ICR.org.

The flood sediments should be well-marked and geologists should be able to clearly distinguish them from both the original created rock and from sediments formed since.

I don't know much about geology, so I can't really comment. I believe that this is still a problem for young Earth creationists who believe in a global flood of Noah's day. However, there are attempts to explain it and more research is being done.

Fossils in the flood sediments should be distributed according to hydrological and other relevant principles.

Could not the fossils be distributed by the distance away from the ocean? For example, a global flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first - many of these are relatively immobile. They are also abundant and generally robust, for example shellfish. As the waters rose to envelop the land, land creatures would be buried last. Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which inturn would be buried before upland plants.

On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to sucumb. People would cling to rafts, logs, etc, until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Further, the more mobile and intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be burried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by teh receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence, their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and malls such as cattle, for example. Another factor is the sorting action of water. There are other creationary models and new ones being developed to assist in describing issues related to the Flood and geology.

Yours in Christ,
COML.

Resources:
* The Updated and Expanded Answers Book by Answers in Genesis Ministries, edited by Dr Don Batten.
* Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows by Dr Steven Austin from Institute for Creation Research website (ICR.org).

 

[ebia]

What has this got to do with the OP?

 

[gluadys]

Hi gluadys,


Um, would you mind telling me just how exactly did you come to this conclusion?

1. From the description of the firmament (sky) in Genesis and other parts of the bible.
2. From the depiction of the firmament in ancient paintings.
3. From the fact that all Christians assumed the sky was made of some solid material (such as crystal) until a bit over 400 years ago.

For example, Who alone stretches out the heavens? (Job 9:8), He has stretched out the heavens (Jeremiah 10:12), among others.

You are forgetting that this is part of a metaphor which compares the stretching out of the heavens to the stretching out of a tent. A tent is made of solid (if flexible) material and erected over a patch of earth. All that is being said here is that the heavens are a great tent that covers all the earth (and that, in turn, is an indication that the writers assumed the earth was flat.)

Reading modern science into scripture is a sure way to make nonsense of them. As Humphries does.

Dating methods have their own fallible assumptions, e.g. how much daughter element was there initially and so on, that we can't prove to be true. They fail on rocks of known ages, so why should we trust them on rocks of unknown ages. How do we know that the rock age is accurate? If you answer saying that the line plotted from the information gathered is straight (which supposedly means that the sample is free from contamination), then you should believe that the Grand Canyon formed up-side-down as Dr Steven Austin's research found out - I can't post the link, but the name of the article is: Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows from ICR.org.

AiG leaves out a lot of information on radiometric dating, such as that these methods have been tested time and again against rocks of known ages, that the same rocks have been tested in different ways with the same results, that one does not have to guess how much parent/daugher element is in the rock since there are ways of accounting for this without guessing.

When you can explain why the radiometric dating of the Hawaiian islands matches up perfectly with their ages as measured by plate tectonic movement you can start talking about how inaccurate these dates are.

Austin is a known cheat, so I don't place much stock in his "research".

Could not the fossils be distributed by the distance away from the ocean?

Not with the pattern we have in the fossil record. For example:

For example, a global flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first - many of these are relatively immobile. They are also abundant and generally robust, for example shellfish.

But we continue to find immobile bottom dwelling shellfish in all rock strata, not just the earliest ones.

Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which inturn would be buried before upland plants.

So why do we find ferns as deep as the Carboniferous, but don't find any water lilies before the Cretaceous (200 million years difference.)? Why do we find coniferous trees such as those that cover the upper slopes of mountains much deeper than willow trees which grow in well-watered valleys?

On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to sucumb.

As noted above, in marine strata of the same date, we find those bottom-dwelling immobile shell fish. And not all mammals are very mobile. Consider the three-toed sloth. And what of marine mammals like whales? How did they escape to higher ground?

Basically, like most creationist explanations, yours only looks at a small portion of the evidence. When you begin looking at all the evidence it breaks down.

There is no known instance of a fossil which is not better explained by evolution than by a flood. Take birds for example. Why is it that birds with very reptilian features (teeth, tail, reptilian-style lungs) are all found in strata older than modern-style birds? It is agreed by both evolutionists and creationists that Archeopteryx could fly. So why is it not found along with modern birds? And what about flightless birds like penguins? Why are they not found in deeper strata than a flying bird like Archeopteryx instead of the other way around?

Sorry, your suggestions only show that you have never studied the actual fossil record.

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Hi gluadys,​

1. From the description of the firmament (sky) in Genesis and other parts of the bible.
2. From the depiction of the firmament in ancient paintings.
3. From the fact that all Christians assumed the sky was made of some solid material (such as crystal) until a bit over 400 years ago.

Your definition of the expanse (KJV “firmament”) as described in Genesis, for example, is fallible and makes absolutely no sense when we consider Genesis 1:14-17, which gives us some direct information about the expanse, which God also called the “heavens”:

Then God said, let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens ... and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens ... and God made the two great lights ... He made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the Earth.

The words “in” have been bolded to emphasize an important point: the sun, moon and stars are in the expanse. The Hebrew word for “in” here is the prefix be, which has essentially the same range of meanings as the English word “in”. Since the stars, sun, moon, etc, are in the expanse, the most straightforward understanding of this passage is that the expanse is interstellar space. Using our knowledge of the distances of heavenly bodies, that means that the waters above the expanse must now be at cosmic distances from us, billions of light-years away.

There is another problem with what you are proposing the expanse means that comes curtsy of David’s Psalm 148:1-4, which mentions the “waters above”:

Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all stars of light!
Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!

First, notice the context in which these waters appear: “heavens ... heights ... sun and moon ... stars ... highest heavens.” This suggests that the waters belong way out there with all those other heavenly objects, not close to the Earth. Next, notice the timing. Psalm 148, written after the flood, implies that the waters above the heavens still exist in the present. It is believed that the waters above the expanse are the boundaries of the universe as Dr Humphreys’ white hole cosmology is based on the assumption of a bounded universe.

As for point two, can you name any examples? And similarly for point three, do you have any evidence to back up your claims? They may be right, they may not be. It’s often best just to include an example to show that you’re not just making it up or aren’t mistaken.

You are forgetting that this is part of a metaphor which compares the stretching out of the heavens to the stretching out of a tent. A tent is made of solid (if flexible) material and erected over a patch of earth. All that is being said here is that the heavens are a great tent that covers all the earth (and that, in turn, is an indication that the writers assumed the earth was flat.)

Reading modern science into scripture is a sure way to make nonsense of them. As Humphries does.

For one, Job 9:8 there is no mention of tent. Job 8:9 says that no one helped God spread out the heavens. This is obviously meant to be taken literally as “God expanded the heavens”. Jeremiah 10:12 which says: The LORD made the Earth by His power; by His wisdom He created the world and stretched out the heavens. These verses relate to the creationary week and are intended to be taken literally (I assume that you would agree with me), and hence, the last part about God stretching out the heavens must also be literal. When you read such verses, there is no indication that they shouldn’t be taken literally. To be fair, there are some verses in Isaiah that talk about God stretching out the heavens like a tent for all the people of Earth to live in. Consider what would happen if He didn’t. The stars would be very close and we’d all get zapped by their radiation and so on. In other words, God stretched out the heavens so that our home would survive and enable us to survive without suffering any negative affects from living too closely to all the stars. It’s important to note the words “like”. This is an indication of a simile and may not necessarily have to be taken literally as it is usually another way of saying the same thing.

With reference to your last statement, the most obvious and straight forward reading of the Bible and it’s verses indicate that the expanse does not refer to the atmosphere but instead the heavens, and that God did indeed expand the heavens as Job 9:8 and Jeremiah 10:12 clearly and authoritatively state.

Are not you being a hypocrite by criticising Dr Humphreys (probably better just to check your spelling of names) for bringing science into the Scripture when you shove the “science” of evolution into the Bible and try to justify it from the Bible?

AiG leaves out a lot of information on radiometric dating, such as that these methods have been tested time and again against rocks of known ages, that the same rocks have been tested in different ways with the same results, that one does not have to guess how much parent/daugher element is in the rock since there are ways of accounting for this without guessing.

And you have some examples of where and when tests of radiometric dating methods have been applied on rocks of known ages (e.g. 200 years, 50 years, etc) and have given close to those known dates? Many evolutionists that I come up against state that radiometric dating methods only work for older rocks and not for young rocks. What do you say to those who hold such a view? For your last statement about parent and daughter elements, does that hold for how much was originally in the rock – you only mentioned that we know how much parent/daughter element is in the rock (which implies, now, in the present). I don’t dispute that, what I do think is disputable are assumptions as to how much was originally in the rock (from rocks in the unobservable past, for example) and whether or not any has been added or subtracted as it isn’t in practice a closed system.

When you can explain why the radiometric dating of the Hawaiian islands matches up perfectly with their ages as measured by plate tectonic movement you can start talking about how inaccurate these dates are.

How do you know that the plate tectonics have been moving at the same rate for all the time in the past? The Bible clearly states that the fountains of the deep broke open, which implies great plate tectonic movements, which started the Flood.It is an assumption to state that the plate tectonics have been moving at the same rate during the distant unobservable past. Those like you have rejected the Flood and the catastrophic effects that it would have had on the environment, hence you use different assumptions and your conclusion is different. This justifies the idea about what people initially believe to be true affecting their interpretation of the evidence.

Austin is a known cheat, so I don't place much stock in his "research".

I heard similar claims but I’ve never really seen any examples, could you please give me a few examples?

But we continue to find immobile bottom dwelling shellfish in all rock strata, not just the earliest ones ... So why do we find ferns as deep as the Carboniferous, but don't find any water lilies before the Cretaceous (200 million years difference.)? Why do we find coniferous trees such as those that cover the upper slopes of mountains much deeper than willow trees which grow in well-watered valleys?

The general pattern makes sense with this creationary model. As I stated earlier I don’t really know all that much about geology, this is why more research is needed. Perhaps the sorting action of water has something to do with it. The Updated and Expanded Answers Book by Answers in Genesis Ministries edited by Dr Don Batten says that we would expect a pattern with a global Flood, but not an entirely consistent pattern possibly due to the sorting action of water and other factors.

As noted above, in marine strata of the same date, we find those bottom-dwelling immobile shell fish. And not all mammals are very mobile. Consider the three-toed sloth. And what of marine mammals like whales? How did they escape to higher ground?

I don’t believe I said that all mammals are very mobile. They are generally more mobile than reptiles and so on. Although many marine creatures did indeed die during the Flood – as the geological column gives evidence to – some survived because they weren’t as specialised as they are today and could have the ability to survive in both salty and fresh water. Mammals like the whale also could survive because they can survive by breathing the air that out in the oceans where there wasn't as much sediments blocking their ability to breathe air, etc.


There is no known instance of a fossil which is not better explained by evolution than by a flood. Take birds for example. Why is it that birds with very reptilian features (teeth, tail, reptilian-style lungs) are all found in strata older than modern-style birds? It is agreed by both evolutionists and creationists that Archeopteryx could fly. So why is it not found along with modern birds? And what about flightless birds like penguins? Why are they not found in deeper strata than a flying bird like Archeopteryx instead of the other way around?

Huh? There are fossils of birds with reptilian tails? That’s a new one on me. To my knowledge there are no bird fossils that have been found to have “reptilian style lungs” because such intermediate lungs could not function as bird’s lungs and reptile’s lungs are totally different in their structure and operation! In other words, such animals could not survive period. Indeed, Archaeopteryx could fly, but I have heard of some evolutionists who disputed this. As to why it is not found along with modern birds, my guess would be that perhaps they lived in different environments and perhaps their intelligence or lack of it could also be a factor. Of course, this is just in my humble opinion and probably not the same view as professional creation scientists who either specialise or have a great interest in this area. And for flightless birds like penguins, their environment may have differed greatly from that of Archaeopteryx and hence, Archaeopteryx may have succumbed earlier. This is also my personal opinion. Probably full of flaws, but hey, what are you going to do?

Sorry, your suggestions only show that you have never studied the actual fossil record.

What really annoys me is how people always assume that people who have an opinion different to yours are 100% totally ignorant of the issues. In the future, please don’t make such comments as I find them quite annoying. But you are right, I have never studied the fossil record, but I use the resources of those who have... I am much more interested in astronomy and physics (the basis of all science as my lecturer says).

Hey ebia,

As to what this has to do with the opening post, absolutely nothing. I wasn’t responding to the opening post.

Yours in Christ,
COML.

Resources:
* The Updated and Expanded Answers Book by Answers in Genesis Ministries, edited by Dr Don Batten.
* Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys.
* Good News Bible Today’s English Version by the Bible Society in Australia.

 

[ebia]

hey ebia,

As to what this has to do with the opening post, absolutely nothing. I wasn’t responding to the opening post.
.

So why don't you go and post your stuff on the million and one other threads that already exist for discussing them, and leave this one to discuss the OP?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

There is another problem with what you are proposing the expanse means that comes curtsy of David’s Psalm 148:1-4, which mentions the “waters above”:

Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all stars of light!
Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!

First, notice the context in which these waters appear: “heavens ... heights ... sun and moon ... stars ... highest heavens.” This suggests that the waters belong way out there with all those other heavenly objects, not close to the Earth. Next, notice the timing. Psalm 148, written after the flood, implies that the waters above the heavens still exist in the present. It is believed that the waters above the expanse are the boundaries of the universe as Dr Humphreys’ white hole cosmology is based on the assumption of a bounded universe.

Just wanted to point out that you just shot your own argument in the foot...

Remember that in OT geology there is water above the solid sky... The waters seperated in the first creation story and then used to flood the Earth through windows in the Noah story.

And yes the stars were in the crystal dome, above it was water and you wouldn't want the water to put the lights out.

 

[gluadys]

Your definition of the expanse (KJV “firmament”) as described in Genesis, for example, is fallible and makes absolutely no sense when we consider Genesis 1:14-17, which gives us some direct information about the expanse, which God also called the “heavens”:

The words “in” have been bolded to emphasize an important point: the sun, moon and stars are in the expanse. [snip] Using our knowledge of the distances of heavenly bodies, that means that the waters above the expanse must now be at cosmic distances from us, billions of light-years away.

It made perfect sense to the biblical writers and to their readers. It makes no sense to you because you want to impose modern scientific notions on an ancient text.

Medieval astronomers did indeed understand the seven planets (by which they meant moon, mercury,venus, sun, mars, jupiter and saturn) and the fixed stars to be embedded in the crystalline spheres which surrounded the earth. The motions of the heavenly bodies was understood not to be a motion of the planet or the stars themselves, but the motion of the spheres encasing them. The planets were carried along by the spheres.

Of course, the biblical view did not include spheres at all. In fact, some early Christians considered the Ptolemaic concept to be pagan and unbiblical.

Here is a 6th century Christian view.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html

There is another problem with what you are proposing the expanse means that comes curtsy of David’s Psalm 148:1-4, which mentions the “waters above”:

First, notice the context in which these waters appear: “heavens ... heights ... sun and moon ... stars ... highest heavens.” This suggests that the waters belong way out there with all those other heavenly objects, not close to the Earth.

Well the biblical writers did not conceive of inter-stellar distance, but yes, the stars were seen as in (or within) the firmament and the waters as above the firmament.

Next, notice the timing. Psalm 148, written after the flood, implies that the waters above the heavens still exist in the present.

Right, so the common notion of the firmament being a temporary water canopy that was used for the flood is thoroughly unbiblical.

It is believed that the waters above the expanse are the boundaries of the universe as Dr Humphreys’ white hole cosmology is based on the assumption of a bounded universe.

An assumption not supported by any evidence.

As for point two, can you name any examples? And similarly for point three, do you have any evidence to back up your claims? They may be right, they may not be. It’s often best just to include an example to show that you’re not just making it up or aren’t mistaken.

For point two see link above. For point three--I can't believe you ask. As a student of astronomy, how could you not know that there was a revolution in this field in the 15th century which overturned the previous astronomical conceptions? Have you never learned what the previous conception was?

But maybe scientists don't need to. It is students of literature like me who need to. Two of the greatest works of European literature (Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost) take their structure from the astronomy of Ptolemy. And many others, from Chaucer to Shakespeare, assume knowledge of it.

For one, Job 9:8 there is no mention of tent.

The metaphor is used several times in scripture, sometimes with and sometimes without the phrase "like a tent" or "like a curtain". Consistency requires that whether or not the simile is completed, all such references be understood alike. The other biblical metaphor for the heavens is a vault or dome. It is used just as frequently.

Job 8:9 says that no one helped God spread out the heavens. This is obviously meant to be taken literally as “God expanded the heavens”. Jeremiah 10:12 which says: The LORD made the Earth by His power; by His wisdom He created the world and stretched out the heavens. These verses relate to the creationary week and are intended to be taken literally (I assume that you would agree with me), and hence, the last part about God stretching out the heavens must also be literal. When you read such verses, there is no indication that they shouldn’t be taken literally.

Most of these references occur in poetry. In itself that does not mean they are not literal references. In fact I would say they are. But what do you mean by "literal"? The term has several different meanings, some of which are diametrically opposed to others.

The stars would be very close and we’d all get zapped by their radiation and so on.

In comparison to our measures the ancients did think of the stars as being close. They had no conception of radiation so that was not a concern.

With reference to your last statement, the most obvious and straight forward reading of the Bible and it’s verses indicate that the expanse does not refer to the atmosphere but instead the heavens, and that God did indeed expand the heavens as Job 9:8 and Jeremiah 10:12 clearly and authoritatively state.

Please don't re-write scripture. The word is "stretched" not "expanded". When I stretch a sheet out over my mattress I am not expanding it.

As for the firmament, no, it was not the atmosphere. The firmament was perceived as a solid structure. Air was enclosed beneath the firmament.

Are not you being a hypocrite by criticising Dr Humphreys (probably better just to check your spelling of names) for bringing science into the Scripture when you shove the “science” of evolution into the Bible and try to justify it from the Bible?

No, because I am not trying to show that evolution is in the bible or justified by the bible. Evolution is a scientific fact and theory based on evidence.

You, however, are re-interpreting scripture left and right by imposing modern science on the text and trying to make it say what it was never intended to say.

And you have some examples of where and when tests of radiometric dating methods have been applied on rocks of known ages (e.g. 200 years, 50 years, etc) and have given close to those known dates? Many evolutionists that I come up against state that radiometric dating methods only work for older rocks and not for young rocks.

They are quite right. You see, although we can produce radioactive elements with short half-lives (such as would be suitable for measuring young, recently formed rocks) artificially, no such elements exist in nature, unless they are being continually produced. All naturally occurring radioactive elements have long half-lives and can only be used to date very old rocks. Trying to date 200 year old rocks with a K-Ar test is like trying to measure a bacterium with a metre stick. The closest you can get is "less than a millimetre". If the actual length of the bacterium is 5 micrometers, that's a margin of error of 95%

For your last statement about parent and daughter elements, does that hold for how much was originally in the rock –

Yes, it does. Remember every question you could possibly think about asking in regard to radiometric dating has already been asked by scientists. So go to the source. This scientist is a Christian as well.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you can explain why the radiometric dating of the Hawaiian islands matches up perfectly with their ages as measured by plate tectonic movement you can start talking about how inaccurate these dates are.

How do you know that the plate tectonics have been moving at the same rate for all the time in the past?

Why do you assume that this is assumed by scientists? In fact, the plates did not and do not all move at the same rate, but there are ways of determining the rate and direction of their movement at any given time through the study of the magnetism of the rocks as they were being formed.

The Bible clearly states that the fountains of the deep broke open, which implies great plate tectonic movements, which started the Flood.

Yet not a single biblical commentator realized this until modern science discovered plate tectonics? Not so clear without science leading the way is it?

Here is Matthew Henry's 18th century commentary on Genesis 7.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ge&chapter=007

Scofield used Henry's wording in his 1917 commentary.

No one suggested that the flood reshaped the earth until the mid-20th century, and no support can be found for this idea in the biblical text. It is a thoroughly modern revision of the text solely to satisfy scientific sensitivities. Yet you condemn Christians who accept evolution for kowtowing to modern science instead of respecting scripture. Just what do you think you are doing with all this revising of the biblical text?

I heard similar claims but I’ve never really seen any examples, could you please give me a few examples?

I was thinking of his dishonesty in trying to date young rocks (from Mt.St. Helen's) with radiometry, and without even telling the lab that there were inclusions in the rock samples which would affect the dating.

The general pattern makes sense with this creationary model.

Right. As soon as one gets into specifics, the model breaks down. The evolutionary model handles both the general pattern and all the specifics as well.

I don’t believe I said that all mammals are very mobile. They are generally more mobile than reptiles and so on.

So what we ought to find are mobile dinosaurs with mobile mammals and slow moving mammals with slow moving reptiles. Do we? No.

Mammals like the whale also could survive because they can survive by breathing the air that out in the oceans where there wasn't as much sediments blocking their ability to breathe air, etc.

I was talking about the ones who died, whose fossils we have, not the ones that survived.

Huh? There are fossils of birds with reptilian tails? That’s a new one on me.

Even most creationists know that Archeopteryx had a reptilian tail--as well as several other ancient bird species.

To my knowledge there are no bird fossils that have been found to have “reptilian style lungs” because such intermediate lungs could not function as bird’s lungs and reptile’s lungs are totally different in their structure and operation! In other words, such animals could not survive period.

Tell that one to Archeopteryx. Appears he didn't know his lungs were not functional.

Indeed, Archaeopteryx could fly, but I have heard of some evolutionists who disputed this.

It is now generally agreed that Archeopteryx could fly, but poorly. He may not have been able to take off from the ground.

As to why it is not found along with modern birds, my guess would be that perhaps they lived in different environments and perhaps their intelligence or lack of it could also be a factor.

Name an environment modern birds do not live in. Nor is intelligence a factor when all life outside the ark was destroyed.

And for flightless birds like penguins, their environment may have differed greatly from that of Archaeopteryx and hence, Archaeopteryx may have succumbed earlier.

Of course, this contradicts your earlier contention that species close to the ocean would succumb first.

What really annoys me is how people always assume that people who have an opinion different to yours are 100% totally ignorant of the issues.

Then you should not supply so much evidence for this opinion.

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Hi ebia,
That's not the purpose of the thread.

Neither was it a thread for you to propose your so-called counter question...

You in fact didn't even answer the original post...

Because that isn't what he is trying to tell us about. He is trying to explain our relationship to him and the rest of creation, and you are busy asking "how long did it take? Which bit did you create first? How, exactly did you do it?"

And what makes you believe that God wasn't telling us about how He created everything? I'll bet 100 dollars that you couldn't give me one Biblical passage in support of your assertion that God isn't telling us about our origin in Genesis! On second thought, I'll double it! Do you know what the term "genesis" means? In the introduction of the Book of Genesis in my Today's English Version Bible it says the following:

The name Genesis means "origin". The book tells about the creation of the world, the beginning of sin and suffering in the world [which can only happen given a literal creation], and about God's way of dealing with mankind.

This alone blows your argument out of the sky. Why name a book "origin" if it has nothing at all to do with our origin, but is a symbolic or figurative way of describing mankind's relationship to God and to creation? That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. In fact, that's illogical! And we know that God is logical and hence, naming a book "origin" that has nothing to do with our origin is not something that a logical God would do.

Also, if what you say is true, then why wait for more than 80% through chapter one of Genesis to finally include mankind? If Genesis is supposed to reveal our relationship with creation, then why not just start the book at Genesis 1:26? Why bother with writing that the Earth and light were created first, then the separation of the sky from the sea, plants and stars, etc, etc, in chronological order if they have nothing to do with describing mankind's "relationship" with creation? Genesis 1:26-28 are the only such verses that relate to mankind and their "relationship" with God's creation.

Only a small number are deceived by that. Most of us recognise it for what it is - metaphore. Why would God decieve us by creating a universe that says it is old when it isn't?

What makes you say that the evidence or the "universe" says that it's old? It isn't an overly hard task to realise that the evidence can't "speak for itself". It must be interpreted by biased people with underlying belief systems that heavily affect the conclusion that they reach about the origin of the evidence. Even renoun evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould realised this obvious fact.

I could say that a larger number have been deceived by the Evil One. He, and many atheists themselves, realise that if you can destroy Genesis, then in the rubble you'll find the "sorry remains of the Son of God" as His life and death is 100% predicted on the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate and mankind's need to be redeemed and saved from eternal separation from God. Take away the meaning of Jesus' death and Christianity will die. Without the original sin, then Christianity is meaningless. In other words, compromising Christians are essentially setting up the demolitions to blow up their own building, that of Christianity!

Why would God be telling us that the universe is young and that He created everything in six days if He really took millions of years? Isn't that called, um, dishonesty? That might actually be put up onto the next level as lying.

Finally you have found one of the symbols in the story.

No, that's not a "symbol". What God was telling the Israelites is that "because I worked for six literal days and rested for one literal day and since you are my people, you will do like wise". This passage and commandment has lost all authority and meaning if God never did work for six literal days. It also makes God out to once again be a liar.

You think all the words used in Genesis 1 were invented by Moses (or whoever) as they wrote it down?

You went off on a tangent and obviously weren't paying any attention what-so-ever to what I was saying. In any book and most pieces of writing, a word cannot be used symbolically the first time it is used. Words can only be used symbolically when they first has a defined literal meaning in the book. This is with all historical account of writing and most other writings. A literal meaning must be given first, then it may be used symbolically. Without a first defined literal meaning earlier on in the book, you don't know how to take it symbolically.

Yours in Christ,
COML.

 

[ebia]

Hi ebia,
That's not the purpose of the thread.

Neither was it a thread for you to propose your so-called counter question...

No, but that was at least a direct mirror to the OP.

You in fact didn't even answer the original post...
[/QUOTE]
I'm waiting for the clarifications I asked for.

There are heaps of active threads dealing with the arguments you are putting forward. AFAIK there are no other currently active threads dealing with the question put in the OP and similar.

You've turned a distinctively different thread into the same old bashing out of repeatedly refuted arguments.

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Hi LewisWildermuth,

Remember that in OT geology there is water above the solid sky... The waters seperated in the first creation story and then used to flood the Earth through windows in the Noah story.

That's one interpretation of the language used in Genesis that is commonly called the canopy theory. Also, that isn't geology. The Old Testament language doesn't say that the expanse is the atmosphere - that's a modern day view of it. Another more Biblically consistent view is that of Dr Humphreys. God separated the waters above the expanse from the waters below the expanse on the second day - in other words, the waters below the expanse is that of the Earth and its atmosphere and those above are the boundaries of the universe. Therefore, the expanse must be the area between the waters above the expanse and the waters below the expanse, that is, the heavens. The Bible only refers to the flood gates of the sky opening, which put simply means a lot of rain. However, the main factor to the Flood would have come from the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, which started it.

Yours in Christ,
COML.

Just wanted to point out that you just shot your own argument in the foot...

It appears that there are no such problems in my argument. You are looking at the same Biblical verses from a different initial assumption or belief, a different interpretation if you will, than that of me. Hence why you think I "shot my argument in the foot" - when you interpret the same verses in the same way as I do with the expanse being the heavens and the waters above the expanse being the boundaries of the universe and below the expanse being the Earth and it's atmosphere you'll see no problem.