juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Has it ever occurred to you that one of the main reasons Flood Geology exists in creationism is to find an explanation for fossils?
I don't think so. It is not an easy task to do and they are asking a lot of troubles. It is only one of the problem they have to iron out by insisting a global flood.
What we are rejecting is creationism.
What is that?
What you are doing by equating creation and creationism is helping atheism.
I really do not know the difference. I need some definitions on them.
So please stop making the job of militant atheists easier. With friends like you, we Christians don't need any enemies.
Sure we would. We don't need sedimentary rock to survive. We need sediments, so God could create some thick topsoil, but no sedimentary rock.
Sure we would. We see young isotopes from the decay of long-lived isotopes to short lived ones. So God already gave us the means to learn about how the earth works.
......
Keep dodging, Juvenissen, but in trying to preserve your god of a literal Bible, you destroy God. I would rather smash your false-idol god and keep the real God.
If God created an earth which physically looks young (as a result, YE is an obvious fact), either we would be entirely different beings (may not be in God's image any more)
That's cool then. It is a good opportunity for you to throw some of the standard YEC arguments into the ring to see how they do. Hopefully we can answer some of your own questions in the process.First, I am not a 100% YEC. I am also not defending their position.
It matters to us when God speaks to us 'days'. If Moses then tells us God's days are very different to ours, we need to be careful not to assume the days God speaks about are our days instead of his.I think the "Day" Moses said is still just a normal "day", at least to Moses. What does the "day" mean to God is up to God, like Moses suggested.
According to Paul the Sabbath is a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17.If so (not done in six days), what does the 7th day, the sabbath day mean?
Try Eccles 1:5The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. This verse was used by Luther's second in command Melanchthon to argue against Copernicus. Luther used Joshua's miraculous long day as an argument. Joshua commanded the sun to stop.I do not know what to say about the sun. Where does the scripture say that the sun orbits the earth?
Well heliocentrism is an clear case from church history where science violated the then obvious meaning of scripture. If people reject science for YEC on this basis they should also reject the heliocentric solar system.When we see some scripture "obviously" violates the scientific understanding, we make a different interpretation (to avoid being called stupid). However, I believe if we know better (in the future), we will find the scripture is literally right afterall. There are numerous such examples in the Book of Job. They do not make any sense until recent decades.
Augustine said:Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.
So when it talks of God flooding the 'earth'..?But I do think I can accept the idea of pillars on earth. To me, I can understand the pillar indicates the root of continent. It tapers off into the mantle. And the scripture does say the pillar shakes. It is a perfect image of earthquake. The "earth" could well be the "continent" as we still use it this way commonly.
Definition: A visible form projected from God and can reveal some critical natures of God.Define "image of God." Is it physical? Can only hominids be in the image of God?
Try Eccles 1:5The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. This verse was used by Luther's second in command Melanchthon to argue against Copernicus. Luther used Joshua's miraculous long day as an argument. Joshua commanded the sun to stop.
So is a person who is born deformed not in the image of God? I think you need to re-think your idea of what "image of God" means.Definition: A visible form projected from God and can reveal some critical natures of God.
Example: A dog is not such an image, even a dog sort has a faithful nature.
It says the sun moves around the earth. It rises, it sets and it hurries around to the place where it rises again.Thanks. And this is a perfect example to illustrate the case from the opposite angle.
What the Eccles verse does is only a description, nothing more. The decription could be interpreted one way or the other. While it was a puzzle to historical people, it is not a problem to us. It is a good example to show that the advance of science DOES NOT invalidate the scripture.
Science never falsifies scripture however it can and does falsify misinterpretations of scripture. The difference between todays old earth/evolution, and heliocentrism in Luther's day is that there have always been other interpretations that said the days in Genesis are not literal or that when God command the earth to bring forth lving creatures he was actually investing inanimate matter with the ability to produce life (St Basil). In contrast there had never been an interpretation of scripture that was heliocentric. Everyone had always through that the verses that talked of the sun rising or travelling around the earth, or the earth being fixed meant exactly what they said.So, science should not be used to falsify the scripture. This was true then and is still true now.
Don't underestimate the deep sincerity with which the church at this time defended the literal meaning of scripture against this new scientific innovation. This was a deeply troubling time and the very foundation of divine inspiration seemed under threat. Sound familiar?The geo/helicentric saga of early churches is more political than scientific.
Is it right to propose a completely novel reinterpretation of scripture just to fit in with science? Well yes. Of course we should. And we should be willing to do the same with the age of the earth and evolution.
Science never falsifies scripture however it can and does falsify misinterpretations of scripture. The difference between todays old earth/evolution, and heliocentrism in Luther's day is ...
Good question. I can not answer it.So is a person who is born deformed not in the image of God? I think you need to re-think your idea of what "image of God" means.
No there are 6 elements. We haveLet me make the rest of your point more clear:
Early church timeThe science was correct, the interpretion of scripture was wrong Church people accused the science by the wrong interpretation of scripture, but not by science.
TodayThe science is in question, the interpretation of scripture is in question. YEC people are arguing the science, which leads to an interpretation of scripture. Notice that we are not repeating the same mistake made by people in early church.In both cases, the scripture is correct. What we should do now is to work harder on science, but not to eagerly falsify the scripture by questionable science.
So, to criticize YEC's interpretation of scripture by uncertain science is not adequate. If people can, they should criticize YEC's science by science. Just leave the scripture alone.
Unfortunately, since most people are not be able to criticize the science of either side, so they simply quote their favorite shaky science to support their interpretation of scripture. Hence the chaos.
However, one important recognition among the chaos is that the current OE science is not be able to prove that the science of YEC is wrong. So non-YEC people should not use science to claim that the YEC's interpretation of the scripture is wrong. And vice versa.
Boy, I wish I could make the argument much simpler. I don't think I made it clearer after all. But I do identified three common elements in all arguments:
At last: an example of shaky science claim: "A global flood is not possible". How should honest people treat this claim? Not by quoting the scripture to "prove" it is wrong (like the early church people), but by science (YEC people are not doing a great job, but they are doing it. That merits some praises)
- correct science
- shaky science
- the scripture
However, I believe if we know better (in the future), we will find the scripture is literally right afterall.
Good question. I can not answer it.
Do you have a good one?
I am not trying to help atheist. I am trying to help Christian.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Has it ever occurred to you that one of the main reasons Flood Geology exists in creationism is to find an explanation for fossils?
I don't think so. It is not an easy task to do and they are asking a lot of troubles. It is only one of the problem they have to iron out by insisting a global flood.What we are rejecting is creationism.
What is that?
Today
The science is in question, the interpretation of scripture is in question. YEC people are arguing the science, which leads to an interpretation of scripture.
In both cases, the scripture is correct. What we should do now is to work harder on science, but not to eagerly falsify the scripture by questionable science.
So, to criticize YEC's interpretation of scripture by uncertain science is not adequate. If people can, they should criticize YEC's science by science. Just leave the scripture alone.
However, one important recognition among the chaos is that the current OE science is not be able to prove that the science of YEC is wrong.
At: an example of shaky science claim: "A global flood is not possible". How should honest people treat this claim? Not by quoting the scripture to "prove" it is wrong (like the early church people), but by science (YEC people are not doing a great job, but they are doing it. That merits some praises)
[/INDENT]Creation: the belief that God created the heavens and the earth.
Creationism: a particular method by which God created the heavens and the earth. This method is derived by insisting on a particular human interpretation of Genesis 1-8.
This is fine. However, I don't think many people are aware of such definitions. I don't think the word "Creationism" should be reserved only for YEC people.
Science:a particular method by which God created the heavens and the earth. This method is derived from studying God's Creation.
The key difference between us is right here. I agreed on the first sentence, but not on the second.
Science is not derived from studying creation. If so, it suggests that if we do not study creation, then there would be no science. Creation results in menifestation via "material". There are sciences that do not deal with material at the beginning.
I would say science is the expression of wisdom given to us by God.
It is like God shouting "I did it by evolution!"
If it possible, but I would only put a small bet on it. Because I see too many problems in it (I am going to initiate one in another thread). I still think that it is true that men are made from dust. How was it done as understood by science, I do not know. Here is where the faith comes in. I truly think the problem OE faced is not less or lighter than that of YE.
Science leads to faith. Science does not prove faith. If OE leads you to your faith, that is fine. But do not jump too early to say YE is wrong. We simply do not know yet.
[/INDENT]
The statement "A global flood happened" has false consequences. Millions of them.
This is fine. However, I don't think many people are aware of such definitions. I don't think the word "Creationism" should be reserved only for YEC people.
Whether they are aware or not has nothing to do with whether they should be aware.
I did use YEC as a subset of creationism. The commonality of all forms of creationism is:
1. God created some things instantaneously in their present form.
2. One of those things is human beings. All forms of creationism have humans being specially created.
Science is not derived from studying creation. If so, it suggests that if we do not study creation, then there would be no science. Creation results in menifestation via "material". There are sciences that do not deal with material at the beginning.
All science studies the physical universe. What did God create? The physical universe, right? Therefore all science studies Creation -- what God created. I think you have mistaken the noun form for a verb form. You think "creation" means how things originated. That's not the definition I am using.
Gravity is part of Creation. It is also the means of the creation of galaxies, stars, and planets.
Now, why don't you think science is also a method by which God created? Couldn't God have created by the methods discovered by science?
I would say science is the expression of wisdom given to us by God.
If that is so, then why do you reject science so frequently? That would mean you are rejecting God.
If it possible, but I would only put a small bet on it. Because I see too many problems in it (I am going to initiate one in another thread). I still think that it is true that men are made from dust. How was it done as understood by science, I do not know.
Science doesn't need to know the exact mechanism by which God turned dust into proteins, lipids, sugars, DNA, etc.
But no, God is telling us in His Creation that He did not create humans this way. Creating the way you say has certain consequences. One of those is that there are not going to be fossils of individuals that have features of both H. erectus and H. sapiens. Or of H. erectus and H. habilis. Or fossils of individuals that have features of both H. habilis and A. afarensis. Instead, IF what you say is true, then there are only going to be fossils of modern H. sapiens.
Instead, that isn't what we see. We see instead a series of fossil individuals linking us to H. erectus, H. erectus to H. habilis, and H. habilis to A. afarensis. Individuals that are so in-between each species that we really can't say which species they are.
True statements cannot have false consequences. Since the statement "God created us from dust" has false consequences, it can't be true.
Here is where the faith comes in. I truly think the problem OE faced is not less or lighter than that of YE.
The data says otherwise.
Science leads to faith. Science does not prove faith. If OE leads you to your faith, that is fine. But do not jump too early to say YE is wrong. We simply do not know yet.
1. Wearing my scientist hat, science does not lead to faith. Science is agnostic. My faith comes from outside science. There is nothing in science to contradict my faith.
2. There was overwhelming evidence by 1831 to say that YE is wrong. Sorry. That's the way it is. To say "we simply do not know yet" is to turn your back on God and what He tells us in His Creation.
"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."
I would also suggest 2 books covering the history:
Davis A. Young The Genesis Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
Gillespie: Genesis and Geology
You should be able to get both in your local public library. You can find part of the first online at:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
And you can find more of the evidence showing YE to be wrong at
http://www.lordibelieve.org/page15.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Fischer.pdf
In fact, you will want to read most of what is at www.asa3.org
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?