Convince me

[mark kennedy]

By all means, please read these links. But don't stop there. If you just put in a little bit of effort, you will see how much the authors misunderstand and mislead about evolutionary creationism. I encourage you to study their claims carefully. Visit sites like BioLogos.org and study the answers you'll see to these various claims. Feel free to ask us on this site.

Nonsense, slandering a point of view you know nothing about is pure melodrama. I've read their claims and while I do research the scientific literature I have yet to see AIG post anything remotely misleading. What is even more telling is that you are talking in generalities, probably because you will never be called for your shallow debate tactics.

In the end, I have rejected young-earth creationism for just such sites as these. They are proof that the YEC crowd puts absolutely no thought or effort into understanding those things in which they do not agree with, and instead prop up strawmen arguments for their followers to ape. I love them as my Christian brothers, but I am disappointed in their seeming ethical bankruptcy. God does not NEED us to lie or mislead to do His work, and when we do, we only hurt His cause.

Let me tell you something about intellectual bankruptcy, this is the statement by Nature Magazine's announcement of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005.

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart. The chimpanzee genome ​

However, this is what the actual paper actually says:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies (Nature 2005)​

Not a single evolutionists has admitted that this statement is false, even with the actual evidence right in front of them. Why don't you do the math and put that moral indignation to work where it belongs, who is lying to who here?

The same statement was made in Time, Scientific American and even on the Smithsonian website in case you think this is an isolated incident. You want to accuse creationists of lying and misleading the public and you reject creationism because of it, let's see if you have the courage of your convictions or if you are just courting worldly favor. By the way, that is why I would never be a TE, I want my religion to be about my relationship with God rather then slandering other Christians unconscionably.

 

[mark kennedy]

So Mark, being that Jesus talked all the time in figurative language, using metaphors and parables, are you saying that Jesus spoke falsehoods?

When metaphors and parables are being told they are generally qualified by a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. Figurative language is one of the literary features of the Scriptures and Moses in the opening chapters of Genesis is not using metaphors or telling parables. Jesus affirmed that Adam was in fact the first man in no uncertain terms referring to the marriage of Adam and Eve as the 'beginning'. Don't go there with me, you can taunt me with this quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo but don't condescend about the Scriptures. I really don't have a lot of tolerance for that.

Being that when God walked the earth as Jesus, he spoke figuratively all the time, is it any surprise at all that this same God uses figurative language to start off his revelation to us?

Papias

Is Matthew being figurative here?

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David (Matthew 1:1)​

He uses the same word as Moses for the 'generations' (aka generations or geneology) of Adam, Noah...etc?

Do you really think I don't know the difference between a metaphor and a family tree? Seriously?

 

[Papias]

Mark Wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

So Mark, being that Jesus talked all the time in figurative language, using metaphors and parables, are you saying that Jesus spoke falsehoods?

When metaphors and parables are being told they are generally qualified by a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context.

OK, Mark, let me see if I understand you. You are saying that when it says "like" or "as", it is a metaphor, and when it doesn't, Jesus is speaking falsehoods?

Figurative language is one of the literary features of the Scriptures and Moses in the opening chapters of Genesis is not using metaphors or telling parables.

Just by saying that you expect me to believe you? Many theologians point out that Genesis is figurative, and a simple reading of the text makes it clear that Genesis is figurative. At least I'm glad that you agree that the scriptures contain figurative language.

Jesus affirmed that Adam was in fact the first man in no uncertain terms referring to the marriage of Adam and Eve as the 'beginning'.

Of course he did - as Gluadys and I have both pointed out, this is consistent with evolution, going back to the transitional forms between apes and humans.

Is Matthew being figurative here?

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David (Matthew 1:1)
​

He uses the same word as Moses for the 'generations' (aka generations or geneology) of Adam, Noah...etc?

Well, if he is, then he is contradicting the same geneology in Chronicles. Why are you trying to draw attention to a contradiction?

Papias

 

[Partaker of Christ]

So are flat-earth geocentrists.

This is not about flat-earth geocentrists?

Why not discuss the scriptures I gave?

 

[Mallon]

This is not about flat-earth geocentrists?

Sure it is. If you want to insist that the only way to be "true" to the Scriptures is to read them in a literalist/concordist fashion, then flat-earth geocentrists are the most "true" of them all.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Sure it is. If you want to insist that the only way to be "true" to the Scriptures is to read them in a literalist/concordist fashion, then flat-earth geocentrists are the most "true" of them all.

You are being dishonest.
The accusation made that YEC's lie is a false accusation.
It could be that we are wrong for taking the literal ground, but that does not mean that we lie.


Did God create the heavens and the earth in six days or not?

You may want (for personal reasons) to claim that all of Genesis is figurative, but what about elsewhere?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark Wrote:OK, Mark, let me see if I understand you. You are saying that when it says "like" or "as", it is a metaphor, and when it doesn't, Jesus is speaking falsehoods?

No, when he is speaking in parables and metaphors there is most often a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context, just like I told you plainly. When Jesus is talking about Adam or the the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) he is speaking very literally.

Just by saying that you expect me to believe you? Many theologians point out that Genesis is figurative, and a simple reading of the text makes it clear that Genesis is figurative. At least I'm glad that you agree that the scriptures contain figurative language.

What is the difference between Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the Patriarchs from Adam or are they all emotive figures of speech as well. Answer my question, is Matthew's genealogy figurative are literal?

Of course he did - as Gluadys and I have both pointed out, this is consistent with evolution, going back to the transitional forms between apes and humans.

Gluadys and I go way back, her theory that Adam had ancestors is grossly inconsistent with the Scriptures. It causes me no discomfort nor does it disturb me that she thinks it does, I just know better. The Genesis account is consistent with evolution as natural history right up to Adam and that is because Adam and Eve's sin is inextricably linked to the need for justification by faith. Darwinism makes terrible theology, I advise caution when letting atheists and agnostics influence your theology.

Well, if he is, then he is contradicting the same geneology in Chronicles. Why are you trying to draw attention to a contradiction?

Papias

It's not a contradiction if it's a truncated list or a similar list is different. I love how the TEs go straight to the arguments secular anti-theistic academics use without missing a beat. I asked you a straight forward question and you go straight to the propaganda the secular humanists have been poisoning Christian theism with for 150 years.

Typical!

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure it is. If you want to insist that the only way to be "true" to the Scriptures is to read them in a literalist/concordist fashion, then flat-earth geocentrists are the most "true" of them all.

The Geocentrists were the Aristotelian old guard that would not relinquish their stranglehold on European academia. Darwinism is the geocentrism of our day and will be cast on the scrap heap of discarded mythologies of ancient pagan mystery religions it replaces. Evolutionists have things so twisted, no wonder they don't realize they are compromising Christian theism by courting worldly favor.

 

[crawfish]

Nonsense, slandering a point of view you know nothing about is pure melodrama. I've read their claims and while I do research the scientific literature I have yet to see AIG post anything remotely misleading. What is even more telling is that you are talking in generalities, probably because you will never be called for your shallow debate tactics.

Let me be more specific then. Let's take this quote from one of the links you gave:

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2

Note, I do not know a single TE who believes in "God of the Gaps". Every single TE I know believes in God as the prime cause of all things. Every single TE I know believes that God works purposefully through both nature AND the supernatural. To a TE, it doesn't matter if there is a natural explanation for a phenomena or not, because either way it is the method God used to create, and either way was done with full intent an purpose.

In fact, what AiG seems to be saying here is, "TE doesn't allow for large enough gaps in natural law for God to have had any significant role in creation". How in the world is that mindset itself not "God of the gaps"?

I could tear apart the other 9 points they make in a similar fashion.

AiG seems to neither know us nor understand us. If they do, then they are liars. If they do not, then they are lazy. Either way is intellectually and ethically dishonest.

Let me tell you something about intellectual bankruptcy, this is the statement by Nature Magazine's announcement of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005.

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart. The chimpanzee genome ​

However, this is what the actual paper actually says:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies (Nature 2005)​

Not a single evolutionists has admitted that this statement is false, even with the actual evidence right in front of them. Why don't you do the math and put that moral indignation to work where it belongs, who is lying to who here?

Let me put it this way: I expect the world to be full of liars and dishonest people. I expect far more than that from God's people. Every piece of data needs to encounter a healthy bit of skepticism; however, even if you are absolutely right here, I suspect that it means far less than what you would imply.

You want to accuse creationists of lying and misleading the public and you reject creationism because of it, let's see if you have the courage of your convictions or if you are just courting worldly favor. By the way, that is why I would never be a TE, I want my religion to be about my relationship with God rather then slandering other Christians unconscionably.

I will apologize, I did engage in a little bit of drama in that last post. I do not reject YEC because of sites like AiG; I reject it because neither science nor scripture support its claims (and if you need detail, I've addressed one topic in particular - death before the fall - in another post, and no YEC's posted to defend it).

However, I have very little respect for AiG and ICR. I love how BioLogos allows dissenting opinions in their discussion boards; I love how they offer scholars with dissenting opinions to submit articles that are presented unedited and without editorial comment. AiG may present a dissenting opinion, but always paraphrased with plenty of "why this is wrong" comments wrapped around it. BioLogos is confident in the Truth and that it will win. AiG does not display the same confidence.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

No, when he is speaking in parables and metaphors there is most often a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context, just like I told you plainly. When Jesus is talking about Adam or the the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) he is speaking very literally.

"most often" ? - Mark, your wiggling is showing.

So you are saying that when Jesus says "like" or "as", it is a metaphor, and when there isn't, Jesus is speaking literally, and is lying if what he says isn't literally true?

Answer my question, is Matthew's genealogy figurative are literal?

Well, if you take it literally, then Matthew has lied, because the geneology doesn't match that in Chronicles. That's why I see this as a figurative geneology - which is also supported by the fact that Joseph isn't Jesus' father anyway.

It's not a contradiction if it's a truncated list or a similar list is different.

Sure it is a contradiction. One list says one thing, the other says something different, with a different number of generations between people. That's what a contradiction is - two accounts that disagree. It's a contradiction if taken literally.

The Genesis account is consistent with evolution as natural history right up to Adam and that is because Adam and Eve's sin is inextricably linked to the need for justification by faith.

So you are saying that God created the world and all life except humans through evolution?

Papias

 

[philadiddle]

Does Obama/Bush lie?

This illustrates what does a lie mean today for everything. A meaningless word.

I'm looking for the name of someone who actively promotes the YEC view who you think is honest. Obama and Bush are not scientists, they are politician, so they would be ignorant at best if they accept YEC. I'm interested in finding someone who's job it is to promote YEC, not someone who just mentions it as a side note to their main career.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Does Obama/Bush lie?

This illustrates what does a lie mean today for everything. A meaningless word.

Well there you have it... YECs don't "lie" because in their minds, there's no such thing as a "lie."

"Lie" is a meaningless word to them... so how can "truth" not be?

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

You are being dishonest.
The accusation made that YEC's lie is a false accusation.
It could be that we are wrong for taking the literal ground, but that does not mean that we lie.


Did God create the heavens and the earth in six days or not?

You may want (for personal reasons) to claim that all of Genesis is figurative, but what about elsewhere?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Mallon was stating that the Bible clearly states that the Earth is flat when read literally. YEC's discard our figurative inturpretation as being false because we do not take the Creation account as being literal. If you do not believe the Earth is flat, then you yourself do not take the complete Bible literally. Why the inconsistency? Why condemn us for pushing your figurative interpretations a little further?

I believe the following to be Mallon's statement on another thread (sorry if I am mistaken)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If there's one thing I've learned from YEC advocates, it's how important it is to take the Bible literally -- "at face value" -- when it comes to its description of the world. After all, if we can't trust what the Bible has to say about science, how can we trust it about the resurrection of Jesus, right? That's the refrain I've always been told as an evolutionary creationist.

So how does the Bible literally describe the universe?

As I've already pointed out, the Bible tells us that the earth is shaped like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is circular (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these passages imply a flat earth.
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses imply geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer") as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is stretched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses imply a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

I'm left wondering why, then, modern YECs do not accept these literal descriptions "at face value" as they do the opening chapters of Genesis. Why the inconsistency? There's certainly nothing in the Bible to imply heliocentrism or a spherical earth. It seems the only way you can make your concordist interpretation work is to add to the scriptures, by placing Jesus on the moon and replacing the word "circle" with "sphere". I realize there is a single verse you like to point to that says the earth hangs on nothing, but why do you interpret this verse literally and reject the others? You're not letting science influence your interpretation of the Bible, are you? According to YECism, that's a no-no.

You can keep pretending the Bible does not say these things, if you like. It's really of no consequence to me. But if there's one thing that history has taught us, it's that reading the Bible for scientific insight is a mistake. The earth is neither flat nor unmovable, and the sky isn't a solid dome. So why YECs continue to insist that Genesis is scientifically accurate is beyond me. It certainly strikes me as inconsistent. It also strikes me as unbiblical. The Bible tells us why it was written: It was written so that we might have eternal life (2 Tim 3:15, John 5:39, 20:23, Eph 2:20, Rom 15:4), not scientific easter eggs."

 

[Mallon]

You are being dishonest.

How am I being dishonest?

The accusation made that YEC's lie is a false accusation.

I never made that accusation. I'm simply saying that if holding to a concordist hermeneutic is what constitutes being "true" to Scriptures, then flat-earth geocentrists are the most "true" of all because the Scriptures literally describe a flat earth and geocentric universe.

Did God create the heavens and the earth in six days or not?

No, He did not. And He didn't create a flat earth or geocentric universe like the Scriptures describe, either. Therefore, I reject scientific concordism.

 

[Mallon]

The Geocentrists were the Aristotelian old guard that would not relinquish their stranglehold on European academia.

Right... because, like the neocreationists, they proof-texted Bible verses in support of their concordist interpretation of the Scriptures (just look at Luther and Calvin). They were too confident in their preconvictions about how the Bible should be read to look at what God's own creation actually tells us.

Darwinism is the geocentrism of our day and will be cast on the scrap heap of discarded mythologies of ancient pagan mystery religions it replaces.

Neocreationists have been saying that for 151 years now.

 

[mindlight]

I have not settled on a the position regarding orgins, I was originally a YEC but I then started looking into it and became an OEC then I reread Genisis and after some thought became a Gap theorist after that I had a brief Hyades from being a Gap theorist and became a theistic evolutionist, then I jumped back to YEC then back to Gap. Currently my best description of what I am, is confused.

So convince me of one! I would like to hear firstly why it can be compatible with scripture. Secondly, I would like to hear how it is proven scientifically. Unlike Many of the other threads, I would like to hear information from credible and verifiable sources.

Throughout this thread I will be spraying each argument with questions, and by the end I will adopt what I believe to be the most reasonable position.

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."Exodus 20 v 11

 

[juvenissun]

Well there you have it... YECs don't "lie" because in their minds, there's no such thing as a "lie."

"Lie" is a meaningless word to them... so how can "truth" not be?

So, according to the conventional wisdom, we do not know what is a lie or what is a truth. We need a better definition.

Do you want to suggest one?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm looking for the name of someone who actively promotes the YEC view who you think is honest. Obama and Bush are not scientists, they are politician, so they would be ignorant at best if they accept YEC. I'm interested in finding someone who's job it is to promote YEC, not someone who just mentions it as a side note to their main career.

Useless effort. If you found one, you will call him/her a liar. And that would be the end of discussion.

If you do not do that, then there are many on the surface whom you already know.

I see ICR or AiG people as you do. I will not call them liars even some of their argument are questionable.

 

[Calypsis4]

I have not settled on a the position regarding orgins, I was originally a YEC but I then started looking into it and became an OEC then I reread Genisis and after some thought became a Gap theorist after that I had a brief Hyades from being a Gap theorist and became a theistic evolutionist, then I jumped back to YEC then back to Gap. Currently my best description of what I am, is confused.

So convince me of one! .

Genesis 1:1-31
Exodus 20:11
Mark 10:6
Luke 24
Romans 1:20
I Corinthians 15:21-22
I Timothy 2:13.

Friend, if you want the most credible source, it is the Word of God itself. When it is all looked at in its fell context, then the six day creation about 6,000 yrs ago is the only option. There are many scientific facts supporting a young earth and it is verily accessible to all:

Clock
Age Estimate
1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max
2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years
3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max
4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max
5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max
6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years​

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years

9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years

10. Axel Heiberg Island​

5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records
5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years
17. Population Growth
10,000 years max​

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages 19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years 20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years 21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max) 22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

Evidence for a Young World

But if you won't accept what God Himself has to say about it you won't believe the scientific facts about it either.

<staff edit>

 

[Partaker of Christ]

How am I being dishonest?


I never made that accusation. I'm simply saying that if holding to a concordist hermeneutic is what constitutes being "true" to Scriptures, then flat-earth geocentrists are the most "true" of all because the Scriptures literally describe a flat earth and geocentric universe.


No, He did not. And He didn't create a flat earth or geocentric universe like the Scriptures describe, either. Therefore, I reject scientific concordism.

Just a quick one, and I will try and get back later.

Were does the scripture 'literally' say that the earth is flat?

Thanks!