I will answer the following post in brief statements.
The reason for this is because of the amount of arguments brought up by Yahweh Nissi would take to long to answer in detail.
The concept it to show Yahweh Nissi that there are answers to the questions presented.
I just wish Yahweh Nissi did some homework prior to presenting these easily refutable so-called problems.
Yahweh Nissi said:
Ark Guy.
Remember that Genesis is not God's infallible letter to you.
The bible teaches that all scripture is God inspired....you have read that verse? yes?
Yahweh Nissi said:
It is a translation of God's infallible scriptures written to nomadic herders ~3-4000 years ago, who would have read it in a completely different way. I do not know ancient Hebrew, but I would be very extreamly suprised if they had a word for 'science', or anything like it. You would not expect Genesis to deal with those kind of issues. God told the story of creation in the myth-like way they would have been used to.
It would have been very easy to write in this myth of yours that God formed man from the primates...rather than dust. So why is it not recorded that way?
Yahweh Nissi said:
Jesus did the same when he taught in parables. Note Mat 13:3 'Then he told them many things in parables, saying "A farmer went out to sow his seed".' Not '...saying "Here is a metaphorical story to teach you things. A farmer..."'. Matthew noted it was a parable, but Jesus saw no need to specifically say it was, he just started teaching that way. This shows his (Jewish) listeners were used to that kind of teaching and would not assume stories to be litteral unless told otherwise.
But a parable told by Jesus tells of actual events that could occur. Now, for some reason you then try to say Genesis was a parable..of an event that COULD NOT occur....do you see the differance and hence the problem with that line of logic you are using?
Yahweh Nissi said:
Now if our observations of God's creation matched up with a litteral creation account then there would be no reason to believe it was not litteral, but as our observations are totally opposed to it, it is reasonable to assume it is not litteral, as you would not expect God to have given a scientific account.
But you can make excellent scientific argument that science does agree with Genesis.
Yahweh Nissi said:
Examples are:-
1. We can see stars and galaxies much further away then 6,000 light years (i.e. the distance light could have travelled since the start of the Unvierse if YEC is true). These distances have been measured by various different techniques - the ranges of which overlap and so can verify each other - and extend out to over 10 billion light years.
Why couldn't the light have been created in place? or what if the speed of light has slowed down? Barry Setterfield ahs done some fantastic work on this subject.
Is you theory the only theory? Besides, measurements of an object 10 billion light years away is extremely inaccurate.
Yahweh Nissi said:
2. Or what about the cosmic microwave background? Everwhere we look in the sky we observe a nearly uniform (fluctuations of much less then 1% of 1 kelvin) background of radiation at 2.7 K ( -271 celcius). Where on earth did that come from, if it is not the radiation from when the Universe was small, dense and hot enough for he matterial in it to be ionized? There is no mention of God putting it there in the literal creation account.
The bible says God spread out the heavens...what do you suppose it would look like?
Yahweh Nissi said:
3. Radio-carbon dating, which can be callabrated on things a few thousand years old that we know the rough ages of for historical reasons, observes dates older then 6,000 years (I think it's range is up to 50,000 years). Various other kinds of radioactive dating techniques also show ages older than 6,000 years.
Has the formation of C14 always been the same? Prior to the flood the amount of cosmic radiation entering the earth atmosphere was much less than todays rate.
This means that less nitrogen would have been converted to C14...making items dated prior too and for a time period after the flood appear much older than they really are.
Yahweh Nissi said:
4. The number of none aquatic species we observe today and food for all of them for 40 days and nights could not have fitted on the ark.
There was no need for the aquatic animals to have been aboard the ark. I could reply in great detail why thhat is so, but for this post this should be sufficient.
Yahweh Nissi said:
Also, where did the dinosaurs and other extinct species go?
Dinosaurs are seen in pottery, cave drawings, folk lore..and even in the bible
Yahweh Nissi said:
The Bible makes no account of extinctions. Gen 6:20-22 'Two of EVERY kind of bird, of EVERY kind of animal and of EVERY kind or creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." Noah did EVERYTHING JUST AS GOD COMMANDED HIM.' i.e. everything alive before the flood was alive after, so where did the dinosaurs go?
They went the way of the carrier pigeon and the doe doe bird.
I would suggest they did not fair well in the new environment or were hunted into extinction.
Yahweh Nissi said:
There is a bit in Kings where the dimensions of a cylidrical container are given to be a circumference of 30 cubits and a diameter of 10 cubits. Not about 30 and 10, not roughly 30 and 10, it says 30 and 10. i.e, saying that pi (the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter, which is the same for all circles) is exactly 3. We KNOW pi is not exactly 3, it is 3.14159265..., so an account for which there is no textual indication of it not being literal is shown by science to be not literal - it is not a maths text book so God did not need to give exact dimensions. Nor did He say that they were not exact, the people to whom he was writting were not expecting it, and people (like us) used to reading things and assuming they are literal unless told otherwise have the ability to work out that this is not litteral. I believe the creation account to be analogous.
From what I have read it depends on where you take the measurements from. from the inner lip or the outer lip..going from memory...changes the results.
Other have also suggested that the bible just presents a rounded off numerical value....but to be so dogmatic like yoou are is also equated with being ignorant on that subject. Once again you should have done your homwork.
Yahweh Nissi said:
If you wish to hold to YEC there are two options in response to this:-
1. Reject science altogether, at least in relation to this topic, and say you will believe the literal account of Genesis whatever observations are made. You may believe that God deliberately put false evidence there as a test of faith.
Fair enough; you are welcome to that view, it is self consitant and it cannot be falsified - although I would suggest that is a very odd thing for God to do; one might call it lying. HOWEVER, if you are rejecting all scientific arguments out of hand, then it is inconsistant to try and use scientific arguments agianst thiestic evolution. If you are not willing to accept scientific arguments against your own position, you should not use them against others.
My answers to your above cut and paste questions shows you that i don't hhave to reject science.
Yahweh Nissi said:
2. Accept scientific methods as valid for this topic and try and argue against these points just made by myself, and those made by many others in inumerable posts in this forum.
But you made no valid ppoints....
Yahweh Nissi said:
Two points must then be made.
I. Finding a study where scientists made a hash out of things does not disprove the basic principles they were working on - it shows that people are fallible and can make a hash of things and mearly discounts the results of their particular study. To disprove a particlar method you must show that it is intrinsically flawed.
II. If you are going to use scientific arguments against (what is claimed as) evidence for a ~10-20 billion year old Universe (13.7 is current best value) with a ~5 billion year old Earth on which life evolved slowly (guided by God for thiesic evolutionists) then you must provide scientific evidence FOR a ~6000 year old Universe and Earth. Attacking evidence for the currently accepted scientific model does nothing to prove an alternative - positive evidence must be supplied.
I trust that you now stannd corrected.
Yahweh Nissi said: