Genesis 1 and origins science

[BobRyan]

The only explanation the RATE project could come up with for radioisotope dating is that the rate of decay had to have been a billion times faster or so during the flood. That is unacceptable. If it happened naturally, it would be like converting the earth's surface to nuclear waste as far as how much radiation was produced.

That is not how radioactive decay works - it does not decay into MORE reactive material - but LESS. It goes from a more UNstable state to a more stable state.

If God did it supernaturally he could have compensated for that, but would have no motive for doing so besides deceiving us.

wrong again.

You are arguing out the void of what you don't know "again" about God and geology and what it takes to move tectonic plates more rapidly than they move today.

Then having taken God's chair - we are supposed to "take your word for it"??? really??

You have inserted in the place of the Word of God -- your guess work.

So then how infallible are "your guesses"??

Well at creation God wanted to provide a livable environment on earth - that means He had to have a fully radioactive crust on earth day 1.


And God wanted to move things around during the flood and shortly after so that we can have fountains of the deep breaking up, continents move and mankind less able to get together and cause trouble.

Well all that movement of the plates required a bit uptic in radioactive rates.

What is one way that variation happens without a world wide flood on the agenda - a neutrino burst.

So your entire - toss out the Bible or God is lying idea because in your "guesswork" God never needs radioactive decay shows that you are placing what you do not know about geodynamics ahead of simply accepting the Bible and then waiting to learn about all the variables that yo don't know about at present.

If God created starlight in transit, that would mean we live in a fake universe.

Have you seen the movie "Privileged planet"???

Do you think looking in the sky to see how a star looked 2000 years ago is "fake"???

What about seeing it in real time - is that "also fake" universe??

How about the fact that the atheists admit that the big bang started out moving faster than the speed of light -- also "fake"?

If the geologic column was laid down at once, why no rabbits in devonian forests, whales in lower strata with older fish, buffalo near plains-dwelling dinosaurs, etc? A few good examples of that sort would convince me I believe.

Are you asking why dinosaur fossils are found sticking up out of the surface of the ground in the U.S. West? Is this what causes confusion??

The argument for evolutionism is always made "from the void" of what people don't know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Smidlee]

Have you seen the movie "Privileged planet"???

Do you think looking in the sky to see how a star looked 2000 years ago is "fake"???

What about seeing it in real time - is that "also fake" universe??

How about the fact that the atheists admit that the big bang started out moving faster than the speed of light -- also "fake"?

Yeap. Inflation was invented to try to deal with the Big
Bang starlight problem. Since inflation is a supernatural miracle which can't be repeated why not believe God spoke the universe into existence like He said.

I'm amazed how quickly some Christians believe supernatural event in science while doubting the Bible. They take every claim made in the name of science literally. Creation was a direct act of God who is greater than nature. (thus a miracle) If we can't take the first creation literally then why should we accept the new creation literally in Revelation?

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed - and having a reliable Bible is much better than attempting such a horrific bend-wrench-twist on Genesis 1-11 that even the secular Hebrew scholars at all the world-class universities know enough not to take those exercises in text-bending seriously.

 

[Percivale]

Agreed - and having a reliable Bible is much better than attempting such a horrific bend-wrench-twist on Genesis 1-11 that even the secular Hebrew scholars at all the world-class universities know enough not to take those exercises in text-bending seriously.

It is the desire to hold on to biblical inerrancy that motivates trying to interpret it to accomodate billions of years.

Smiddlee:

Yeap. Inflation was invented to try to deal with the Big
Bang starlight problem. Since inflation is a supernatural miracle which can't be repeated why not believe God spoke the universe into existence like He said.

Exactly. The Big Bang is good evidence God created the universe supernaturally. Unfortunately young earth creationists can't use that argument for God's existence as well, since they don't believe it happened the way scientists have found.

That is not how radioactive decay works - it does not decay into MORE reactive material - but LESS. It goes from a more UNstable state to a more stable state.

True, but it is the process that gives off harmful radiation. By your reasoning there would be no such thing as radiation poisoning.

Are you asking why dinosaur fossils are found sticking up out of the surface of the ground in the U.S. West? Is this what causes confusion??

I'm asking why creatures from the same types of ecosystems, such as buffalo and triceratops, or whales and early sharks, are not found in the same strata, if they were laid down the same year.

Also, using our reason is necessary in deciding what books are God's word. You can't get away from relying on our imperfect reasoning ability, unfortunately.

 

[Smidlee]

Exactly. The Big Bang is good evidence God created the universe supernaturally. Unfortunately young earth creationists can't use that argument for God's existence as well, since they don't believe it happened the way scientists have found.

Evolutionist assumes the universe is the result of matter and energy while creationist like myself believe it's the result of information, Thus the created by "Word of God". (Just as easily as man speak to a computer to bring into existence his universes)

The Big Bang has so many problem I wouldn't count on it to be true no matter which worldview you hold. Big Bang depends heavily on the "Tooth Fairy". First it calls on the Tooth Fairy for inflation. Second for dark matter. Third for dark energy just to make the model to work. These still doesn't solve the problem of how the first stars formed nor galaxies and solar systems after the Big Bang.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

If you refuse to believe in the creation in Genesis…

I'm amazed how quickly some Christians believe supernatural event in science while doubting the Bible.

Smidlee, that’s twice in this thread you have purposely smeared people regarding the beliefs of those who differ from yours. What you clearly fail to understand is that people like me do NOT doubt the Bible. We merely disagree with your understanding.

Let me clarify my statement: When you make such accusations, you are lying. Perhaps you do not grasp the distinction between ‘disagreement with you’ and ‘disbelief of the Bible’. You should really attempt to understand the distinction.

If you are a practicing Christian, you may now apologize for your insults and dismissal of my Christian status, Percivale's Christian status and Papias' Christian status. Failure to explain this will confirm your Gnostic claim.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm amazed how quickly some Christians believe supernatural event in science while doubting the Bible.

The End.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

It is the desire to hold on to biblical inerrancy that motivates trying to interpret it to accomodate billions of years.

or not for those not married to blind-faith-evolutionism.

But your point is that the self-conflicted T.E. finds that he must bend-wrench-abuse the Word of God to hold on to his blind faith in evolutionism -- no matter how extreme and unjustified that wrenching is - from the stand point of good exegesis - sound Bible study.

They are bending the text "in spite of the text" -- not "because of it".

Then of course the iron seal --

"SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX days the Lord made..." Ex 20:8-11

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The failed ol argument that Christians don't know what the Bible says dies over and over again - including here --

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[SkyWriting]

One has to "imagine" that the fruit trees God created had no fruit and his command to man to eat fruit was useless in that 7 day week.

What tree normally produces fruit in 5 days?
So these were not normal 24 hour days, as we know them.
Time and decay had not yet begun.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Genesis 1:12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.