Genesis

[vossler]

I'm not really sure why I even come back here...to be amused at the responses I suppose. But, i do have a question since this whole thread is about Genesis...Which part of Genesis do TE's actually believe? Or is it accurate as long as it's not speaking of origins?

Amusement is a good reason to come back, for me it's just to keep tabs on the latest misinformation. BTW, just a small recommendation, don't try to pin down a TEs beliefs, they're all over the map, as many there are, so are their beliefs.

 

[KerrMetric]

hmmm...I wish I knew of that link before kerrmetric, it would've saved me some time. I read it from a book.

Your post and that website are word for word. So you either cut/pasted it OR you typed it out verbatim.

But as usual - it's a Creationist trotting out a list of material they like the sound of. This stuff is never in their own words. Let me guess - you have never studied geology or geophysics. Right?

Why do people have the nerve to argue things (or at least throw some list out) they patently have no knowledge of except to copy the list? I'm just surprised you didn't have the spiral galaxy winding problem chestnut or the Oort cloud in their as well.

 

[Melethiel]

I believe the whole of Genesis to be true so far as it teaches us about the nature of God and our relationship with him. The creation account teaches us that God is the creator of all. He has infinite power and majesty. It also teaches us to celebrate the Sabbath and underscores the heritability of sin. The Flood account warns us of God's anger and the story of the Tower of Babel tells us of His jealousy. Regardless of whether the whole of Genesis is historically factual or not, I believe these to be the some of the spiritual truths God wanted us to know (1 Cor 2:13), told in the context and understanding of the time. Go ahead and laugh at that, if you want.

What he said. ^^

I would also add that Genesis has important typologies, such as the Baptism/Flood typology, as well as the prophecy of the Messiah. So basically, we believe all of Genesis. We just have different ideas on what is actually important.

 

[pastorkevin73]

And this shows why we say you don't understand science.

If those who don't have your persective on science don't understand, then perhaps you can educate the education systems throughout North America so that everyone understands what science is. Because the average layman probably views science in this way.

 

[Mallon]

If those who don't have your persective on science don't understand, then perhaps you can educate the education systems throughout North America so that everyone understands what science is. Because the average layman probably views science in this way.

The education system of NA certainly does need an overhaul, I agree. Students need to better understand the strengths and limitations of science. The need to know that evolution is not teleological. Scientists need to do a better job conveying their results, and the media needs to stop miscommunicating them (like that will ever happen).

 

[KerrMetric]

If those who don't have your persective on science don't understand, then perhaps you can educate the education systems throughout North America so that everyone understands what science is. Because the average layman probably views science in this way.

You know - this might be the only time we agree on this board. The layman understanding of science is frequently based upon misconceptions and colloquial use of language with words like "proof" and "theory".

Proof is for mathematics, bottles of scotch and courts of law.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not laughing...it was a reasonable response. How do TE's explain where sin came from?

With the first human to deny God, I would suppose.

 

[pastorkevin73]

No. Science consists of conclusions drawn from evidence. Evidence is the key word, here. Conclusions are fallible; evidence is not. I would highly recommend reading a book about the philosophy of science. Kosso's Reading the Book of Nature is a good start.

Really! Doesn't evidence and proof pretty much mean the same? If not please define both evidence and proof, please.

I'm sorry that I cannot cite you a source, as I cannot remember where I read it last (might have been The Counter-Creationism Handbook). Regardless, the actual percentage is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Whether the number was 99 or 92, the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary as established principle.

I'd rather have a state like the from someone who is indifferent to evolution and creationism for this one. Mainly because I pretty sure most creationists won't accept such a state from evolutionist and probably the parallel applies to evolutionists.

Regardless of the context, that passage still warns us against thinking as children do. Are we to think only as adults when it comes to speaking in tongues?

According to your interpretation, right?

 

[Xaero]

Where does scripture say to look at creation for the age of the earth?

scripture says "look at the skies" they proclaim "the work of his hands".(psalm 13:1,2)
scripture says "look at what is made" it shows "the power of god" (romans 1:20)
So, when we "listen" to the skies (with radio/optical telescopes) and look at what is made (with microscopes/spectroscopes) we can see how the things were made and mostly this also implies when.

Your post and that website are word for word. So you either cut/pasted it OR you typed it out verbatim.

looks like he typed it nearly by heart - the punctuation is different.
The arguments on this site are scary old yec crap even older than the times when i was giving credit to this worldview ^^

 

[pastorkevin73]

You know - this might be the only time we agree on this board. The layman understanding of science is frequently based upon misconceptions and colloquial use of language with words like "proof" and "theory".

Proof is for mathematics, bottles of scotch and courts of law.

You haven't defined "proof". Could you please define
"proof", "evidence" and the difference between the two? Thanks.

 

[KerrMetric]

You haven't defined "proof". Could you please define
"proof", "evidence" and the difference between the two? Thanks.

I don't think of my definition of proof is different from yours. My point is that if you are being technical about things then the word proof should never be used in a scientific argument.

 

[pastorkevin73]

scripture says "look at the skies" they proclaim "the work of his hands".(psalm 13:1,2)
scripture says "look at what is made" it shows "the power of god" (romans 1:20)
So, when we "listen" to the skies (with radio/optical telescopes) and look at what is made (with microscopes/spectroscopes) we can see how the things were made and mostly this also implies when.

Ummm! Psalm 13:1,2 say nothing of this sort. It says:

1 How long, O LORD ? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
2 How long must I wrestle with my thoughts
and every day have sorrow in my heart?
How long will my enemy triumph over me?

As for Romans 1:20:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

There is nothing here which takes of the looking to nature for the age of the earth. You are reading into something that isn't there. If you look at the context of this verse you will see that Paul is talking about the wrath of God. It is talking about how awesome God is and we are to have a respectful fear for Him.

You haven't shown any scripture that declares to look at creation for the age of the earth.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I don't think of my definition of proof is different from yours. My point is that if you are being technical about things then the word proof should never be used in a scientific argument.

Hmmm, dodging the question.

I checked out Merriam-Webster online and this is how they define "proof" and "evidence".

Evidence: 1 a : an outward sign : [SIZE=-1]INDICATION[/SIZE] b : something that furnishes proof : [SIZE=-1]TESTIMONY[/SIZE]; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.

Proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

So I guess proof is not the same thing as evidence. Proof is the collection of evidences. Proof is still not the conclusion, rather points to a conclusion.

It seems that most times TEs, based on these definitions, do talk about the "proof" (collection of "evidence") of evolution.

 

[KerrMetric]

Hmmm, dodging the question.

I checked out Merriam-Webster online and this is how they define "proof" and "evidence".



So I guess proof is not the same thing as evidence. Proof is the collection of evidences. Proof is still not the conclusion, rather points to a conclusion.

It seems that most times TEs, based on these definitions, do talk about the "proof" (collection of "evidence") of evolution.

I wasn't dodging the question. Though I will say I was thinking of proof more in the mathematical sense of the word.

proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. A proof is a logical argument, not an empirical one.

 

[Mallon]

You haven't defined "proof". Could you please define
"proof", "evidence" and the difference between the two? Thanks.

This site nicely summarizes what is meant by "proof" and "evidence" in science:
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
Notably:

First let's get this straight. Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic...
Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject. The word proof is used a lot in law, and the idea isn't a lot different if we use it in science.
In science we collect empirical evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed...
We don't prove theories (and hypotheses) true. We just use the observations to convince ourselves (and others) that we have a good idea. Scientists have a lot of confidence in scientific theories, because they know there is a lot of evidence to back them up.

 

[Xaero]

Could you please define
"proof", "evidence" and the difference between the two?

Simply speaking: It is a proof when the evidence supports the theory.


The number of varves in lake suigetsu is evidence. The ratio of c14 isotopes in different varves is evidence. The content and structure of a varve is evidence.

These are things we can measure. Hard facts. Evidence.

A proof is something you do with a theory. A theory is some kind of complex idea how things work - you can get it from different fields of experience, especially from science or in our issue here: from an interpration of the bible.

There is also a difference between proofs of formal mathematical terms and proofs of theories about nature. Since it is possible to pump up hypothesis after hypothesis about the origins(even if they sound ridiculous) to support a contradicting theory (as seen in the bogus physics yecs must make to support their theory ), the theory itself can never be verified but it can stand firm in not getting falsified and still explaining things better than the rivaling theories. The best "proof" for theory is when scientist make predictions based on their model and these predictions get supported by new data. The Milankovitch Theory for example predicts cyclical varieties of solar activities which is based on the spinning of the earth axis. These cyclicities can be found in varves and deep sea drill cores exactly where they should be. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/astro_cycles.html)

To go back to my first example, the yec theory cannot explain the structure and content of the varve layers without strange happenings in their model, like the flood is sorting organic and inorganic material , so the varves look like annual (there are 100.000 of them). The other thought is that the different layers is seasonal, because of the seasonal blooming of the algae in summer. The rest of the year the lake accumulates dark clay sediments. Year for year - and these varves are distinguishable from storm varves. (http://www.waschke.de/twaschke/artikel/2_look/2_look2.htm)

After all, even C14 dating seems absolutely correct because of the correlation between the dates measured from the varves and the C14 ratios.(http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html)

YEC theory can't answer these natural phenomenons without making god a deceiver. Therefore it's wrong.

 

[pastorkevin73]

YEC theory can't answer these natural phenomenons without making god a deceiver. Therefore it's wrong.

I'm not sure you can make that claim as the bases of YEC is "God did it" and a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[shernren]

Ummm! Psalm 13:1,2 say nothing of this sort.

I think he meant:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
(Psalms 19:1-2 NIV)

There is nothing here which takes of the looking to nature for the age of the earth. You are reading into something that isn't there. If you look at the context of this verse you will see that Paul is talking about the wrath of God. It is talking about how awesome God is and we are to have a respectful fear for Him.

You haven't shown any scripture that declares to look at creation for the age of the earth.

Basically, both these passages tell us that God's characteristics have to be reflected in His creation. So I study His creation. I find a lot of things in this creation that cannot be explained if this creation was young and if the earth experienced a recent global flood. I find, on the other hand, that a lot of these things can be explained if the universe and the earth are old - in fact, the theories scientists come up with explain things to a T.

So now I'm faced with a question: what should this, the data I observe in creation, tell me about God? If God created a universe that looks old and an earth that looks old (but not as old), and He expects me to believe against evidence and for no good theological reason that they are young and that the Earth experienced a recent global flood which did absolutely nothing that geology can detect, what would that tell me about God?

 

[Xaero]

Hi pastorkevin73,

sorry it is psalm 19:1,2:"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."(NIV)

The quote from psalm 13 reminds me of my struggle against YECist spirits.

There is nothing here which takes of the looking to nature for the age of the earth. You are reading into something that isn't there. If you look at the context of this verse you will see that Paul is talking about the wrath of God. It is talking about how awesome God is and we are to have a respectful fear for Him.

You haven't shown any scripture that declares to look at creation for the age of the earth.

i didn't write that the bible says something like "hey dude look there for the age of the earth".

"the firmament sheweth his handywork"(KJV)

when we look to the firmament and see how it works we can also say something about its age.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"(KJV)

What is understood by "the things that are made"? You need science to understand those things.YECs seem to understand nothing about these things. The more intelligent ones from AiG, ICR etc. are just ignorant liars deceiving those who want to be good fellowers of Jesus Christ and make them think that a belief in a 6000 year earth is fundamental for christian apologetics.

But the truth is by assuming a 6000 year earth, the gospel of jesus is undefendable because Jesus pointed to Moses.

 

[Mallon]

I'd rather have a state like the from someone who is indifferent to evolution and creationism for this one. Mainly because I pretty sure most creationists won't accept such a state from evolutionist and probably the parallel applies to evolutionists.

I looked into it, and the poll I was refering to was published in the June 29, 1987 issue of Newsweek. Take that as you will.
The poll indicated that of all the US scientists questioned, 95% accepted evolutionary theory. Most notably, of the 480,000 scientists working in the fields related to evolution (biology and geology), 99.85% accepted evolution. Keep in mind that this was in the US -- one of the largest YEC-sympathyzing countries in the world.