Geocentrics call on their fellow Creationists!

[Vance]

Any Creationists want to heed the call?

"At least two Creationist organizations are publicizing the erroneous idea that the first five verses of Genesis I describe a rotating earth. One spokesman in Kentucky, USA, who has a spot on Christian radio, broadcasts this idea as if it were a fact. Another--a Russian creationist--seems to agree. Further, the pioneer and premier Creationist organization--ICR in California--continues to support the Copernican model, all the while denying that it does so. The leadership there is apparently determined to ignore the fact that geocentrism is a Creation issue of overriding importance to the whole matter of settling the Origins Issue with a Bible victory.

When everything good about the work of these and other Creationist organizations and individuals has been said--and there is a world of good to be said!--these facts remain: 1) Copernicanism is as unScriptural as Evolutionism; 2) Copernicanism is as unScientific as Evolutionism; 3) Copernicanism is as vulnerable as Evolutionism; 4) Copernicanism paved the way for the success of Darwinism; 5) Other pernicious anti-Bible isms (Marxism, Freudianism, Einsteinism, Saganism, et al) absolutely depend on the sacrosanct position Copernicanism holds amongst scientists, both secular and religious, but especially the religious ones!
​

Secular intellectuals everywhere have long openly recognized that the Copernican Revolution laid the cornerstone for Darwinism and the other isms. Curiously though, Creationists haven’t seemed to recognize that obvious and readily documented fact, at least not to a degree that they are willing to check it out and do something about it. When the connections are recognized and understood, the logic of attacking the Copernican keystone to bring down evolutionism and all the other isms upheld by it is irresistible. After all, Copernican heliocentricity established and steadily expanded the long age requirement that paved the way for the Darwinian Myth! Copernicanism is not only the keystone upholding evolution and the rest; it is the Achilles Heel of the whole syndrome!
​

More, Creationists need to be reminded that Copernicanism is a pure Origins Issue, that is to say, a Creation Week issue, just as surely as Darwinism is a pure Origins and Creation Week Issue. Jesus the Creator (Col.1:16; Eph.3:9; etc.) either created a sun going around the earth (as plain Scripture declares, and all known facts confirm), or He created an earth going around the sun, as not only evolutionary scientists declare--but, lamentably, also nearly all of their Creationist adversaries! Both of these models cannot be The Truth. One model is Absolutely True and the other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!). No compromise. No quarter. No need for either.
​

Sincere Creationists of whatever standing need not continue to have one foot in the anti-Bible Copernican camp where the Origin and nature of the cosmos is concerned, and the other foot in the pro-Bible Creationist camp where the Origin and nature of all life forms is concerned. Indeed, the time has arrived when Creationists must quit stonewalling the geocentrism issue and begin to look at the Biblical, historical, scientific, and logical evidence which upholds the geocentrism model. (Start HERE). All who will prayerfully and carefully look at that evidence will find that it exposes not only Copernicanism, but also the entire modern Big Bang-based cosmological paradigm! That paradigm-- whether realized or not--is the present day big gun in the spiritual warfare attempting to destroy Bible credibility and all that rests upon that credibility. We are talking about an attempted fraud here of truly Brobdingnagian proportions. Wait.... Make that apocalyptic proportions....
​

This is why the recent statements by certain Creationists claiming that Genesis I:1-5 proves a rotating earth cannot be left unchallenged. This is why the general stonewalling against Bible-certified and scientifically sound geocentrism by the Creationist leadership cannot continue to be looked upon with benign indifference. By their actions--and inactions--and whether they are aware of what they are doing or not, they are actually standing in the way of a Bible endorsed strategy that can not fail to expose and destroy the evolution myth by attacking it on its vulnerable cosmological flank!"

​

It goes on from there.

​

http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm

 

[SBG]

Its like:

 

[Vance]

Here is more from that site. Really, Creationists should sit up and take note!

"When all is said that can be said on this matter, the fact remains that the Bible--from start to finish--teaches a non-moving earth. There are no heliocentricity verses in the Bible. None. All efforts to find Scriptural support for heliocentricity are vain attempts to make the Bible conform with long age Copernicanism and all that rests upon it, and thus justify a "Theistic Copernicanism" position that cannot be justified. For the Creationist, this is the ultimate self-defeating irony. The long ages required by his evolutionary adversary are being supplied by his own persistent overt and covert support (or indifference to) Copernicanism and his refusal to recognize the symbiotic relationship between the two! (Ardent Copernicanism promoter and lifelong dabbler in witchcraft, Johannes Kepler, was also promoting evolutionism over 200 years before Darwin...and defining the gravitational nonsense about tides, etc., {which Leibnitz called occult} fifty years before Newton! HERE.) Little wonder that this most recent effort to find a real verse or passage in Scripture that could be construed to support heliocentricity has been seized upon! But this effort too is a flop. Face it, Creationists: The Bible teaches a non-moving earth throughout with no contradictions.

That fact means that there are two choices for the heretofore unflinching Creationist devoted to Bible inerrancy who has nevertheless resisted the Bible’s plain teaching that it is the sun and not the earth which is moving and providing day and night, etc.: 1) Bow the knee to the unsubstantiated and vulnerable claims of the physical scientists who declare heliocentricity a fact (while you continue to oppose the biological scientists who claim evolution is a fact!), and--knowing that the Bible refutes heliocentricity--stop claiming to believe in Bible inerrancy; or; 2) Prayerfully lay aside pride and fear of worldly opprobrium, stand on the Scriptural and scientific evidence that supports a non-moving earth, and discover the joy of learning that the helicentricity model is just as much an unscientific bluff as is evolutionism (Jn.8:32)...and then become an even more confident believer in Bible inerrancy than you ever were!"
​

 

[PaladinValer]

Vance, once again I bow to your research skills!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vance again.

 

[Maccie]

Face it, Creationists: The Bible teaches a non-moving earth throughout with no contradictions.

That fact means that there are two choices for the heretofore unflinching Creationist devoted to Bible inerrancy who has nevertheless resisted the Bible’s plain teaching that it is the sun and not the earth which is moving and providing day and night, etc.:​

Oh Vance, I did especially love that bit! ​

 

[Strong in Him]

There is a young man who posts on the previously mentioned BBC site whose reasoning is as follows:

"If you look out of your window during the day you will see the sun moving across the sky. This proves that it rotates around the earth."

I think the Bible also mentions the four corners of the earth at some point too. Does this mean the earth is square?

 

[Vance]

I really would like to know whether any YEC's here would agree with these statements in the OP and the additional quote or, if not, what they would say to counter these arguments.

 

[kiwimac]

I can feel my brain dribbling out my ears!

Kiwimac

 

[Vance]

Plug them up, Kiwi! We need all the help we can get!

 

[Maccie]

The YEC's are very quiet, aren't they??

 

[Delta One]

Vance,

Of course the first few verses of Genesis 1 describe a rotating Earth! All you need for night and day is a light source from a singular direction and a rotating Earth. The fact that there was darkness and light on the Earth implies that it was indeed rotating and is consistent with 'evening passed and morning came'. It is more reasonable to believe that the Earth rotated on it's axis in the same way as today rather than believe that a single light source with light in a singular direction (from what and where?) going around the Earth.

Consider it, when you are working on a project you have a single light source shining on the spot on your desk where you are working in a position where it is most comfortable and easy to work. You wouldn't want it rotating about your desk would you? Likewise I think the same can be applied to God. Since we are made in the Image of God, we obtain many of His characteristics including logic.

After all, Copernican heliocentricity established and steadily expanded the long age requirement that paved the way for the Darwinian Myth! Copernicanism is not only the keystone upholding evolution and the rest.

Absolute rubbish. Coopernican heliocentrism was also popularized (modified) and proven by Galileo - a committed Christian. Heliocentrism is just the 'new science' taking over the 'old science' of geocentrism. That said, the 'Coopernican Principle' (the assumption that the universe has no ends nor any centre) forms the basis of the big bang theory whose theorists then use GR equations along with the red shift of starlight evidence to recieve their theory. But this has nothing to do with heliocentrism. Dr Humphreys', using Biblical concepts, has changed these assumptions to assume that the universe has boundaries and, at the time of creation, had a centre somewhere near the Earth. Once these assumptions and evidence (i.e. the red shift of starlight) are fed through the equations of GR, we recieve the relativistic cosmology.

Responding to some other part a little bit further down in the message, destroying the Coopernican Principle is impossible as it's an assumption - one that we cannot prove nor disprove. Even if this was done, this would have no impact on the fallible belief of biological evolution. Refuting the idea of heliocentrism is impossible and quite silly because that would mean going directly against the observable evidence of today...



At least two Creationist organizations are publicizing the erroneous idea that the first five verses of Genesis I describe a rotating earth. One spokesman in Kentucky, USA, who has a spot on Christian radio, broadcasts this idea as if it were a fact.



It wouldn't surprise me if they were talking about Ken Ham...

The issue of heliocentrism has no bearing on the creation/evolution debate. The creation/evolution debate is based in philosophical grounds and the very distant unobservable and unrepeatable past. Heliocentrism/geocentrism debate is based now in the present and is a purely scientific issue as it is easily observed and happens every second of the day. Predictions can be made and tested and the results analyzed to see which one is right.

 

[Delta One]

Maccie and Vance,

Does not their saying that 'the Bible doesn't contain or support heliocentrism' worry you at all? How do you think these kind of statements go down with non-believers? The 'fact' that there is 'no Biblical reference to support heliocentrism and is in fact in 'support' of geocentrism' is an issue that OECs and TEs must also front up to. If such views are getting to our non-blieving friends, what kind of impression does this give them about Christianity? If you keep following along this line of reasoning, you'll discover that such claims are damaging Christianity as a whole body and are not because of or based on the creationist interpretation in any way, shape or form.

Need I remind you that Galileo was not only a committed Christian, but he was also a creationist? In fact, the creationary account's, as recorded in Genesis, use of the terms 'night' and 'day' implies a rotating Earth given a single light source shining in a given direction. I have to admit that I don't know whether or not the Earth rotated around the light source that was created on the first day of the creation week, or whether it waited until the sun was created on day four to commence it's motion around the sun (which probably makes more sense, IMO). The account of Joshua's 'long day' also indicates that the writer was inspired by God, given that the moon was mentioned as well, not just the sun. For more information, check out the 'Joshua's Long Day' section of the Answers in Genesis website.

 

[Maccie]

Delta One, are you thinking that Vance and I are geocentrists???? Do you honestly believe we believe what Vance posted in the OP???

Vance posted that to show that geocentrists believe that the sun moves round the earth with all the passion and Biblical 'evidence' that creationists use when they try to 'prove' evolution is wrong, and that the earth is young.

Not only that, the geocentrists are calling on creationists to support them, to believe what they believe, to share their passion, and proclaim to the world that both groups believe that the sun goes round the earth and that God created the earth in 6 24-hour periods.

What I'd like to know, and I think Vance would agree, is WHY creationists rubbish geocentrists when both sets of belief are scientifically invalid.

 

[Delta One]

Maccie,

Delta One, are you thinking that Vance and I are geocentrists???? Do you honestly believe we believe what Vance posted in the OP???

P-o-s-s-i-bly. (I'm just razzing you ). I never implied that you were. As a matter of fact, I'm unsure how you came to that from reading my post...

Vance posted that to show that geocentrists believe that the sun moves round the earth with all the passion and Biblical 'evidence' that creationists use when they try to 'prove' evolution is wrong, and that the earth is young.

One can make no connection to the two. For one, we have no clear authorative statement that says the sun rotates around the Earth. But Exodus 20:11 is very clear and authorative (it was apart of the LAW!!) that God made the entire universe in six literal days! You are overlooking simple logical arguments like this.

Further more, I guess it adds evidence to my statements about that the evidence doesn't speak for itself and must be interpreted. It is this interpretation that is fallible. Many parts of the Bible where geocentrists point to are in poetic books like the Psalms that obviously aren't intended to be taken literally, by their very nature. The Bible also uses the language of appearence in many places -- the 'weather person'[to avoid sexist comments] uses this all the time! When they refer to the sunset and sunrise - the sun doesn't actually set or rise, it's how it appears to us. Scientifically, what they say is incorrect as it's the Earth's rotation that causes such appearence on Earth to happen. Genesis, however, is not written in poetical or figurative form and is written like a historical document. In a sense, that is what the whole Bible is -- it is the History Book of The Universe!

Not only that, the geocentrists are calling on creationists to support them, to believe what they believe, to share their passion, and proclaim to the world that both groups believe that the sun goes round the earth and that God created the earth in 6 24-hour periods.

Creationists don't believe such things though. In fact, as I pointed out in my previous message, the wording of the creation account appears to imply that the Earth rotates. As I also brought up, Joshua's long day also appears to support heliocentrism.

What I'd like to know, and I think Vance would agree, is WHY creationists rubbish geocentrists when both sets of belief are scientifically invalid.

For one, we can observe that the solar system is not geocentric. We can see that the planets, including the Earth, orbit the sun that moves through space. There is no debate about this as observations have proven this.

I would like to issue a challenge to you Maccie, prove that creation is 'scientifically invalid'. I'll bet a years wage that you will fall far short and your attempt will indeed prove to be futile.

There is a difference in historical and process science. We can, as described above, observe that geocentrism is incorrect. But we cannot observe that creation is incorrect as creation is an event in the distant unobservable past that cannot be repeated today nor can it be tested. The evidence of the present must be interpreted for us to come to any conclusions about the past. Like I have said almost a million times - it almost qualifies as a SCAMT (Statement Corrected A Million Times) - these interpretations are based on underlying presuppositions, i.e. what the person initially believes to be true, that are not subject to change. For an evolutionist, to them evolution is a 'fact' and anything else, therefore, that goes against that MUST be 'lies'.

Unless one knows everything, it is impossible to prove creation or evolution wrong as we can't observe, repeat or test experimentally events that happened in the distant unobservable past without using circular reasoning. And since both worldviews can interpret the evidence and they both make sense for the most part, it all comes down to what a person initally believes that will ultimately determine what they believe.

When you realise that this example deals with two totally different sciences that have different levels of authority (process science is very authorative, while historical science is more based on assumptions and the sort and as such cannot speak with any real authority like process), then you will see that the examples cannot be related.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Unless one knows everything, it is impossible to prove creation or evolution wrong as we can't observe, repeat or test experimentally events that happened in the distant unobservable past without using circular reasoning. And since both worldviews can interpret the evidence and they both make sense for the most part, it all comes down to what a person initally believes that will ultimately determine what they believe.

When you realise that this example deals with two totally different sciences that have different levels of authority (process science is very authorative, while historical science is more based on assumptions and the sort and as such cannot speak with any real authority like process), then you will see that the examples cannot be related.

the problem of time is significant and it does the issue great injustice to just divide the sciences up into normal vs origins as does AiG or a little more sophisticated as here with process and historical. All sciences are a mixture of the two. What is the difference if something is 1 week old or 1 million years old? both are past. The 'brains in the vat' problem point at something very important about memories and the past. If you point out that you where here 1 week ago and your memories are authoritative to you, then all i have to do is move the marker to one day before you were born. if you want i can move the marker to 1 day before the oldest human alive now was born, the issue is still the same. memories, evidence, experiments all have a past and present component. Simply to classify geology as an historical science since it talks about the distant past is disingenuious for the techniques to investigate the past are present in all the physical sciences. The experiments i did in college chemistry are past, 25 years past, older than 1/2 of the human beings on earth and therefore in their history, not their 'present' accessible via their own memories. but that doesn't invalid the science i did at the lab bench. nor does the passage of time itself decrease the probability that something did or did not occur.

you don't doubt that that Lincoln wrote and delivered the Gettysburg address. how about it Washington stood up in full uniform in the middle of the night and rowed across the delaware? the question is evidence, interpretative technic, etc. not the mere passage of time.

these are big issues in philosophy and in the philosophy of science in particular, and it does no one a service to think you can finese the issues by neatly dividing the physical science into these two great domains, you can't.


btw
"it is impossible to prove creation or evolution wrong as we can't observe, repeat or test experimentally events that happened in the distant unobservable past without using circular reasoning."

proof is for maths and alcohol, science is inductive not deductive in its basic structure and never proves anything like math does, rather it shows something is beyond reasonable doubt in the manner of the legal system.

and yes you can demonstrate and persuade that creation is a bad theory based on the evidence and that evolution fits the data. using technics that have both historical and experimental basis. just because it is distant in time does not rule out sciences access to it, it decreases probability and increases uncertainity but not this brick wall AiG and their ilk would erect at some unknown point in time. btw exactly where is this barrier? at 6K creation? this is the problem of apparent age and God as a trickster we discuss on a regular basis.
....

 

[Delta One]

rmwilliamsll,

Just briefly,

If you point out that you where here 1 week ago and your memories are authoritative to you, then all i have to do is move the marker to one day before you were born. if you want i can move the marker to 1 day before the oldest human alive now was born, the issue is still the same. memories, evidence, experiments all have a past and present component. Simply to classify geology as an historical science since it talks about the distant past is disingenuious for the techniques to investigate the past are present in all the physical sciences. The experiments i did in college chemistry are past, 25 years past, older than 1/2 of the human beings on earth and therefore in their history, not their 'present' accessible via their own memories. but that doesn't invalid the science i did at the lab bench. nor does the passage of time itself decrease the probability that something did or did not occur.

Using your chemistry example, the point remains that we had someone there who observed the experiments there. We had an eye-witness there who saw the experiments happen (because you did them and presumably there were others around you to), who once again presumably recorded the experiment and results. However, we have NO scientist or any one for that fact who was there to see, record, etc, the supposed evolution of life from simple to the complex, nor to observe the formation of the universe around 14 billion years ago (the date changes almost every day). There was no human there! We have no human eye-witness accounts to substantiate these events! This is what I am talking about.

The good thing about Biblical creation is that we do have an eye-witness account! We have the personal revelation (account) of the One who was there and who did make everything. He tells us how He created everything right there in Genesis 1 and 2! Just as we rely fairly heavily on eye-witness accounts for historical research and even for police investigations, so to must we rely on God's eye-witness account of what He said happened.

you don't doubt that that Lincoln wrote and delivered the Gettysburg address. how about it Washington stood up in full uniform in the middle of the night and rowed across the delaware? the question is evidence, interpretative technic, etc. not the mere passage of time.

Yes, but the further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions - factors such as the religious belief (or unbelief) of the scientist. So, what may be presented as 'science' regarding the past may be little more than the scientist's own personal worldview; which is what I was getting at.

I've never been too good at history (mainly non-Australian history).

 

[Delta One]

btw
"it is impossible to prove creation or evolution wrong as we can't observe, repeat or test experimentally events that happened in the distant unobservable past without using circular reasoning."

proof is for maths and alcohol, science is inductive not deductive in its basic structure and never proves anything like math does, rather it shows something is beyond reasonable doubt in the manner of the legal system.
Alochol?? You've lost me. Science can prove things, such as the heliocentric solar system for example.

and yes you can demonstrate and persuade that creation is a bad theory based on the evidence and that evolution fits the data.

I'd like to see one have a go. You're answer would probably just be a different interpretation of the evidence.

just because it is distant in time does not rule out sciences access to it, it decreases probability and increases uncertainity but not this brick wall AiG and their ilk would erect at some unknown point in time. btw exactly where is this barrier? at 6K creation? this is the problem of apparent age and God as a trickster we discuss on a regular basis.
Barrier? Anyway, science cannot directly access the past. It can 'access' the past indirectly, but these methods are extremely limited and require a lot of assumptions to fill the ever present gaps of uncertainities.

 

[shernren]

Ooh this is fun. Delta, how would you define the difference between "operational science and origins science" as AiG so unbiasedly puts it?

Let's take these statements:

1. The sun was shining 1 billion years ago.
2. The sun was shining 8 minutes ago.
3. The sun is shining.

Now, AiG would classify statement 1 and 2 as "origin" statements, because they concern the past; they would classify 3 as "operational" statement, because it concerns the present. Right?

But they would be logically wrong. Because the sun is 8 light-minutes away from the Earth, any observational statement we make concerning the sun is only true about its condition 8 minutes ago. So statement 3 is actually equivalent to statement 2, which is "origin" ... I can similarly take any operational statement you throw at me and show that it is an origin statement. You think you are observing an instantaneous chemical change in an experiment, but it takes time for one molecule to encounter another, time for the reaction to occur, and time for the light to get from the reaction point to your eye, so any chemical statement must also be a statement about what the chemicals were doing a few nanoseconds ago, not what the chemicals are doing now.

AiG has just "proved" that operational science doesn't exist. And they wonder why people call them biased?

Delta, how do you know that the earth goes around the sun, instead of the sun going around the earth? I want solid scientific proof.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

One can make no connection to the two. For one, we have no clear authorative statement that says the sun rotates around the Earth.

Joshua 10:12-13, a historical passage, clearly states that the Sun stopped moving.

Unlike weather forecasters there is no evidence that the original scribe of that passage had any clue about planets and orbits.

For 2000 years believers interpreted that as clearly meaning that the Sun rotated around the Earth, which is indeed the only logical way to interpret it, and almost certainly what the original scribe believed.

But Exodus 20:11 is very clear and authorative (it was apart of the LAW!!) that God made the entire universe in six literal days! You are overlooking simple logical arguments like this.

Or perhaps it is metaphorical, or perhaps we don't understand the viewpoint and methods used in the Bible for expressing truth as well as we would like.

Or perhaps you are correct, and if you believe that to be the case then I suggest you stick to faith rather than trying to argue that the physical evidence agrees with you.

Genesis, however, is not written in poetical or figurative form

Genesis 1 most certainly is, and most of the rest of Gen 1-11 comes off as a series of parables to me.

Creationists don't believe such things though. In fact, as I pointed out in my previous message, the wording of the creation account appears to imply that the Earth rotates.

No, it implies that the various lights in the sky go around the Earth.

I would like to issue a challenge to you Maccie, prove that creation is 'scientifically invalid'. I'll bet a years wage that you will fall far short and your attempt will indeed prove to be futile.

There is a difference in historical and process science. We can, as described above, observe that geocentrism is incorrect. But we cannot observe that creation is incorrect as creation is an event in the distant unobservable past that cannot be repeated today nor can it be tested. The evidence of the present must be interpreted for us to come to any conclusions about the past.

1. Science does not deal with proofs in the mathematical sense, it deals with weighing the evidence.
2. Any argument concerning "historical" science can ultimately be equally applied to validate the "Church of Last Thursdayism" which believes that the universe was created last Thursday.
3. The Medical Examiner does not need to be present at a murder to determine that a murder took place.
4. All "interpretations" are not equal. Some fit the evidence better than others. Those that fit the evidence and predict with reasonable accuracy what other evidence will be found are called scientific theories. Those that pretend that evidence doesn't exist and rely on multiple supernatural events that are not recorded anywhere are called "Flood Geology" and "Creation Science".
5. The Young Earth version of Scientific Creationism makes certain claims that simply do not fit the evidence. If you go with arguments that about "historical" versus "process" science then it is scientificly invalid, if you stand on the evidence it is simply wrong.

 

[Delta One]

Robert the Pilegrim,

Joshua 10:12-13, a historical passage, clearly states that the Sun stopped moving. Unlike weather forecasters there is no evidence that the original scribe of that passage had any clue about planets and orbits...For 2000 years believers interpreted that as clearly meaning that the Sun rotated around the Earth, which is indeed the only logical way to interpret it, and almost certainly what the original scribe believed.
Many, supporters of geocentrism and sceptics alike, have pointed to these few verses in Joshua to argue that the Bible – not Genesis – clearly states a geocentric solar system (which is one thing that all Christians should unite in refuting). However, what many fail to realise is that the Bible uses the ‘language of appearance’. The mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping.

Several theories have come up as to how God could have made ‘Joshua’s long day’:

1. Some form of refraction (bending) of the light from the sun and the moon. According to this view, God miraculously caused the sunlight and moonlight to continue in Canaan for ‘about a whole day’. Supporters of this view point out:7

a. It was light that Joshua needed, not a slowing of the Earth.

b. God promised Noah that ‘while the Earth remaineth...day and night shall not cease’ (Genesis 8:22). This could be seen to mean that God promised that the Earth would not stop rotating on its axis until the end of human history. (However, it would not seem to preclude a temporary slowing down of the Earth ‘s rotation.)

c. Some form of light refraction appears to have been what happened in the reign of Hezekiah when the shadow on Ahaz’s sundial retreated ten degrees (2 Kings 20:11)—an event that appears to have occurred only in the land of Palestine (2 Chronicles 32:31).

2. A wobble in the direction of the Earth’s axis of rotation.

This involves a precession of the axis of the Earth, wobbling slowly so as to trace an ‘s’-shaped or circular path in the sky. Such an event could have made it appear to an observer that the sun and the moon were standing still, but need not have involved any actual slowing of the rotation of the Earth.

3. A slowing of the Earth’s rotation.

According to this view, God caused the rotation of the Earth to slow down so that it made one full revolution in about 48 hours rather than 24. Simultaneously God stopped the cataclysmic effects that would have naturally occurred, such as monstrous tidal waves. Some people have objected to this on the erroneous assumption that, if the Earth slowed down, people and loose objects would fly off into space. In fact, the apparent centrifugal force (tending to throw things off the Earth) is only about one-three-hundredth of the gravitational force. If the Earth stopped rotating (whether suddenly or not), this outward ‘force’ would cease and we would actually be held more firmly by gravity.


Or perhaps it is metaphorical, or perhaps we don't understand the viewpoint and methods used in the Bible for expressing truth as well as we would like.

Why do you think God took as long as six literal days to create everything? He did it such that we should follow in His example and work six days and rest on one – which is what this commandment is saying! For God to order the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the last day of the week just as He did, IF as TEs and OECs believe He indeed took a lot longer, doesn’t that make God a liar??

Where are the metaphorical or poetic words or terms in this verse that could cause you to believe such things? There is no evidence! Furthermore, the fact that this was the law implies that it should not contain any such terms because they are absolute. Imagine what would happen if we were to treat our laws in such ways – because that is exactly what you are doing!​

Or perhaps you are correct, and if you believe that to be the case then I suggest you stick to faith rather than trying to argue that the physical evidence agrees with you.

There is much evidence that goes against the old age of the universe including the lack of any 3rd stage SNRs in our galaxy and in our neighbouring galaxy! This means that our galaxy must be less than the supposed billions of years then suggested other wise there should be literally thousands of these SNRs if the big bang time age is correct! Besides, how can you prove that God created or didn’t create in six literal days? If you turn to science than to help you ‘porve’ your position, you are one of the most optimistic people I ‘know’ as science just simply can’t. I’d like to see you have a go though...

Genesis 1 most certainly is, and most of the rest of Gen 1-11 comes off as a series of parables to me.

Where is it? No one can give any such examples that stand up to scrutiny. If you have any verses I’m more than willing to listen.

Science does not deal with proofs in the mathematical sense, it deals with weighing the evidence.

Much of physics is just mathematics applied to the physical universe, e.g. projectile motion, relativity, etc. Other than that, what is the point or the direction where your argument is heading? I’m sorry, but I just can’t see where you are going with this. I already know that science deals with observation and experimental analysis. The point is this: can we observe the evolution of life from the simple to the complex? Can we directly test experimentally how life could ever possibly come from non-life? Because we don’t know what the circumstances were like and the environmental conditions we have to make assumptions about what it was like – it is these assumptions that we test. If the experiment is successful, then this only really benefits the evolutionists who believe in a god guided process (as atheists say that there was no intelligence - they are missing the whole point of their experiment though, they are using intelligence that supposedly wouldn’t have been there to create life from non-life), and is only true based on the assumption circumstances being true – which we will never know until we get to Glory and ask God how He created everything.

Are you referring to the consistency of the interpretation with the evidence?

Any argument concerning "historical" science can ultimately be equally applied to validate the "Church of Last Thursdayism" which believes that the universe was created last Thursday.

But since I was alive last Wednesday and the universe was here then, this falsifies such ideas. Also, such ideas are inconsistent with the evidence – where did all the fossils come from and in such a short time without there being any major catastrophic event(s) between last Thursday and now? Also, historical science doesn’t carry the same level of authority as process science depending on how far back in history the event being studied in (authority decreases the further back time you go).

The Medical Examiner does not need to be present at a murder to determine that a murder took place.

shrenern and you both misunderstand what I am saying. When I talk about historical science on the context of creation/evolution debate, I’m talking about it with reference to events in the distant, unobservable past! I have claimed this many times before; I just find it weird and slightly annoying that you and he have missed it...

Obviously, in events that happen relatively close in time to the present there will be little room for assumptions, guesswork and other non-scientific factors to affect their work because of the very few unknowns and uncertainties.

All "interpretations" are not equal. Some fit the evidence better than others. Those that fit the evidence and predict with reasonable accuracy what other evidence will be found are called scientific theories. Those that pretend that evidence doesn't exist and rely on multiple supernatural events that are not recorded anywhere are called "Flood Geology" and "Creation Science".

Once again, I have never said that ‘all interpretations are equal’! If you continue to falsely accuse me of doing things that I have not said, then it is pointless continuing in this conversation until you educate yourself on my opinions and beliefs by reading my posts and seeing what I have said and not making any false implications from my posts – which is what you have done. We would expect that if the Flood really happened to observe many animals buried in sedimentary rock laid down from the turbulent waters during the Flood. Guess what? We see exactly this! We would also not expect there to be any 3rd stage SNRs in our galaxy or in our neighbouring galaxies! Once again, we do not observe 3rd stage SNRs! The first example denies the belief of uniformitarianism and the second denies the big bang theory’s validity of the origin of our galaxy and the neighbouring galaxies as the time frame is too short.

The Young Earth version of Scientific Creationism makes certain claims that simply do not fit the evidence. If you go with arguments that about "historical" versus "process" science then it is scientificly invalid, if you stand on the evidence it is simply wrong.

This is just simply an incorrect statement that most evolutionists who have not researched the facts properly claim. Please present some, in a new thread if you want to.

Also, I have never said ‘historical vs. process’ science. I am quite confused as to where you got this from... They are two different types of science dealing with two entirely different things: the observable, repeatable present and the distant unobservable and unrepeatable past! For example, evolution occurs in two areas. We have the ‘micro-evolution’, which I like to call ‘variation within a kind’ that occurs in the present. We can observe these changes to creatures and no one has any problems with them. However, the other part of evolution, ‘macro-evolution’ or the idea that a single celled organism turned into a human over millions of years, is not observable and it cannot be repeated! This is what creationists argue against.