Geocentrics call on their fellow Creationists!

[Delta One]

Apart from what many evolutionists advocate, creationists do not ‘reject the evidence’ nor are they ‘against science’. These claims are the result of evolutionists being unable to deal with the evidence that creationists put forward – first rule of debating: if you can’t deal with the evidence, then attack your opponent’s character. I have seen this in action many times and have been the recipient of such tactics many times, including one time on another forum that I’ve been on where this particular person couldn’t understand – even though I put it in as simple terms as I could – either that or he didn’t want to understand when I was explaining the basis of Dr Humphreys’ relativistic cosmology and as a result he went straight into attacking my character and so the story goes on with insults such as ‘you’re the perfect example of why cousins shouldn’t marry’ – which isn’t overly nice and totally inaccurate. If you can make as many people believe that creationists reject the evidence and are religious fundamentalists against science, then who is going to listen to the message that they preach? It’s one of the most effective ways of silencing the opposition. [Ever heard of scoffing? The Bible says that in the last day scoffers will come. What will they come with? Mountains of scientific evidence? No, they will come with their scoffing, with their ridicule – that’s all they’ve got! I don’t really like being laughed at, I’ve gotten used of it by now, but initially it was kind of hard to take.] Then with their demise the atheists have the upper hand as many Christians couldn’t give a reasonable answer as to why we need a Saviour and with that they may reject Christianity all together. Many atheists realise that if, just if, they could “destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, then in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” [G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.]

Even if you believe that Adam and Eve are literal, as some believe, but you put millions of years of suffering and death then you have another problem: Don’t we as Christians believe that Jesus came to conquer death (so that He could offer us eternal life)? But if God’s been using millions of years of struggle and death to create things, wouldn’t Jesus be opposing the plans of God??? This makes nonsense of the Scriptures.

I just find it very sad that many Christians haven’t come to the same conclusion as even atheists have and have known for many years. Why do you think that Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible? It is because sceptics and atheists have seen this contradiction and they know that if you can destroy Genesis or change the way its read, then you’ve just basically destroyed Christianity.

 

[shernren]

*scritch* I can't see my Christianity being destroyed.

If you want to follow God's example "literally" you should work for six days and then rest for 6000 years.

And ICR themselves say Humphreys' cosmology is not scientific. I've posted it up before and I can post it up again if you don't believe me.

Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible only because it is the most publicly-"defended" book of the Bible. Theology is massively assaulted on all fronts by modern absurdities. Guess which of those myriad controversies is being shouted about?

And creationists do admit, with their own keyboards, to rejecting the evidence:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Oh dear.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can anyone tell me how the Bible can explain things when a) the writers didn't possess the scientic knowledge and technology that we have these days, and b) they weren't interested in writing about how things happened anyway? Their purpose was to write about God - author of life, redeemer, Father, law giver, etc etc. So to say that there is no Biblical evidence for heliocentrism, evolution, geocentrism etc is pointless. The Bible does not exist to give us such evidence. It says why things happen - God wills, God speaks, God creates, God loves, God sends - and not how.The Biblical writers wrote about many things, they were not necessarily speaking literally when they did so. For example one of the Psalms talks about the sun being pitched in a tent in the sky; this doesn't mean the astronauts need to start looking for a large canvas recepticle, however. The Bible also talks about the four corners of the earth, suggesting a square, and the ends of the earth, suggesting a line. There is much poetry and symbolism in the Bible.

If you want to find out about science, read a scientific textbook written by a scientist. If you want to learn about God, read the Bible, his revelation of himself as recorded by his servants and disciples.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

he Bible says that in the last day scoffers will come. What will they come with? Mountains of scientific evidence? No, they will come with their scoffing, with their ridicule – that’s all they’ve got!

Ah. Then it's not the mainstream scientists, then. They've got tons of evidence.

 

[Delta One]

*scritch* I can't see my Christianity being destroyed.


‘Scritch’?? Tell, me then, shernren, what basis do you have for the Gospel message being true? Why are all humans sinners? What is sin?

If you want to follow God's example "literally" you should work for six days and then rest for 6000 years.

The only reason why God created in six days and rested on the seventh was a pattern for mankind. That is what the Israelites were told in Exodus, Because I worked for six days in the creation of everything and rested on the seventh day (Sabbath), so to you shall do. There is no implication of any of the days after creation. Besides, God is working today – he’s been really reviving the Church in China, has been convicting and changing people’s life, has been actively involved in miracles and answering prayers, etc., etc. To me, that sounds like work.

And ICR themselves say Humphreys' cosmology is not scientific. I've posted it up before and I can post it up again if you don't believe me.

It is just as ‘scientific’ as the big bang theory because essentially all what it proposes is that white holes existed at the time of creation (i.e. a black hole running in reverse – these are permitted by GR), and that the universe has boundaries and a centre – obviously, the big bang theory just assumes the opposite, i.e. no centre and no boundaries and was once singularity.

Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible only because it is the most publicly-"defended" book of the Bible.

But then the reason why it is the most puplicly defended book is because it is the most publically attacked book...

And creationists do admit, with their own keyboards, to rejecting the evidence:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Notice the words apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence. Notice the one word that they didn’t use here – proven. For example, some digger comes out and claims that he has just found a dinosaur bone that apparently lived millions of years ago and we believe that it ate *blah, blah, blah* and so on. This is just apparent, perceived and claimed evidence that has not been proven. Since millions of years contradict the Bible, then the dater who was given the fossil to be radiometrically dated may have made false assumptions as to the constant decay rate, initial amount of daughter element, whether or not either element has been removed or added to the system (open systems) and so on, thus contributing to its old age rather than the true age within the Bible’s framework.

I just find it interesting that they did not use the word ‘proven’ in their statement of faith, which leads me to believe that I may indeed be correct. Besides, should all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God?​

​

 

[Delta One]

Strong in Him,

The is the written Word of God and thus it can be trusted. The name 'Genesis' literally means 'origin' as such, the authors of the early chapters knew what he was righting about and did what God told him to do - would God trust people who were not faithful to write his word?

Genesis is an eye-witness account from God to say how God created the universe and mankind - we have no idea in Genesis 1 or 2 as to why God chose to create everything. Also, the Bible tells us in Isaiah 53 or something around there how the Messiah will die and for what purpose. The how is just as important as the why - you cannot disconnect them from each other, have you ever heard of causality? You say that there is much poetry in the Bible to which I would agree with, but the important question: is there any such language in Genesis 1 and 2?

So to say that there is no Biblical evidence for heliocentrism, evolution, geocentrism etc is pointless.

No not really - your whole argument is based on the misconception that the Bible is not authorative and does not comment on 'scientific issues', if it does, it can't be trusted. We can dismiss ideas when they are not consistent with the Biblical evidence; for example, God said in Genesis 2 that He created man from the dust -- what does evolution say? Man has evolved through many other less advanced stages. God also said that the animals and man were vegetarian - what does evolution say? Some animals have been ripping each other apart for millions of years in a bloody attempt to survive. The Bible says that physical death is a direct result of sin -- what does evolution say? Death has been around since the beginning, i.e. God supposedly created using millions of years of suffering and death, how sadistic and contrary to a loving and merciful God!! The Bible says that the Earth is only around 6000 years old - evolution says that it is about 4.5 billion years old. See, evolution is the total opposite of the Bible from beginning to end! It's 100% contradictory! In other words, there is noBiblical basis for believing evolution!

Here are a few examples of scientific accuracy in the Bible: the Earth is round - even about 400 years ago people were afraid that Columbus was going to fall straight off the face of the planet! - (Isa. 40:22); the Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); the first and second laws of thermodynamics (e.g. Isa. 51:6); that living things reproduce after their kind; the stars are countless (Gen. 15:5); Pleiades cluster is staying together and Orion is moving apart (Job 38:31); among others.

When talking about science in the present, or process, I would agree with you. But when talking about our origin, it's more a battle of interpretations that are based on underlying beliefs and assumptions - in that respect the nature of the debate is essentially a philosophical one...

Also, the Bible isn't about God - it's about God's relationship with man, His people and how we are all sinners and God's plan to save us through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. It is the revelation from God about the history of the universe - i.e. it is the history book of the universe. Can you tell me how you know that the Biblical writers 'weren't interested in writing about how things happened'?

 

[Delta One]

Karl,

Did I say I was referring to scientists?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl,

Did I say I was referring to scientists?

Oh I see. As long as we have evidence, evolutionists aren't the scoffers. Do carry on, then.

I'd be interested to know who you do mean though.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Genesis is an eye-witness account from God to say how God created the universe and mankind

Why do you assume it is an eye-witness account from God? God has other ways of revealing events that no human witnessed. John recorded a vision of what was to come that doesn't read at all like literal history written in advance. In fact, his vision has many similarities to what we find in the early chapters of Genesis. Revelation's seven seals, seven trumpets and seven bowls are probably the closest literary parallel to the seven days of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3, including the use of repeated refrains, alternating heaven/earth action, and setting off the seventh from the preceding six. John also refers to some of the same symbols used in Genesis 2-3, such as the tree of life.

Another event that must have been revealed by Jesus to those who wrote Scripture is his temptation. Interestingly, this event is narrated with two different orders in Matthew and Luke. When God reveals details that no human witnessed, he seems to not be concerned about the exact chronological, historical details.

God said in Genesis 2 that He created man from the dust -- what does evolution say? Man has evolved through many other less advanced stages.

God creates Adam by speaking in Genesis 1. If we didn't have Genesis 2, we'd have no idea about the intermediate stage of dust. Similarly, without examining creation, we wouldn't know about the intermediate stages between dust and humans. That's why it's important to use all of God's revelation to us.

God also said that the animals and man were vegetarian - what does evolution say? Some animals have been ripping each other apart for millions of years in a bloody attempt to survive. The Bible says that physical death is a direct result of sin -- what does evolution say? Death has been around since the beginning, i.e. God supposedly created using millions of years of suffering and death, how sadistic and contrary to a loving and merciful God!!

I encourage you to support your views on animal death in the Death before the Fall thread. So far, the consensus there seems to be that the Bible doesn't say conclusively whether animals were created vegetarian or whether animals died prior to the Fall.

Here are a few examples of scientific accuracy in the Bible: the Earth is round - even about 400 years ago people were afraid that Columbus was going to fall straight off the face of the planet! - (Isa. 40:22);

I'm not even going to touch the Columbus claim, but as for Isaiah 40:22, it clearly says the earth was circular, which is in accordance with the thinking of the time. They thought it was surrounded by water. If you live in a flat area, just go into a field and look all around you. The horizon makes a circle.

Now, if Isaiah had talked about the "ball" of the earth, you may be on to something. Isaiah used the word "ball" elsewhere (see Isaiah 22:18). The fact that he instead chose to use a word that fit perfectly with the idea of a flat earth is strong evidence against your interpretation. If God really revealed something new about the shape of the earth to Isaiah, would he have Isaiah record it in a way that was completely ambiguous?

And, if you're willing to take this verse as evidence of a spherical earth, does that mean you take Job 38:12-14 and Daniel 4:10-11 as evidence of a flat earth? Or, do you just dismiss the verses that disagree with your own world-view as being "figurative"?

the Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7);

What do you make of the other verses that speak of the pillars of the earth? What about the ones that say the world is unmovable, contrary to our idea of it spinning and orbiting the sun? Do you write those verses off as figurative while taking this verse literally?

the first and second laws of thermodynamics (e.g. Isa. 51:6);

There's nothing revolutionary about the idea that new things eventually become old. That verse does not contain anything more scientifically profound than that, and certainly nothing about thermodynamics.

that living things reproduce after their kind;

A blatantly obvious fact, and one that evolution does not contradict. Breed poodles and you'll always get more poodles, even though if you go back far enough, there were no poodles, and if you go forward enough, there may be more types of poodles than we have now.

the stars are countless (Gen. 15:5)

It doesn't say countless -- God challenges Abram to count them. All this shows is that there are a huge number of stars, and that fact is evident to anyone who looks up at the night sky away from city lights.

If your trust in what the Bible says is based on it revealing secrets of science thousands of years before they would be discovered, then that is a very weak foundation. If God's intent were to teach us science, he would not have inspired so many men to write about thinking with their heart or kidneys. A Hebrew word for "brain" would have been revealed instead. God didn't do that. He was able to convey information about thinking through using the science of the day.

God wasn't bothered that Jacob and the author of Genesis knew nothing about DNA and thought that striped branches influenced the genetics of Jacob's livestock (Genesis 30:31-43). The heavens are described as being like a tent over the earth (Isaiah 40:22) -- perfectly according with a flat earth perspective. So is the vision Daniel interpreted of a tree so tall it could be seen from anywhere on earth (Daniel 4:20). Rain is said to come from windows in the heavens (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2; 2 Kings 7:1-2). The sun moves around the earth like a chariot and an athlete (Psalm 19:4-6); while an earth-based perspective may explain relative movement, the chariot and athlete imagery shows that the writers of Scripture took the movement more literally than we do today.

Some people come up with tortured ways to accord these verses with modern science. A small minority reject modern science and take these verses literally. I think a better approach is to realize that when God reveals things to people, he does not reveal more than is necessary to accomplish his purpose. If God had given Nebuchadnezzar a dream of a spherical earth he probably would have been distracted from the true point. Nebuchadnezzar didn't need to know that the earth was spherical and so that wasn't part of the dream. Throughout Scripture, God condescends in giving his message in ways that his messengers and their recipients can understand.

Further, God didn't reveal a number of the universe's mysteries because he's created them for us to discover on our own. Even in the picture Genesis 2 gives us of creation, God allows Adam to name the animals rather than telling him what their names should be. It would be cruel for God to take away our ability to explore by showing us everything there is to be discovered. Humans were commanded to have dominion over creation, and for us to rule wisely requires knowledge of what we are ruling. When we study and explore the world God made, we are fulfilling one of God's commands, and I suspect that God delights in watching our joy and awe as each new discovery reveals more mysteries.

 

[Strong in Him]

Strong in Him,

The is the written Word of God and thus it can be trusted. The name 'Genesis' literally means 'origin' as such, the authors of the early chapters knew what he was righting about and did what God told him to do - would God trust people who were not faithful to write his word?

Genesis is an eye-witness account from God to say how God created the universe and mankind - we have no idea in Genesis 1 or 2 as to why God chose to create everything.

Hi Delta one,

Yes I agree the Bible can be trusted, but that doesn't mean than it all has to be taken literally. It is likely that Moses wrote Genesis. If you are taking it all literally, add up all the years of the people who lived before him, take into account the 400 years between the death of Joseph and his birth, and consider that he could have been about 100 before he actually wrote it down; he was probably writing at least a thousand years after the creation of the world took place. It's possible that God dictated what happened to him, except that a) we don't know what happened and b) I don't think Moses was interested in all the details anyway.
We are told that basically things came into existence because God wanted them to. God said "let there be light" and there was light and God saw that it was good. The author does not tell us how God made the light, or all the different kinds of animals, or the trees.

If I was telling you about something that I did today, I could say "I made a greetings card for a friend to cheer her up," or I could say "I went to the shops and bought some coloured card, I folded it over, cut out some decorative paper and stuck it in the centre of the card with double sided sticky tape. I then stamped and embossed an image of a flower on a seperate piece of card, using gold pigment ink and gold embossing powder. I cut around this image, coloured it in, and stuck it onto the card using foam tape.
Both descriptions tell you what I did; one tells you the reason I did it, the second, lengthy, description is not necessary in describing my actions, and would doubtless be of interest only to a fellow crafter. All my friend would care about is that I made a card specially for her.

If Genesis is an eye witness account from God about how he made the world, and it is important for us to know that he made it in 6 days, then why is there so much evidence now that contradicts this? You'd think that God would want us to believe his word, and so all the scientific research, fossils and other data should point to a young earth. But they don't. And there are scientists who are Christians, and Christians who become scientists who would agree that it doesn't. Is God deliberately trying to deceive everyone? And why do some people only seem to accept evidence when it backs up their beliefs? (Though I'm not saying you do this.) If a non Christian said to you "No I don't believe that God healed that person. Prove it." If you were able to, I'm sure you'd rush to get doctors' reports, test results etc showing the patients condition before and after prayer. If the sceptic saw evidence from professionals showing that an illness had been present and later it had disappeared, and they had no explanation for this, he might say that the evidence seemed to indicate that God does heal. But when someone says to a Christian "no I don't believe that God made the earth in 6 days, and here is some evidence that backs up my statement," the Christian gets all defensive and tries to explain it away. Is "evidence" only acceptable when it shows what we want it to show?

The bottom line is that commentators say that Genesis 1+2 were not even intended to be taken literally. William Barclay, in his book Introducing the Bible, says that people in those days thought in word pictures, not reasoned, abstract arguments. Moses, or whoever, wanted people to know that the world came about because God wanted it to, and is in control. That is the message of the first two chapters of Genesis, it's God's world.

 

[shernren]

‘Scritch’?? Tell, me then, shernren, what basis do you have for the Gospel message being true? Why are all humans sinners? What is sin?

Because Adam sinned! it is possible to believe in evolution and a literal Adam. I must admit that it can be much of a stretch, especially when there's a lot of polarisation i.e. many people go YEC all the way, and many others go TE all the way ... but I don't see anything fundamentally illogical in my amalgation of positions.

The only reason why God created in six days and rested on the seventh was a pattern for mankind. That is what the Israelites were told in Exodus, Because I worked for six days in the creation of everything and rested on the seventh day (Sabbath), so to you shall do. There is no implication of any of the days after creation. Besides, God is working today – he’s been really reviving the Church in China, has been convicting and changing people’s life, has been actively involved in miracles and answering prayers, etc., etc. To me, that sounds like work.

But if you categorize that as work, that raises serious implications about the seventh day. God's "work" as per Genesis has to be interpreted as a special, once-off thing. If God's "work" is answering miracles, answering prayers etc. etc. then He should never have stopped. And if God's "work" is answering miracles, answering prayers etc. etc. then I don't see how Creation Week was an example of "work". I'd define this "creative work" in the context of the Creation Week as the creation of mass, energy and organization ex nihilo - in other words, breaking the law of mass-energy conservation and breaking the second law of thermodynamics. Does He have to do that to answer believers' prayers today?

Hebrews says we can still enter His Sabbath rest. That Sabbath rest must mean something more than just sleeping in on Sundays ...

It is just as ‘scientific’ as the big bang theory because essentially all what it proposes is that white holes existed at the time of creation (i.e. a black hole running in reverse – these are permitted by GR), and that the universe has boundaries and a centre – obviously, the big bang theory just assumes the opposite, i.e. no centre and no boundaries and was once singularity.

Read up a little - white holes only exist in the mathematics of black holes. Take away the black hole and the white hole doesn't physically exist. White holes are also singularities. And ICR themselves say that the "peer-review process failed":

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.[/font][/font]

Note that it is a "very serious effort", not a "success" ... - from http://www.icr.org/research/df/index.html

Notice the words apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence. Notice the one word that they didn’t use here – proven. For example, some digger comes out and claims that he has just found a dinosaur bone that apparently lived millions of years ago and we believe that it ate *blah, blah, blah* and so on. This is just apparent, perceived and claimed evidence that has not been proven. Since millions of years contradict the Bible, then the dater who was given the fossil to be radiometrically dated may have made false assumptions as to the constant decay rate, initial amount of daughter element, whether or not either element has been removed or added to the system (open systems) and so on, thus contributing to its old age rather than the true age within the Bible’s framework.

Name me a single piece of evidence you know which is not apparent, not perceived and not claimed. Basically AiG is claiming the right to edit your knowledge to their whim and fancy. Specific to your example, again note that the first two assumptions don't affect the issue at hand (decay rates are theoretically constant under Earth conditions and experimentally verified so for at least 10k years, and amount of initial daughter isotope is either disregarded or under the treatment of the rock as an open system). Furthermore, these are scientific assumptions and therefore the given conclusion is a scientific one, even if it may be a wrong one. If AiG uses non-scientific assumptions, it should not expect to get scientific conclusions and it should not bother to test them with scientific methods.

 

[Delta One]

shernren,

Because Adam sinned! it is possible to believe in evolution and a literal Adam. I must admit that it can be much of a stretch, especially when there's a lot of polarisation i.e. many people go YEC all the way, and many others go TE all the way ... but I don't see anything fundamentally illogical in my amalgation of positions.

Too many different TE positions, too many different TE positions!! I get confused following who believes what; none-the-less, death before the Fall is one contradiction between the Biblical account and evolutionism.

But if you categorize that as work, that raises serious implications about the seventh day. God's "work" as per Genesis has to be interpreted as a special, once-off thing. If God's "work" is answering miracles, answering prayers etc. etc. then He should never have stopped.

Point taken.

Hebrews says we can still enter His Sabbath rest. That Sabbath rest must mean something more than just sleeping in on Sundays ...

Um, the Sabbath is Saturday...
And ICR themselves say that the "peer-review process failed":
Note that it is a "very serious effort", not a "success" ... - from http://www.icr.org/research/df/index.html

Huh?!? I didn't read that, to quote you, 'the peer review process failed'! Where does it say that? The article says: Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.

In other words, his model hasn't even been proven wrong; the last part is about thanking Humprheys for advancing the creationist interpretation of the stellar evidence by giving them new avenues to go through...

Also, this particular article hasn't been updated since 1998 and Humphreys' theory is still viable today...

Name me a single piece of evidence you know which is not apparent, not perceived and not claimed.

The red-shift of starlight.

If AiG uses non-scientific assumptions, it should not expect to get scientific conclusions and it should not bother to test them with scientific methods.

AiG uses Biblical assumptions while evolution uses naturalistic and atheistic assumptions (TE = atheistic evolution + God). It isn't a matter of whose assumptions are 'scientific' and whose are 'non-scientific'; it's a matter of which assumption is the best assumption to use -- these assumptions are essentially what a person initally believes to be true.

 

[Delta One]

Mercury,

Why do you assume it is an eye-witness account from God?

Because the Bible is a revelation from God to man about our relationship with Him and as such, everything in it must be logical and God inspired. The word 'Genesis' literally means 'origin'. Why include some figurative myth to describe our origin - that's nonsense.

God creates Adam by speaking in Genesis 1. If we didn't have Genesis 2, we'd have no idea about the intermediate stage of dust. Similarly, without examining creation, we wouldn't know about the intermediate stages between dust and humans. That's why it's important to use all of God's revelation to us.

'Intermediate stages between dust and humans'?? God formed man out of dust, i.e. from dust He shaped man and then breathed the breath of life into him. There is no reference of there being any intermediate stages between the two... Genesis 1 is just describing the sequence of creation events, while Genesis 2 describes how God created man and woman. Since the Bible is a revelation from God to us, we would expect Him to tell us how He made us.

I'm not even going to touch the Columbus claim, but as for Isaiah 40:22, it clearly says the earth was circular, which is in accordance with the thinking of the time. They thought it was surrounded by water. If you live in a flat area, just go into a field and look all around you. The horizon makes a circle.

But that's not what Isaiah was referring to... He said the circle of the Earth - not the sky.

And, if you're willing to take this verse as evidence of a spherical earth, does that mean you take Job 38:12-14 and Daniel 4:10-11 as evidence of a flat earth? Or, do you just dismiss the verses that disagree with your own world-view as being "figurative"?

My own 'worldview' applies to Genesis 1 and 2 in this debate, not neccessarily to poetical books like Job and Psalms, for example. In Job 38, this is where the LORD answers Job with a barrage of questions that just make you stand back in awe and go 'Woah!' According to the Good News Bible, Job 38:12-14 reads as follows:

'Job, have you ever in all your life commanded a day to dawn? [Poetic] Have you ordered the dawn to seize the Earth and shake the wicked from their hiding places? [Once again poetic - possibly a reference to light and how men love to dwell in the dark] Daylight makes the hills and valleys stand out like the folds of a grament, clear as the imprint of a seal on clay.

As for Daniel 4:10, it is obviously not meant to be taken literally as it was a dream or vision from God! It it were, why couldn't the King interpret it himself rather than relying on Daniel to do it for him??

What do you make of the other verses that speak of the pillars of the earth?

Pillars of the Earth are usually referred to as kings, Godly people, noblesmen and so on. They are also known as the 'salt of the Earth'.

What about the ones that say the world is unmovable, contrary to our idea of it spinning and orbiting the sun? Do you write those verses off as figurative while taking this verse literally?

You'd have to give me examples such that I could examine them in their context. Tecktonics is an organisation that is very useful when answering Biblical assaults.

There's nothing revolutionary about the idea that new things eventually become old. That verse does not contain anything more scientifically profound than that, and certainly nothing about thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is also known as the law of decay. Now, instead of going into a scientific explaination, I'll let you go back to these verses and see what they say about decay and then draw the conclusion that this is the second law of thermodynamics...

It doesn't say countless -- God challenges Abram to count them. All this shows is that there are a huge number of stars, and that fact is evident to anyone who looks up at the night sky away from city lights.

Genesis 15:5 says: He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

If your trust in what the Bible says is based on it revealing secrets of science thousands of years before they would be discovered, then that is a very weak foundation.

And you can talk by taking the 'science' of today (i.e. evolutionism) as truth while simultaneously rejecting Genesis as a 'figurative myth' even given how much evolutionism contradicts the Scripture's clear and authorative Word? My faith is not based on the Bible's scientific, historic or prophetic accuracy, rather the hope that I have in me through my Saviour Jesus Christ. However, if the Bible is the Inspired Word of God then we would and should expect that there should be many scientific, historic and prophetic accuracies revealed through it -- this is what sets the Bible apart from other religious 'holy books'. I find it very weird and disturbing that Christians would try to rip their own holy book to shreds -- should you not be proving that the Bible is indeed the infallible Word of God?? I just can't comprehend that... My, my, my the devil has blinded you...

 

[freealaska]

How do you know that the moon causes the sea to move up and down? Isn't it also possible that the sea remains stationary and it is the land that rises and falls?

​

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Why include some figurative myth to describe our origin - that's nonsense.

Why include some symbolic vision to describe our destiny -- that's nonsense. But wait, there's the book of Revelation, and it's inspired Scripture too. Maybe God does not equate sense with literal historical prose and nonsense with everything else. Maybe there's some things beyond our comprehension or beyond our need-to-know that are better expressed through non-literal language.

Since the Bible is a revelation from God to us, we would expect Him to tell us how He made us.

Why? Should we also expect him to tell us that the earth is roughly spherical, that it orbits the sun, and that the stars are unbelievably larger, more numerous and more spaced out than the ancients thought? Why does God have to reveal any kind of scientific or pre-historical details to us, and if he chooses to, why does he have to do so prosaically?

But that's not what Isaiah was referring to... He said the circle of the Earth - not the sky.

I wasn't talking about a circle of the sky. They thought the earth (meaning land mass, not globe) was roughly circular and surrounded by water on all sides.

'Job, have you ever in all your life commanded a day to dawn? [Poetic] [...] As for Daniel 4:10, it is obviously not meant to be taken literally as it was a dream or vision from God!

Genesis 1:16: "the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night". [Poetic]

Anyway, you said this in reference to why you take Isaiah 40:22 literally. Surely you don't mean that Isaiah 40:22 is an entirely literal verse -- you realize how it speaks about grasshoppers and tents, right? I suspect that you think even passages with figurative language can include statements that were intended literally. I agree. And, in Job 38:12-14 and Daniel 4:10, things are described in terms that match the world-view that was common at that point in history.

I gave another example of this in my last post that you didn't respond to. Psalm 19:4-6 obviously includes poetic language. But, even the choice of similes allows us to know something about the author's view of the world. When it uses a chariot and an athlete to describe the sun, it's obvious the author thought the sun was something that moved. A less figurative description of the sun's movement is found in Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." There's no reason to take this any less literally than a description of water movement two verses later: "All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again." But instead, those who look for modern science in the Bible often claim that the verse about streams contains a huge revelation while writing off the verse about the sun as "figurative".

It's because of this inconsistent hermeneutical approach that I dispute these kind of claims. Reading the Bible consistently is more important than artificially bolstering someone's faith with the idea that the Bible is proved through finding modern science hidden within it.

Pillars of the Earth are usually referred to as kings, Godly people, noblesmen and so on. They are also known as the 'salt of the Earth'.

You take 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6 and Psalm 75:3 figuratively to be referring to people as the "pillars of the earth"?

The second law of thermodynamics is also known as the law of decay. Now, instead of going into a scientific explaination, I'll let you go back to these verses and see what they say about decay and then draw the conclusion that this is the second law of thermodynamics...

One doesn't need to know about thermodynamics to know something about decay.

I find it very weird and disturbing that Christians would try to rip their own holy book to shreds -- should you not be proving that the Bible is indeed the infallible Word of God??

Please don't confuse rebutting your claims with ripping the Bible to shreds. I believe the Bible is written by human authors under inspiration by God. I believe it's useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so we're equipped for every good work. I don't believe it's a coded message containing scientific revelations that we can just now start to decipher.

I think your attempts to read whatever science you accept into the Bible are similar in validity to the Bible Codes that supposedly find hidden messages when the words of the Torah are arranged like a word search. If you can understand why a Christian would expend energy in debunking the Bible Codes -- because it's clearly false and makes the Bible look silly and Christians look deluded and obfuscates the actual meaning of Scripture -- then you will have found my motivation for responding to your claims of hidden science revelations.

 

[shernren]

shernren,



Because Adam sinned! it is possible to believe in evolution and a literal Adam. I must admit that it can be much of a stretch, especially when there's a lot of polarisation i.e. many people go YEC all the way, and many others go TE all the way ... but I don't see anything fundamentally illogical in my amalgation of positions.



Too many different TE positions, too many different TE positions!! I get confused following who believes what; none-the-less, death before the Fall is one contradiction between the Biblical account and evolutionism.

It's ok, I've never taken any offense. I've been fully aware just what I'll be identified with in calling myself a "TE". Nevertheless I'm still not convinced that death before the Fall is a valid argument against evolution, as you can see on the other thread.

But if you categorize that as work, that raises serious implications about the seventh day. God's "work" as per Genesis has to be interpreted as a special, once-off thing. If God's "work" is answering miracles, answering prayers etc. etc. then He should never have stopped.



Point taken.



Hebrews says we can still enter His Sabbath rest. That Sabbath rest must mean something more than just sleeping in on Sundays ...



Um, the Sabbath is Saturday...

And you go to church on Sunday? Tut tut tut. You baaaad Christian.

And ICR themselves say that the "peer-review process failed":

Note that it is a "very serious effort", not a "success" ... - from http://www.icr.org/research/df/index.html



Huh?!? I didn't read that, to quote you, 'the peer review process failed'! Where does it say that? The article says: Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.



In other words, his model hasn't even been proven wrong; the last part is about thanking Humprheys for advancing the creationist interpretation of the stellar evidence by giving them new avenues to go through...



Also, this particular article hasn't been updated since 1998 and Humphreys' theory is still viable today...

It says that right in the very passage I quoted: "There was a failure in the peer review process", to use exact words. "Humphreys is convinced": who else is. "We should applaud this very serious effort": we shouldn't be dancing on the corpse of the Big Bang just yet. "Hasn't been updated since 1998": so do you have more recent documents from ICR that show a reversal of opinion since then?

Name me a single piece of evidence you know which is not apparent, not perceived and not claimed.



The red-shift of starlight.

Okay, so let me get this straight:



1. It is not apparent that starlight has been red-shifted.

2. Nobody has perceived that starlight has been red-shifted.

3. Nobody has claimed that starlight has been red-shifted.



Apart from the fact that those statements simply aren't true, let me ask you: if all of these statements were true, then how would you know that starlight has been red-shifted??

If AiG uses non-scientific assumptions, it should not expect to get scientific conclusions and it should not bother to test them with scientific methods.



AiG uses Biblical assumptions while evolution uses naturalistic and atheistic assumptions (TE = atheistic evolution + God). It isn't a matter of whose assumptions are 'scientific' and whose are 'non-scientific'; it's a matter of which assumption is the best assumption to use -- these assumptions are essentially what a person initally believes to be true.

That's right. If AiG uses Biblical assumptions and is reaching a(n ostensibly) Biblical conclusion, that conclusion should be tested Biblically - in other words it should be a theological claim, with theological arguments and refutations, and science shouldn't come in at all. If on the other hand it is trying to test its conclusions scientifically, it should make sure that its conclusions are scientific to begin with. Do you get what my problem is? I am saying it should match its methodology to its assumptions ...