Implication of Origins

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 6, 2005

Calminian said:
The week is actually defined guys. 6 days working, 1 resting. And who said the Samaritan didn't really exist? Can you please show me that in the text? See what we mean about the slippery slope?

So every thing and character in every parable exists?

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 6, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
The next step up from theory is fact. We've observed the earth from space. We've measured it, we've traveled around it. It is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed and measured in all ways possible. If you can think of a way we haven't measured it that is independent of all other ways that will either confirm or deny the possibility that it is a sphere, then you may be right in saying it is still a theory. I don't think you will be able to though.

Whether something is a theory is completely independent of the amount of support for it. A falsified theory is still a theory. An extremely well supported theory is still a theory. A theory is something that attempts to explain a set of observations. If it can explain something really well, it is a really good theory, not something new.

Rusticus · Aug 6, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
The next step up from theory is fact. We've observed the earth from space. We've measured it, we've traveled around it. It is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed and measured in all ways possible. If you can think of a way we haven't measured it that is independent of all other ways that will either confirm or deny the possibility that it is a sphere, then you may be right in saying it is still a theory. I don't think you will be able to though.

Who has observed it from space? NASA is run by a bunch of Atheists who are out to discredit Christianity. In addition, if they were to admit that the earth is not a sphere their funding for their so-called space program would be cut. (We also know that they never made a moon-landing but simulated the whole thing in the desert in NewMexico.)
The Russians also claim to have observed it from space. Now we all know that they are Communists. And Communism was invented by a Jew to discredit Christianity. So what they say does not count. Besides, the Bible tells us that the earth has four corners.

As far as travel around the world is concerned, don't be fooled. You can draw a circle on a square piece of paper and claim that by following the circle you are somehow traveling "around" the square piece of paper. Even if yourself believe that you have traveled around the world, would you rather believe your own inadequate senses, or woud you believe the Bible?

Measured it? It has been measured in kilometres, US miles, imperial miles, irish miles, nautical miles etc etc etc. And they have all come up with a different number. So it has to be a hoax. Besides, the Bible tells us that earth has four corners.

Also, I am living in Australia. If the earth were truly a sphere I would have fallen off long ago....

Maybe we can agree that what I have written above is quite absurd.

But it is no more absurd than some of the statements made by people peddling the belief in young-earth-6-day-creation.

Think about it...

Calminian · Aug 6, 2005

Rusticus said:
Absolutely not true. They believed no such thing.

Bending the truth in order to make a point is not acceptable practice, in my opinion.

The flat earth analogy is dead. It's been refuted time and time again. Here's a good article: Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?

And the passage you're appealing to says the earth is a flat square. For your analogy to work you would actually have to prove the author really believed this. Otherwise it's unequivocally metaphorical. So let's see your sources.

Calminian · Aug 6, 2005

fragmentsofdreams said:
So every thing and character in every parable exists?

No they can be figurative, but you must let the context inform you. When Christ told stories about people, why would you assume they are not true? You dont believe Lazarus was a real person? Even Abraham was in that story. Was he not real?

Calminian · Aug 6, 2005

Hey Ben Hur. Just an idea, but what do you think about sending your pastor the link to this thread? He might even want to respond if he has the time. Just a thought.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 6, 2005

Calminian said:
The flat earth analogy is dead. It's been refuted time and time again. Here's a good article: Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?

And the passage you're appealing to says the earth is a flat square. For your analogy to work you would actually have to prove the author really believed this. Otherwise it's unequivocally metaphorical. So let's see your sources.

so you propose that God told the Biblical writers that the Earth was really round. Yet they continued to write as if the dominant earth is flat model was true? All of the OT is written before 200BC which is the date for the first confirmed scientific measurement of the earth's diameter.

the big question is if the Bible is written to the people at that time. And they certainly believed that the earth was flat, then why introduce the idea that the earth was round? it has nothing to do with the theology being taught?

btw
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
is completely unpersuasive. try reading:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
....

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 6, 2005

Calminian said:
The flat earth analogy is dead. It's been refuted time and time again. Here's a good article: Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?

And the passage you're appealing to says the earth is a flat square. For your analogy to work you would actually have to prove the author really believed this. Otherwise it's unequivocally metaphorical. So let's see your sources.

Let's be consistent. Either consideration of what the people believed at the time of writing is permissable (which opens the Bible up to non-literal interpretations) or only the plain reading of the text is permissable (which implies a flat earth). You change your method of interpretation solely on how difficult it is to accept the conclusions.

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 6, 2005

Calminian said:
No they can be figurative, but you must let the context inform you. When Christ told stories about people, why would you assume they are not true? You dont believe Lazarus was a real person? Even Abraham was in that story. Was he not real?

When Jesus tells a story to illustrate a point, it is probable that the events described did not occur. That is the nature of stories used to teach.

Micaiah · Aug 6, 2005

Calminian said:
Hey Ben Hur. Just an idea, but what do you think about sending your pastor the link to this thread? He might even want to respond if he has the time. Just a thought.

Good point. He may be able to clarify his comments.

Rusticus · Aug 7, 2005

Ben Hur:

Getting back to your original post.

Here are two questions for your pastor:

1. Is, in his opinion, a belief in 6-day-creation-young-earth a requirement for salvation?

If yes, then the second question is: Where does he believe that Jesus actually said so?

If no, then he second question is: Why does he attempt cause faith problems for Christians with scientific training and/or ability to think independently? What does he hope to achieve by it?

Rusticus · Aug 7, 2005

Calminian said:
... Otherwise it's unequivocally metaphorical....

In order to be credible you can't have it both ways. You either believe in the Bible literally or you don't.

As soon as you say that some parts are metaphorical it then is up to the individual Christian - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - to work out which bits are metaphorical and which are not.

And I, and a large number of other Christians have come to the conclusion that the 6 days are metaphorical.

And you have come to a different conclusion.

And that's about all there is to say about it.

Ben_Hur · Aug 8, 2005

Micaiah said:
Good point. He may be able to clarify his comments.

Wow. That is a great idea. But first, I will be including some more inconsistencies with yesterday's sermon. I did coincidently resolve one of my questions...I think. Stand by.....

azzy · Aug 8, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
My Pastor (who is a YEC - I am Progressive Creationist) made the following statements which I have a big problem with. I don't mind people believing YEC, TE, or PC, but these two things should not be stated by a pastor.

1. Evolution is "specfically designed" to remove God from the equation.

This implies there is some sort of conspiracy out there amongst scientists who are trying to disprove the existance of God. This is utter nonsense. There are lots of Christians who are scientists that are not trying to disprove the existance of God. Anyone who says this has not done their homework.

2. With evolution, there was no fall, therefore no sin, therefore no need for Jesus.

This is totally based on certain "no sin" prior to the fall assumptions which are unverified (not necessarily wrong, just unverified).

I believe the utlimate implication of number 2, is that if you believe evolution, then you DON'T and CAN'T believe in Jesus and are therefore not a Christian. This raises the concept of YEC to salvation doctrine. I find it offensive and irresponsible to make such claims as being authoritative.

Anyone else?

there is a consiracy to remove God from the creaton,to lower man to animal status,to remove God from the school,to destroy children before they are born and to strip them of their humanity.And so on.

And the chief instigator is the wicked one,there may not be a man behind it who is plotting and planning the next move,but you can be sure that the wicked one seeks to call God a liar at every turn.

To think that God was not able to creat the universe in 6 days is to limit God.

It says 6 days,why is there such a struggle to believe God?Why is there such an attemt to say that what God has said,doesnt really mean what he says?

This is the devils way,Hath God said?Thats what he told Eve,Did God really mean that?God didnt really mean what he said..

So,in my humble opinion,evolution is a lie from the devil,to think God wasnt able to creat his own creation in 6 days,and to think God needed millions of years,is to call God a liar.And to limit God.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 8, 2005

azzy said:
there is a consiracy to remove God from the creaton,to lower man to animal status,to remove God from the school,to destroy children before they are born and to strip them of their humanity.And so on.

And the chief instigator is the wicked one,there may not be a man behind it who is plotting and planning the next move,but you can be sure that the wicked one seeks to call God a liar at every turn.

To think that God was not able to creat the universe in 6 days is to limit God.

It says 6 days,why is there such a struggle to believe God?Why is there such an attemt to say that what God has said,doesnt really mean what he says?

This is the devils way,Hath God said?Thats what he told Eve,Did God really mean that?God didnt really mean what he said..

So,in my humble opinion,evolution is a lie from the devil,to think God wasnt able to creat his own creation in 6 days,and to think God needed millions of years,is to call God a liar.And to limit God.

There is a conspiracy to turn Christians into unthinking and unreasonable creatures solely motivated by emotion and manipulated by every disreputable charlatan who labels himself a creationist. Since so many Christians believe that an unreasonable faith, unanchored to real history and uninformed by science is a mark of genuineness and of trust that they have no tools either to think clearly or to understand themselves or the world God has created.

If you intend to fight the evil one then you really ought to learn how to write a proper sentence, frame a coherent argument and reason clearly enough to actually be understood by someone else. No TE says that God does not have the ability to create instaneously should He have chosen to do so, the question is how He actually did create the heavens and the earth, not potential. To conflate all evil and place it into a pot labelled "evolution" and rant at that pot does no one, not even yourself any real good or justice.

Just an observation, the only clue we have to your knowledge base is your writing, even the best ideas in ragged clothing will not be taken seriously.
....

Ben_Hur · Aug 8, 2005

Ok, first, the question he answered.

I've stated that if God poofed the world into existence in 6 days, but made it LOOK older, then he was being deceptive. My pastor says that if God tells you that this is what he did, then he is not being deceptive. I'll buy that, but now I think the Bible is inconsistent in light of Psalm 19:1:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Well, the firmament shows that it was made in more than 6 days......

Anyway, back to the inconsistencies of the latest sermon.

The pastor starts off with a discussion of "apparent" age. For instance, if you could poof a chair into existence, how old is the chair after 1 day? Answer: 1 day old. But how old does it look? Answer, at least many days accounting for design and fabrication time. He went on about how old is a planet 1 day after you poof it into existence, how old is a solar system, on to a galaxy. When he got to the galaxy, he first explained how big galaxies are and talked about what light years were and how many billions of light years across our galaxy was. Then he says, how old is a the galaxy one day after it is created (answer: 1 day); how old does it look? Well, he says billions of years, but I say it LOOKS invisible because it will be a minimum of 4 years before the light from the closest star reaches you.

Now, he goes on to refute the methodologies used by scientists to determine the age of things. He starts with Uranium/Lead dating, saying that it is flawed because if you find a rock that is half lead and half uranium, you can't say that it is the age of the half-life of uranium because you don't know how much rock was there to begin with. (Ok, I'll buy that). Then he says scientists use Potassium/Argon dating to date very old things - BUT he uses the uranium/lead argument to refute potassium argon dating. He doesn't mention how scientists use known ratios of potassium argon to estimate HOW MUCH potassium and argon were there originally.

Then he talks about rock spewed by Mt. Saint Helens in 1980 (1986?) were dated to billions of years. Yet, the rocks were MOVED in 1980, not MADE in 1980.....??

Then he goes on to talk about how some fossils were dated to be older on top soil layers and younger on lower soil layers - but never mentions the possibility of seismic activity overturning the layers......

Then he talks about amino acids and that if you add heat to make them bond (or whatever, don't remember why heat was needed), then you get a barbecue and it cooks them - but, when you add heat to something, it doesn't always mean FIRE; it could mean just a few degrees!

He also decided to talk about the 2% genetic difference between humans and monkeys, implying that humans came from monkeys. Well, not even scientists say that as far as I know. They say we are from a common branch - not a monkey!

Then he goes on to talk about linking genetic development based on numbers of chromosomes and starts listing out how that would make frogs higher on the evolutionary chain than humans and implies that, for instance, scientists are saying that frogs or humans evolved from moths based on the increasing chromosome numbers..... I really don't think scientists are saying that....

He then mentions something about there being too much helium in rocks. A two minute google search finds the details about this argument and a number of sites that show the bogus science used to make this claim:

One example: http://www.acepilots.com/mt/archives/002065.html

He also said that his whole understanding of how evolutionary teaching deceived him started when he read a book by Michael Denton, "Evolution - A Theory In Crisis." Another two minute google search reveals that this work is also well refuted. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html. I hope he is aware of these refutations, has read them and understood them.

What kind of gets me about this last sermon are these two points:

1. First, he makes an argument for apparent age, then goes on to refute scientists for being a "victim" of the apparent age phenomena put in place by God himself! The paster says himself that the creation will look older than it is via apparent age, but then criticizes scientists for seeing that.

2. Second, he uses information DETERMINED by scientists, believes that and takes it on face value, then refutes their dating methods and other SCIENTIFIC observations. For instance, he talked about basalt rock and that this rock is LAVA rock. Well, you wouldn't know that basalt is lava rock by looking at it, so where did he get this knowledge that it is lava rock? From a scientist. Then he goes on to tell them that their methods of dating the lava rock are wrong, based on the half-life of uranium, which isn't even used in dating lava rock! Arghhhh!!! So scientists are only good at telling us WHAT things are but not how OLD they are? This is difficult to substantiate, IMHO.

Ben_Hur · Aug 8, 2005

azzy said:
To think that God was not able to creat the universe in 6 days is to limit God.

I don't think any TE or PC says that God canNOT do that. They are just saying He didn't do that. God chose NOT to do that. They are saying our (and possibly Moses') interpretation of a 3000+ year old scripture may be a bit off.

Here is a quote from Don Stoners Book (http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM) that might shed some light on the potential problem with interpretation:

It is difficult to simply read the first chapter of Genesis and come away with any but the six-consecutive-twenty-four-hour meaning; but how much of this is because of the actual wording of Genesis and how much is because of what we have simply heard? Do the actual words of Genesis really make literal sense to us? "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day." (Genesis 1:5). What could a literal "morning" possibly mean before the sun was "made?" (Genesis 1:16). Furthermore, the "plain English" which a modern reader encounters is not quite the same as the original Hebrew. Genesis might be harder to understand than is normally assumed. The first chapter of Genesis is an ancient work; for this reason, it might be difficult to understand. Consider this verse from The Faerie Queen, by Edmund Spenser, 7 first published in the year 1590 AD:

A gentle Knight was pricking on the plaine, Ycladd in mightie armes and silver shielde, Wherein old dints of deepe woundes did remaine, The cruell markes of many' a bloody fielde; Yet armes till that time did he never wield. His angry steede did chide his foming bitt, As much disdayning to the curbe to yield: Full jolly knight he seemed, and faire did sitt, As one for knightly giusts and fierce encounters fitt. - Book 1, Canto 1, Verse 1.
To a modern reader, the term "curbe" (curb in modern spelling) seems to mean something like a command to "halt." But this makes the rest of that line confusing. The term actually refers to part of the horse's bit. In this example, the correct literal reading is not the plainest one! "Yielding to the curb" can even mean "being run off the road" in today's "plain English." This was written a mere 400 years ago and in an archaic form of our own language; yet it is still difficult to understand.

By comparison, the first chapter of Genesis was written in Hebrew, and thousands of years ago by even the most conservative estimates. There is evidence that the Hebrew may be a translation from a yet older account. 8 The original was probably written even before the sun and moon were given proper names. 9 Notice that they are simply referred to as "great lights." It is difficult even to imagine an account of this antiquity.

Because we have difficulty understanding Spenser, who is relatively recent, we have no guarantee that a plain reading of Genesis 1 will make any sense at all to us. It is likely that we will have to be very careful if we hope to understand the creation account correctly.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 8, 2005

One useful idea that will help with the problems associated with "creation with apparent age", is to distinguish between history as a process and "normal aging" or as you will see on this forum, the difference between scars and normal growth.

The problems of "creation with apparent age" are the same problems that you have with Decartes demon, brains in the vat, or last Thursdayism, all well known philosophic problems. To summarize the biggest problem, it is the difference between Adam as a full grown man seconds after his creation, and Adam has having a history, scars of a boyhood fall from a tree, memories of a lived lifetime. Creation has developmental scars, analogically it is not this generic human being, fully grown but without a past, for creation has not just a past, but a particular past.

And that is the problem, scars, a particular history that claims that certain things really did happen, not this generic poof-godidit last thursday type of creation. But in a way, for science it doesn't matter, for it can only modify it's claim of looking at the past to looking at the apparent and consistent past that was created to deceived those very people looking for it.

It is not a generic creation that we see, but a creation with scars and a history. So deception is a proper label for a trickster god who would create with apparent age in this manner.

post edit addition
perhaps an example will make this distinction clearer.
dendrochronology looks at the pattern of growth rings on trees.
some years are wider with good growing conditons, others are narrow, representing bad years.
A generic creation with apparent age would have either no growth rings, or a series of uniform growth rings, upto the time of creation then variation as to growing conditions after that point. So if creation was 6000 years ago and you found a bristlecone pine tree with 6000 growth rings of various widths and then inside those you found 3 inches of apparently a single ring you would see creation with apparent age but without scars or a history.

....

Rusticus · Aug 9, 2005

Ben Hur:

No offence meant, but I think your pastor needs to realise he is a pastor and not a scientist. Because by quoting pseudo-scientific claptrap he is just making a fool of himself.

As it so happens I came across a book-review in the "NewScientist" of a book that is pertinent to this discussion. I will copy the last few paragraphs of the review here. If you or anyone else would like the full review (two pages) PM me and I will e-mail a scanned version to you,

The book is "The Evolution - Creation Stuggle" by Michael Ruse. The reviewer was Karen Armstong.

"...

In the pre-modern world, it was generally understood that there were two ways of arriving at truth. Plato called them "mythos" and "logos". Neither was superior to the other. Logos (reason; science) was exact, practical and essential to human life. To be effective, it had to correspond to external reality. Mythos expressed the more elusive, puzzling aspects of human experience. It has often been called a primitive form of psychology, which helped people negotiate their inner world. A mythical story, such as a cosmolgy, described something that had happended once, but also happened all the time. A myth was essentially a programme of action. Unless you put it into practice, you could not judge its truth.

Mythos could not help you create efficient technology or run your society. But logos had its limits too. If you became a refugee or witnessed a terrible natural catastrophe, you did not simply want a logical explanation; you also wanted mythos to show you how to manage your grief.

With the advent of our scientific modernity, however, logos achieved such spectacular results that myth (mythos) was discredited, and now, in popular parlance a myth is something that did not happen, that is untrue. But some religious people also began to read religous myths as though they were logos.

The conflict between science and faith is thus based on a misunderstanding of the nature of scriptural discourse. Many people, including those who are religious, find it difficult to think mythically, because our education and society is fuelled entirely by "logos". This has mede religion impossible for many people in the west, and it could be argued that much of the stridency of Christian fundamentalism is based on a buried fear of creeping unbelief.

In the pre-modern world, it was considered dangerous to mix "mythos" and "logos", because each had a different sphere of competence. Much of the heat could be taken out of the evolution versus creation struggle if it were admitted that to read the first chapter of Genesis as though it were an exact account of the origins of life is not only bad science; it is also bad religion."

(please disregard any typing errors, this was done in a hurry).

This pretty much sums up what I think of the whole issue. I hope this was a help to you.

azzy · Aug 9, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
There is a conspiracy to turn Christians into unthinking and unreasonable creatures solely motivated by emotion and manipulated by every disreputable charlatan who labels himself a creationist. Since so many Christians believe that an unreasonable faith, unanchored to real history and uninformed by science is a mark of genuineness and of trust that they have no tools either to think clearly or to understand themselves or the world God has created.

If you intend to fight the evil one then you really ought to learn how to write a proper sentence, frame a coherent argument and reason clearly enough to actually be understood by someone else. No TE says that God does not have the ability to create instaneously should He have chosen to do so, the question is how He actually did create the heavens and the earth, not potential. To conflate all evil and place it into a pot labelled "evolution" and rant at that pot does no one, not even yourself any real good or justice.

Just an observation, the only clue we have to your knowledge base is your writing, even the best ideas in ragged clothing will not be taken seriously.
....

My knowledge is based on the fact that I know who God is,I didnt have to be really smart (like you)to be excepted by him,God has made himself known to me and thats how I know how God is.I may not be an educated man,But God in his faithfullness has walked with me for many years.And you dont fight the devil with worldly wisdom,but you fight him with Love,(for others)and through kindness,and prayer,and believing what the bible says,instead of trying to explain away Gods mighty power.The battle believers fight is a spiritual one,not an intelectual one.The world by wisdom knew not God,and it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,bible.

Sometimes worldly wisdom and reasoning can blind someone into thinking they know more than God.Without faith it is impossible to please God.You cannot reason your way into heaven,you must believe God,and then he will open your blinded eyes.To the person who needs proof and to the person who feels like they need to know how God did what he did,before they will believe,I say this is a lie.

No one can prove God is real to the person who has already decided God isnt real.And lastly,the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God,he takes the wise in thier own craftiness.We as men,think we are so wise,and we think we know so much,but our little minds cannot begin to fully understand or comprehend the awsome power and majesty of the God of all creation.

Just because we dont understand something about how God did what he did,doesnt mean it isnt true.

Implication of Origins

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Me at the Races...

Veteran

avid reader

Me at the Races...

Me at the Races...

avid reader

Senior Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency