John MacArthur's "Battle for the Beginning"

toff · Mar 10, 2004

Chapter 2 said:
AWESOME book. John MacArthur really hit the nail on the head. It just goes to show that it doesn't take rocket science to figure this stuff out.

If you think this book is "awesome", you really should study some science. Then you might realise that this guy is either an idiot, a liar, or both.

Sheseala · Mar 10, 2004

Data said:
There was a time when there where 360 days in a year, but not in the future.

The earths spin is very slowly slowing, so days will become longer, not shorter, and the amount of days in a year will decrease.

Huh?

Nathan Poe · Mar 10, 2004

Mandi N. said:
has anyone here read the book "battle for the beginning", particularly theistic evolutionists? i haven't yet, but apparently dr. macarthur really goes all out against theistic evolution, drawing some lines in the sand. just wanted some thoughts, impressions, criticisms, etc. from anyone who's read it. thanks

The problem with drawing lines in the sand is that the rising tide tends to wash them away.

If MacArthur wants to hang Christianity on creationism, he's got nobody to blame but himself for mass deconversions once people realize what utter nonsense his "scientific" knowledge is.

toff · Mar 10, 2004

Data said:
There was a time when there where 360 days in a year, but not in the future.

The earths spin is very slowly slowing, so days will become longer, not shorter, and the amount of days in a year will decrease.

I do not believe this is correct. If the earth's spin is slowing, and this slowing has been going on for some time, then previously (ie., in the past), there would have been MORE days in the year than there are now. In the future, there will be LESS days in the year than there are now. The length of the year won't change (it's the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun), but the length of our days will (which is the length of time it takes the earth to rotate). Eventually, if the earth's spin slowed to the point where it was taking a year to rotate, we would have one day each year.

Nathan Poe · Mar 10, 2004

Chapter 2 said:
AWESOME book. John MacArthur really hit the nail on the head. It just goes to show that it doesn't take rocket science to figure this stuff out.

In fact, most creationists find that rocket science only interferes with their position...

Mandi N. · Mar 11, 2004

Nathan Poe said:
The problem with drawing lines in the sand is that the rising tide tends to wash them away.

If MacArthur wants to hang Christianity on creationism, he's got nobody to blame but himself for mass deconversions once people realize what utter nonsense his "scientific" knowledge is.

totally agree. by the way, what does PRATT mean?

Jet Black · Mar 11, 2004

PRATT = Points Refuted a Thousand Times.

soon to be replaced with

Points Refuted a Trillion Times

gluadys · Mar 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
I have said before that I believe the Bible teaches that a day to God is equal to 1000 years to us. But I am open to anyone that has a Bible explaination that a creation day is longer than that. In this sermon, he seems to be pretty closed minded to a day being any more than a literal 24 hour solar day.

You might be interested in the calculations of Rabbi Yitzchok of Acco who lived in the 13th century (way before Bishop Ussher) and also derived a date for creation based solely on the bible.

It is rather simple and goes like this:

There are seven "days" in the creation
passages. But the seventh day was never
closed. (Read Genesis again; the seventh
day was never finished.)

From this, Rabbi Yitzchok figured
that the seventh day can also be
understood to mean human history.
He took the seventh "day" to include
the 7,000 years of history of man.
(A shmita cycle: It would include the
future Messianic reign, no doubt.)

A view very similar to modern
funadamentalist Christians who posit
a 6,000 year history of man's rule followed
by a 1,000 year Messianic Kingdom.

Hence the seventh day is 7,000 years.

It follows therefore that the first six "days"
are each 7,000 "years" also - or
42,000 "years" in toto.

This much comes from Messianic prophecy alone.

But Rabbi Yitzchok also took into account
Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in
thy sight [are but] as yesterday when
it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

The Rabbi noted that the first 6 "days"
were totally under God's control alone -
before man screwed things up; and so the
first 6 "days" were sacred "days."

These sacred "days" were as a ratio.

1 day ---> 1000 yrs = 1 to 365,000

The first six "days" were 42,000 "years,"
but these "years" had to be multiplied
by the sacred ratio of 365,000 since
they are sacred days/years.

He then multiplied the
42,000 by 365,000 and got -

15.3 Billion years.

Almost, right on the nose for science's
estimate of the age of the universe.

JohnR7 · Mar 11, 2004

toff said:
Eventually, if the earth's spin slowed to the point where it was taking a year to rotate, we would have one day each year.

I do not know if we could ever reach that point. The slow down of the earth is caused by the moon. As the earth slows down, the moon is moving away from us. I would think that eventually the moon would break free and then there would be no more waves in the ocean and the earth would stay consistant.

JohnR7 · Mar 11, 2004

toff said:
Then you might realise that this guy is either an idiot, a liar, or both.

Whatever he is, more people listen and pay attention to him, then there are people who listen to your theorys.

Svt4Him · Mar 11, 2004

toff said:
If you think this book is "awesome", you really should study some science. Then you might realise that this guy is either an idiot, a liar, or both.

Ya, of course, no scientist will believe in creation.

As posted in the other thread:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96)

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. (Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: Chemist / Lecturer / Creationist / Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941) / Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich / D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964) / F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) / Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc. / Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company / Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford / Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages / Dr. Wilder-Smith was also a NATO three-star general. He was featured in the motion picture series ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be.) A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

[font=Times, Times New Roman]"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." (Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).)[/font]

Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277. Bolding mine)

Phred · Mar 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
I do not know if we could ever reach that point. The slow down of the earth is caused by the moon. As the earth slows down, the moon is moving away from us. I would think that eventually the moon would break free and then there would be no more waves in the ocean and the earth would stay consistant.

No, the moon won't break free John.

"Eventually the result will be that the Earth will show only one face to the Moon (much like the Moon only shows one face to the Earth). A lower limit to how long it will take for the Earth and Moon to become tidally locked is 50 billion years, at which point the month and the Earth's "day" will both be approximately 50 (of our current) days long."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-21.html

David Gould · Mar 11, 2004

Svt4Him,

You quoted an article that is 25 years old and a book written by someone who, while claiming not to be a creationist, uses all the old creationist arguments in his book. His geology in particular sucked. (I read the book and wrote a critique on it a few years ago.)

Creationists keep claiming they have rapidly growing support in the sciences. Yet they cannot actually point to current data that indicates this. They simply have a few anecdotes (often 20 years old or more) that can be used to support this idea.

toff · Mar 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
Whatever he is, more people listen and pay attention to him, then there are people who listen to your theorys.

I don't have any theories for people to listen to, sorry. I certainly don't attempt to dispute scientific theories by spreading lies and falsehoods, unlike this joker.

toff · Mar 11, 2004

Svt4Him said:
Ya, of course, no scientist will believe in creation.

Nice try - false dichotomy. Nobody who knows anything about evolutionary theory will believe in creationISM. Certainly, nobody who knows anything about evolutionary theory would give this joker's book a moment's credence.

JohnR7 · Mar 11, 2004

Phred said:
No, the moon won't break free John.

at which point the month and the Earth's "day" will both be approximately 50 (of our current) days long."

Sounds a little bit like marriage. You crash into each other, your life is forever changed, no matter how hard you try, you can not get away from each other, and then, after about 50 years, eventually you are in sync together.

John MacArthur's "Battle for the Beginning"

Well-Known Member

Badger Mushroom Snake

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Jet Black

Guest

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Junior Mint

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency