T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Delta One said:Hi The Lady Kate,
This message is a reply to one of yours a week or so ago. I will admit from the start that it is quite long, but I truly hope that you do get something out of it.
Only if we choose to read God's word as literal, word-for-word fact, something which even the original Hebrew authors wouldn't do.
Ill assume that we are still talking about Genesis here, as some parts of the Bible, like Psalms, are not meant to be taken literally because of their poetical descriptions that David uses to describe his amazement of Gods grace and Glory.
Just as a general question, how do you know what the Hebrew authors took and did not take seriously or literally? Do you have any sources?
Not offhand, but then again, neither did the authors of Genesis.
Seeing as how nobody was present to record the events of Genesis, it's seemes a bit of a stretch to call it a historical record.
Let us not forget that nothing in God's word can contradict God's creation, wrought by His own hands, without any possibility of alteration or tampering by human hands (something even Scripture cannot claim)
Using my own logic against me; impressive, most impressive. So true. The Bible, however, says over and over again that it is the Word of God; as such it is therefore infallible.


The evidence can be interpreted in many ways and still be consistent with it as this creation/evolution debate illustrates. The Bible really only has one way of interpreting it in such a way that it is consistent from verse one to the end of Revelation as has been shown to you all many-a-times.
The same way you just interpreted Psalms? Poetical?
Are YEC 'ages' built on assumptions any less shaky? No. More so, since they add the assumption of a literal Genesis, and thus, seek only results which arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
The creation date is based on the infallible Word of God, not long age assumptions.
Surely you mean our fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God...
In fact, evolutionary scientists also seek the results that only arrive at a predetermined date; listen to the following comment by Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, in the article Secular catastrophism from Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21:
The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such confirmation may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.
Although this reference is slightly old, the situation hasnt improved any for the evolutionists!
Where is Jueneman getting his info from, and how has it been recieved since 1982?
Dr Mauger, former associate professor of geology from East Carolina University said the following on the type of dates that get published in reputable scientific journals:
In general, dates in the correct ball park are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.
How do they know what the correct ball park is? They have to have an initial belief at to how old a rock is. Sometimes, however, the age of a rock is initially assumed to be around a given age depending on the remains of organisms that are in them; but as Rastall (former lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University) concedes in 1956 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.10, p. 168, such methods for dating are circular in their reasoning:
It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.
Except fossils are not the only means of determining age...Perhaps they were back in 1956, but that's moot.
I saw an implication of damnation, which I see all too often around here. Because of my beliefs about the physical world; My faith in God has been questioned one too many times for me to "chill."
Im sorry, but I dont think that SBG made any such implications. Im not being biased here, for once. He made no such comments about damnation for not believing in a literal Genesis. As a matter of fact, I dont believe anyone has. Ive brought up and stand by my belief that you have no real foundation for what Christians believe if you self destruct Genesis, but I have never said that if you dont believe what the Bible says you will go to hell. No, of course I know that you and other Christians, no matter what they believe about our origins, already have a place in heaven that Jesus has prepared for you and I am really glad for your gain!! As always, I am sorry for any time that I may sound harsh, rash, or even arrogant I dont mean to, but it just happens when Im debating some people.
Then prehaps you can tell me what happens to those who "question God" as I was accused of?
If you dont mind me asking, how has your faith in God been questioned? If you dont want to answer, thats cool too. That said, Im really happy that you still have your faith and may God continue you Bless you and help you grow it! [
You mean you haven't seen TEs referred to as "Not True Christians," "Compromised Christians," "Deceived Christians," "Blinded Christians," "Luke-Warm Christians," and other such tripe?
I've seen plenty of that in the short time I've been on these boards, and plenty more IRL...
You do realize that there's a rule around here about invoking Hitler.
Hmm, actually I didnt. If true, then I dont believe that I have broken that as I wasnt supporting his beliefs or his actions. I brought him up simply as an example to illustrate how a persons reasoning can be logically flawed and hes probably the most well known example. Would it be better for you if I were to bring up say, Pol Pot or Stalin? There are a number of other wackos in history that I can point to who have shown how reason can be flawed and illogical.
An unwritten rule: Comparing evolutionists to Hitler is a sign that the debator has run out of rational answers. Pol Pot or Stalin will get you the same result: Having failed to prove that evolutionary theory is incorrect, the debator shifts tactics to try to prove it's evil. As if that makes an iota of difference.
But if reason is so flawed, then debates here are pointless.
Your anti-reason analogy assumes that Hitler actually believed what he said. I see it more likely that he reasoned that if he told the people a convincing enough lie, and kept telling it with a straight face, people would believe it.
He was a staunch evolutionist (and believer in the Darwinian philosophy of survival of the fittest and so on) and I dare say that he did actually believe what he said. Sir Arthur Keith also admitted that Hitler was also being consistent with his evolutionary philosophy. Hitlers death camps grew out of his desire for the Aryan race to win the battle for the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. If, as you suggest that he didnt believe what he said, and he didnt write anything about it, we can only judge him from his actions and hate filled speeches. Although we know that his reasoning was logically flawed, he stated what he believed to be true, even though we know it to be a lie, and the people did indeed believe it.
Old Adolf also believed he was doing God's work by exterminating the Jews, like he believed a good Christian should.
Hitler's rationale shifted depending on his audience. as such, it's pointless to try to use his alleged motives to prove evolution false.
That line of reasoning worked very well for him, IIRC. It works well today. Look at how much wrong information is being spouted by the YEC ministries...
Im not too familiar with what the particular term IIRC means could you please explain it? I was also about to bring that second sentence up too in support of my case! It seems like almost every time I turn on the television on ABC and other channels with shows like The World Around Us here in Australia we are being indoctrinated into the lie of evolution. Every time you go to the zoo, the museum, in fact almost everywhere now a days we are being force fed the lie that evolution is true and a scientifically proven fact. This however is a lie and a very big misconception.
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.
How is evolution a lie?
For example, listen to what L. Harrison Matthews has said on whether or not evolution is a fact or faith:
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is this in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Spoken like a man who has no idea the definitions of "Science," "Theory," or "Proof."
I'll prove Evolution when he proves Gravity...You should consider a more knowledgeable source.
Wow, what a statement to make! If only more evolutionists think like he did! This was in the Introduction to Darwins The Origin of Species, 1971, p. xi.
I can't for the life of me imagine why. I can only hope that versions written after 1971 were blessed with a more knowledgeable spokesman. I shall have to pull my own copy off the shelves and see for myself.
It looks like the NYT made one factual error on a relatively trivial matter... trivial in that it was largely irrelevent to what the original article was about. I do agree that it does merit a correction...a single line at the bottom of the book review section would've sufficed. Creationists have no such time in the spotlight and rarely ever get invited to comment on television shows, and when they do they are often misrepresented and the information that they state is often re-worded in such a way that they do not resemble what was originally said; see The Correction the NY Times Refuses to Print at the link: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0213nytimes.asp>.
I hardly see this, however, as a sign of some sinister anti-Christian conspiracy, which the tone of the AiG article took it to be.
Upvote
0