The issue with YEC

[gluadys]

you have to realize what you said is a very very (i cannot emphasize it more) strong statement. you are in the league of allying yourself with the atheistic world by saying that creationism is built on lies, which holds especially more fuel for those not in the Kingdom of God to reject the message of Christ and be in Hell for all eternity. I've seen the Hebrew, I've seen the linguistical analysis for Genesis' text. it's literal. then you guys come along and say it's bung. what do you think will happen to the rest of Scripture? is not our cannon of books called "the HOLY BIBLE"? do you know what "Bible" means?
take it to heart that: "1Co. 5:6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?"
keep saying that and you and I won't see the consequences, but our kids will suffer even more intellectually for believing what the world already says is an "absurd faith" - then again God makes the foolishness of the world into His power - so in that sense it is kind of ironic.

You are still confusing God's Word/Creation/Biblical text with the interpretation of the Biblical text known as creationism.

I agree with God's Word/Creation/Biblical text. I oppose creationism as a pack of lies about God's Word/Creation/Biblical text.

 

[SBG]

Excellent, we agree. I oppose evolutionism as a pack of lies about picking and choosing and making God's Word say something that scientific interpretations say.

 

[Biliskner]

You are still confusing God's Word/Creation/Biblical text with the interpretation of the Biblical text known as creationism.

I agree with God's Word/Creation/Biblical text. I oppose creationism as a pack of lies about God's Word/Creation/Biblical text.

 

[ChristianMuse]

Actually, the "appearance of age" argument may be a problem--or at least more of a problem than the one it attempts to dodge. If we attempt to buttress a questionable interpretation of scripture by claiming that God attempted to deceive us by leaving false clues regarding the age of the universe, we may be guilty of ascribing attributes to God that are contrary to those taught in the Bible.....

If God calls something that doesn't exist as though it exists... then it exists.
If God calls something that does exist as though it did not exist... then it doesn't exists.

This is not deception but the prerogative of God to do and show what he pleases for his own purposes. Is it an attempt to deceive? I don't know... that would be judging God's work and motives. I certainly am not qualified for that. Who is?

He is the potter, I am the clay.
On a grander scale... He is the potter and the universe is the clay.
The test is not how great is your knowledge but do you have faith in what God has revealed through his word. In this issue people are free to open the door and speculate. That is fine as long as it doesn't lead one to lose the message.

 

[Sinai]

Actually, the "appearance of age" argument may be a problem--or at least more of a problem than the one it attempts to dodge. If we attempt to buttress a questionable interpretation of scripture by claiming that God attempted to deceive us by leaving false clues regarding the age of the universe, we may be guilty of ascribing attributes to God that are contrary to those taught in the Bible.....

If God calls something that doesn't exist as though it exists... then it exists.
If God calls something that does exist as though it did not exist... then it doesn't exists.

This is not deception but the prerogative of God to do and show what he pleases for his own purposes. Is it an attempt to deceive? I don't know... that would be judging God's work and motives. I certainly am not qualified for that. Who is?

He is the potter, I am the clay.
On a grander scale... He is the potter and the universe is the clay.
The test is not how great is your knowledge but do you have faith in what God has revealed through his word. In this issue people are free to open the door and speculate. That is fine as long as it doesn't lead one to lose the message.

God may have the power (and even the prerogative) to deceive, but the Bible makes it clear that it is not in God's nature to do so. He is not the father of lies, nor does He deceive us. The Bible says He is the truth--not that He is a deceiver. Thus, if we start to claim that God is a liar and deceiver merely because we are too proud and arrogant to admit that our rather questionable interpretation of a particular scripture may be incorrect, then it is time for us to stop and reexamine our position.

And I do have faith in God and in what He has revealed through His word. But when one begins attributing attributes to God that are opposite those taught by the Bible, it may be indicative that he may have already lost the message (or is at least headed in that direction). That is why I urge caution in this area. As I said earlier, if we attempt to buttress a questionable interpretation of scripture by claiming that God attempted to deceive us by leaving false clues regarding the age of the universe, we may be guilty of ascribing attributes to God that are contrary to those taught in the Bible. And that could do far more harm than merely admitting that our interpretation might not have been totally correct--or stating that it might be prudent to do additional study of the scriptures in question to see if a different interpretation may be more likely to be correct....

 

[Biliskner]

so is Genesis narrative or allegorical?

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

 

[Vance]

That article is based on a response to the "day-age" theory. TE's don't follow the day-age theory.

I have already given an extensive critique of this article in the past, and found it sorely wanting. I shouldn't have to restate all of that every time some new YEC trots it out as if we have not reviewed it and discussed it before.

Genesis is a figurative narrative of literal events. It tells about things that actually happened in the past, but tells about them in the literary style of the period and culture. NOBODY told their stories about the past as strict literal history at that time, and I have shown extensive evidence that ANE cultures did not think of their stories about their past as strict literal history, but still thought of them as TRUE.

 

[ChristianMuse]

God may have the power (and even the prerogative) to deceive, but the Bible makes it clear that it is not in God's nature to do so. He is not the father of lies, nor does He deceive us. The Bible says He is the truth--not that He is a deceiver. Thus, if we start to claim that God is a liar and deceiver merely because we are too proud and arrogant to admit that our rather questionable interpretation of a particular scripture may be incorrect, then it is time for us to stop and reexamine our position.

And I do have faith in God and in what He has revealed through His word. But when one begins attributing attributes to God that are opposite those taught by the Bible, it may be indicative that he may have already lost the message (or is at least headed in that direction). That is why I urge caution in this area. As I said earlier, if we attempt to buttress a questionable interpretation of scripture by claiming that God attempted to deceive us by leaving false clues regarding the age of the universe, we may be guilty of ascribing attributes to God that are contrary to those taught in the Bible. And that could do far more harm than merely admitting that our interpretation might not have been totally correct--or stating that it might be prudent to do additional study of the scriptures in question to see if a different interpretation may be more likely to be correct....

In that it is only one of the possible explanations is the way in which I have tendered it. It matters not to me whether the ages are in the billions or the thousands. The judgment call of making God out to be a liar or that he was being deceptive was not my intent and if someone wishes to imply that I was making this God's motive... he is incorrect. Myself I would not call it deceptive or a lie. Though I can see why someone may think it from my remarks. The universe as it now stands is a complex creation. Whether it was created over a period of thousands or billions of years. To see the light of a star that has apparently travelled for perhaps one billion years when it is possible that the whole of creation may be only thousands of years old is not a false clue, nor deception, but the design of the master. Some may have difficulty in accepting this possibility. They may think it would be a lie or a deception. I do not.

As for studying the scriptures for different scenarios of creation? I have several. Each are widely different. And not a single one of these interpretations is necessary to understanding the truth of what God has revealed concerning man, his condition, his history and His plan for redemption.

If you want you can repeat the charge once more, but I will not answer it again.

 

[Delta One]

Hello gluadys,

As far as I am concerned---both. YECism is not just bad science. It is also bad theology.

Although SBG asked you to explain yourself without science, I'm just interested in what proof you have at all that YEC is bad theology. Remembering that theology and science are not related in any way.

And, how is creation science "bad science"? An added question could be asked on to this, "Is evolutionism "good" science and if so, why?"

You quoted in a response to SBG the following:
Now if the world is real, then those rocks which testify of the age of the earth are also real. And so is the speed of light and the distances to the stars.

YECism, however, requires us to believe that such things are not real, but only an appearance. This is essential to creation with appearance of age arguments.

You need to get caught up with the times. The problem of light-time travel that you refer to has been solved by Dr Humphreys' relativistic cosmology - which uses the same equations of general relativity that the big bang cosmology uses - except he changes the arbitary assumption of an unbounded universe to a bounded universe. There is actually another light-time travel problem that is evidence against the big bang theory to which explainations have fallen far short of explaining:

The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.

The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.

The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’). So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.

At the moment, the favourite explaination is inflation. However, apart from the fact that scientists haven't even decided on the model most likely to be correct, there are the following unanswered questions, including a mechanism for inflation and a way to stop it.

Radiometric dating methods aren't the infallible methods that you believe they are.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, geologists must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed, and a list of other assumptions including that the decay rate hasn't changed in the past. And then, depending on the assumptions that the geologist makes, we can obtain any date we like.

Got to go,

Delta One.

 

[shernren]

From the bottom up.

Radiometric dating methods aren't the infallible methods that you believe they are.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, geologists must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed, and a list of other assumptions including that the decay rate hasn't changed in the past. And then, depending on the assumptions that the geologist makes, we can obtain any date we like.

Mess with the decay rate of radioactivity and you are messing with the fundamentals of nature, one of the four fundamental quantum forces i.e. the weak nuclear force. We can assume the decay rate of an element is constant because if it had been changed there would be very definitive clues in the way the universe is structured.
Also it is true that we have to make an assumption about the initial parent-daughter ratio. However in geology the isochron method (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html) is used, and the only assumption made is that the initial ratio of daughter isotope to non-daughter isotope is constant throughout the different minerals in the rock. Which is a perfectly reasonable, chemically ascertainable assumption to be made.
Tada! The assumptions aren't as arbitrary as we thought!

As for Humphrey's cosmo-theory, I bought the book in my YEC days and it's lying at home somewhere, so I can't check it right now. But I've got a simple issue with it: it doesn't solve the question of the age of the Earth itself. Using SR (I know he uses GR as well, but it's probably the same argument), the time on Earth is slowed relative to the time at the "edge of the universe". Which is well and good, but it still makes the Earth itself 6000 years old. Which, of course, doesn't give it time to experience 1-million-year-old meteor impacts, no?

Biliskner, simple question: is something that is not historical still true? If yes, then Genesis is still true even if it is not historical. If no, why not?

And gravity is way, way more messed up than evolution. Right now nobody can actually explain gravity in a foolproof. It's running circles around us at the quantum scale. And yet we still take it for granted as a scientific fact. If something as mad as gravity is scientifically valid, what about evolution? All your fruit flies page proves is that fruit fly speciation results in members of the fruit fly taxon. Which isn't really proving much. If you believe in common descent, every living thing is a member of the taxon of the first living thing.

As for the Hubble constant:
http://www.spacetoday.org/Questions/HubbleConstant.html
http://www.astro.washington.edu/labs/hubblelaw/hubblelaw.html
The cosmology is quite simple but I think I can answer whatever questions you have about it. Not much guesswork involved. Note that the assumption "galaxies of similar Hubble type have similar actual sizes" only involves distant galaxies, and the data from nearer galaxies alone (since you assume that this assumption might be wrong) would still not help shrink the age from 13 billion to 6 thousand years.

And I've had my fun thumping AiG. Why don't you try www.talkorigins.org for a change?

Christian Muse, I'd be a bit abstract here, but: let's assume that event B is caused by and only by event A. If you observe event B, wouldn't it then be logical to assume event A has happened? Conversely, if event A hasn't happened, wouldn't it be logical to assume that event B hasn't happened either? I'm trying to get at a basic principle of reality that something should either happen, or not happen. It shouldn't appear to have happened but not actually have happened. (ok, I'm definitely being confusing here. )

Million-year-old craters are caused by meteor strikes a million years ago. If I observe a million-year-old crater, is it not then logical to assume that a meteor struck the spot a million years ago?

 

[Biliskner]

From the bottom up.
Mess with the decay rate of radioactivity and you are messing with the fundamentals of nature, one of the four fundamental quantum forces i.e. the weak nuclear force. We can assume the decay rate of an element is constant because if it had been changed there would be very definitive clues in the way the universe is structured.

mess with decay rate? no one is talking about messing with anything. what we're saying is you're assuming the decay rate that is measurable today and extrapolating it backwards into what you believe to be millions of years. and that very fact itself lends to criticism, and criticism surely even you would agree as necessary.

you talk about 'definitve clues' - what exactly do you mean? or was it just some random conjecture.

Biliskner, simple question: is something that is not historical still true? If yes, then Genesis is still true even if it is not historical. If no, why not?

if something that is not historical still true? give me an example of what you mean. nothing IN history is false. nothing that is true WOULD NOT BE in history. your question is semantically confusing. please clarify.

if you were asking if i believe in a literal genesis then there are better ways to ask it:

yes i do believe in Genesis as literal, just as Hitler's blietzkreig through Poland was literal.

And gravity is way, way more messed up than evolution. Right now nobody can actually explain gravity in a foolproof. It's running circles around us at the quantum scale. And yet we still take it for granted as a scientific fact. If something as mad as gravity is scientifically valid, what about evolution? All your fruit flies page proves is that fruit fly speciation results in members of the fruit fly taxon. Which isn't really proving much. If you believe in common descent, every living thing is a member of the taxon of the first living thing.

you can't explain evolution.
ie: how did amoebas spawn into humans?
(spouting stuff like "the rate in frequency in the mutation of allels gave amoebas the chance to rise into humans, or a pre-decessor of a humanoid like form" is analogous to "aliens built the Giza pyramids".)

Christian Muse, I'd be a bit abstract here, but: let's assume that event B is caused by and only by event A. If you observe event B, wouldn't it then be logical to assume event A has happened? Conversely, if event A hasn't happened, wouldn't it be logical to assume that event B hasn't happened either? I'm trying to get at a basic principle of reality that something should either happen, or not happen. It shouldn't appear to have happened but not actually have happened. (ok, I'm definitely being confusing here. )

your first premise is dogmatic. sometimes one needs to revise such dogmatism, like that of Aristotelian metaphysics - the occult and unique qualities of magnetism and other such phenomena.
it is hard to do, but you must, to be "truly" scientific.

Million-year-old craters are caused by meteor strikes a million years ago. If I observe a million-year-old crater, is it not then logical to assume that a meteor struck the spot a million years ago?

like i said, beginning at your first premise, it is flawed.

 

[ChristianMuse]

Christian Muse, I'd be a bit abstract here, but: let's assume that event B is caused by and only by event A. If you observe event B, wouldn't it then be logical to assume event A has happened? Conversely, if event A hasn't happened, wouldn't it be logical to assume that event B hasn't happened either? I'm trying to get at a basic principle of reality that something should either happen, or not happen. It shouldn't appear to have happened but not actually have happened. (ok, I'm definitely being confusing here. )

Million-year-old craters are caused by meteor strikes a million years ago. If I observe a million-year-old crater, is it not then logical to assume that a meteor struck the spot a million years ago?

Confusing? No, I understand exactly what you are saying and the point you are trying to make. In many cases I would agree with you. The premise is ok to stand upon except... when it comes to the creative act of God. In that case you can have a crater which appears to be a million years old yet was formed/created only moments before. All scientific evidence of the crater can point to an age of a million years. That does not mean that it necessarily is.

It is a matter of faith which creation scenario you believe in. The appeals to scientific investigation is simply the gospel according to the scientific method. Now are you right or wrong in your belief of this scientific gospel? Doesn't matter. What does matter is whether man came about through the evolutionary process or was formed in a moment as a complete man by the hand of God. Even if evolution was valid upon earth at some point in its history... the earth being covered with water could indicate the destruction of all life. The scripture then reveals the new life process created outside of the evolutionary model. I repeat, the only part that really concerns man is the last six thousand years. If there is a past before this period, even of billions of years, it is not relevant to the current time period and work of God. The problem arises when people try to take modern man and apply the evolutionary model to his existence rather than a direct act of God.

 

[shernren]

biliskner, how much quantum physics do you know? If you change the fundamental quantum forces that govern nature, nature flies apart. In fact the majority of creationists use this as an argument for creation. Now, you're saying that my assumption that the decay rate is constant is flawed.
Ok, let's say that the decay rate has changed. We know that the current ratio between the strengths of the various quantum forces is finely balanced. So, if the rate was previously different, the ratio would have been different, and the universe would have fallen apart before the ratios could change the the values we see today. Got it?
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14498.htm
http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-2.shtml

Here's one nobody has answered yet: Jesus told the parable of the Prodigal Son as if it was something that really happened. But we know from middle-Eastern culture that it could not possibly have happened. Therefore the parable of the Prodigal Son is historically false (which is worse than creation, which is possibly merely historically ambiguous). Does that mean Jesus was a liar to tell the parable of the Prodigal Son?

your first premise is dogmatic.

It is dogmatic because reality is stubborn. It normally doesn't allow things that haven't happened to appear as if they have happened. So what could cause a bullet hole other than a bullet? and what could cause a meteor crater other than a meteor?

The premise is ok to stand upon except... when it comes to the creative act of God. In that case you can have a crater which appears to be a million years old yet was formed/created only moments before.

Yay! I can still be understood! I'm pleasantly surprised at myself.

Well if you want to believe that you certainly can. So you would agree that the scientific evidence points to evolution? Actually, that's all I'd insist on. Because there you'd already disagree with most of YEC-"scientism" which says that there is scientific evidence for a young earth.

 

[Biliskner]

biliskner, how much quantum physics do you know? If you change the fundamental quantum forces that govern nature, nature flies apart. In fact the majority of creationists use this as an argument for creation. Now, you're saying that my assumption that the decay rate is constant is flawed.

enough to harness a qubit
fundamental quantum forces? dude, you have no idea what quantum mechanics is and i know this by what you just said. the theory is a MODEL, it's not even a hypothesis, it is a MODEL - look the word MODEL up in the dictionary - FYI: electrons ARE NOT minute balls which go *bing* when they "jump" from shell to shell

Ok, let's say that the decay rate has changed. We know that the current ratio between the strengths of the various quantum forces is finely balanced. So, if the rate was previously different, the ratio would have been different, and the universe would have fallen apart before the ratios could change the the values we see today. Got it?

blah blah... "Got it?"

HUH?

MODEL - look it up.

Here's one nobody has answered yet: Jesus told the parable of the Prodigal Son as if it was something that really happened. But we know from middle-Eastern culture that it could not possibly have happened. Therefore the parable of the Prodigal Son is historically false (which is worse than creation, which is possibly merely historically ambiguous). Does that mean Jesus was a liar to tell the parable of the Prodigal Son?

emphasis added.

read Hebrew, dude:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

It is dogmatic because reality is stubborn. It normally doesn't allow things that haven't happened to appear as if they have happened. So what could cause a bullet hole other than a bullet? and what could cause a meteor crater other than a meteor?

ahh.. chapter one of "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel - mate, that story, of this lawyer and "evidence at hand" - it WILL shake the foundations of your firm worldview.

avaliable on amazon, for probably AU$5.95.

cheers

 

[ChristianMuse]

Here's one nobody has answered yet: Jesus told the parable of the Prodigal Son as if it was something that really happened. But we know from middle-Eastern culture that it could not possibly have happened. Therefore the parable of the Prodigal Son is historically false (which is worse than creation, which is possibly merely historically ambiguous). Does that mean Jesus was a liar to tell the parable of the Prodigal Son?

Firstly I believe it is conjecture that the story is a parable. Mind you, it can be but not necessarily. Secondly, it has nothing to do with this subject.

 

[shernren]

Sigh. Biliskner, I know that electrons aren't little solid balls of matter and charge. An electron configuration is a set of electron probability density clouds around a nucleus. And quantum physics is the best model we have to explain things at the quantum level.
Model: "[size=-1]in science, a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled. Whether models are heuristic devices or essential features of scientific explanation is a matter of debate. Mathematical models are interpretations of a formal system assigning truth values to the formulae of the system, thus testing the system for consistency." - [/size][size=-1]www.filosofia.net/materiales/rec/glosaen.htm What we know about the "model" of quantum physics enables us to know a lot about the physical systems quantum physics attempts to model. And while I may know nuts about the mathematical nuts-and-bolts of quantum theory I do believe I have an okay layman's grasp of it. Answer me then: how can the fundamental quantum forces governing nature change so that the resulting non-constant decay rates give a revised age of 6000 where it had been 6 million, without the rest of the universe falling apart as a result?

[/size] blah blah... "Got it?" [size=-1]

Start listening.

As for your article: it is mainly targeting people who will reinterpret the word "day". I.e. day 1 = epoch 1, day 2 = epoch 2, etc. I have no complaints with it. The day is a 24-hour day. But is it set in the context of a literal historical retelling?

I'm not much into historical theology, but looking at this passage:

[/size]1) The obvious consensus is that there is no consensus on the literary genre of Genesis 1. This makes the literary genre approach for a non-literary reading of Genesis 1 suspect of special pleading.
Since there is no consensus, the careful interpreter will be rather cautious and avoid jumping on the bandwagon of literary genre identification with the aim to redefine the literal intent of Genesis 1. The intention of form-critical genre description from its beginning, the time of Gunkel to the present, has been to remove the text of Genesis 1 from being considered to be historical and factual in nature.62
2) The "literary genre" approach reveals it to be another way, at first used by non-concordists, to remove the creation account of Genesis from functioning as an authoritative, literal text which has implications for the relationship of science and the Bible. It is rightly suggested that "the way in which God revealed the history of creation must itself be justified by Scripture"63 and not by appeal to form-critical literary genre description from which historicity is removed.
3) Interpreters following the "literary genre" approach with the aim to remove the creation account from the realm of its literal intent feel free to interpret the "days" of creation in a literal and grammatical way.
The use of the "literary genre" approach is meant to restrict the meaning of Genesis 1 to a thought-form which does not demand a factual, historical reading of what took place. The "literary genre" redefinition of the creation account is intended to remove the creation account from informing modern readers on "how" and "in what manner" and in what time God created the world. It simply wishes to affirm minimalistically that God is Creator. And that affirmation is meant to be a theological, nonscientific statement which has no impact on how the world and universe came into being and developed subsequently.[size=-1]

1. So what if there is no consensus? The church has lacked consensus on worse issues in the past.
2. If a text is not literal, does that immediately remove its authoritativity? If I believed that Genesis 1 was never meant to be authoritative over science anyway, and a non-literal reading confirms it, I have not removed any authoritativity: I have preserved its original intended sphere of authoritativity. (Of course to you I have removed some authority. That's all too bad for you.)
3. Exactly. I don't want to twist "days" into something which is not quite "days". Isn't that sound interpretation?
4. The Creation account, even as a "myth", does much more than just "[/size]affirm minimalistically that God is Creator". It affirms that God had a purpose and clear order when creating the world. It affirms that the material world, being originally created by God, is in no way inferior to the spiritual world or sinful in comparison with it, contra the Gnostic viewpoint. It affirms the human necessity of work (taken with Genesis 2) and the God-given privilege of rest. It affirms (with Genesis 2) the role of women and men, the sacrament of marriage, and the holiness of love and of sex within marriage. Even if it is "just a myth" - it is something we can derive our views and our faith principles from, which is precisely why it's in the Bible anyway.

chapter one of "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel - mate, that story, of this lawyer and "evidence at hand" - it WILL shake the foundations of your firm worldview.

Go on, tell me what it's about and "shake the foundations". If you can't retell or summarise it to me you probably don't understand it. C.S. Lewis, as far as I remember: "The real test of faith is in the vernacular." Bear in mind that I'm not in the US, am about 50km away from the nearest Christian bookstore, don't have a credit card, and generally am suspicious about attempts to "empirically prove" Christianity, given that empiricism is naturalist by nature (punintended).

Firstly I believe it is conjecture that the story is a parable. Mind you, it can be but not necessarily. Secondly, it has nothing to do with this subject.

To me it has a lot to do with the subject. You see, the Prodigal Son was told as if it was true. But it couldn't have been historical. Does that mean Jesus was a liar?
The Creation stories are told as if they are true. But according to current scientific paradigms (whether or not you accept them is a different story), they couldn't have been historical. Does that make the Bible a lie?
To me the situations seem exactly analogous. Although, of course, I could be completely wrong.
So the best resolution to me would be to find a definition of truth that encompasses what is outside of history and historical verification.

 

[Biliskner]

electrons are balls that go *bing* and evolution has proven that humans evolved out of the great divine primordial soup.

 

[invisible trousers]

electrons are balls that go *bing* and evolution has proven that humans evolved out of the great divine primordial soup.

If you can't defend your beliefs, shouldn't that say something about what you believe in?

 

[Biliskner]

If you can't defend your beliefs, shouldn't that say something about what you believe in?

you might like to chase ppl around bushes until the cows come home, but i've got better things to do.

 

[shernren]

electrons are balls that go *bing* and evolution has proven that humans evolved out of the great divine primordial soup.

Having direct answers once in a while would be convincing.