The Stumbling Block

Robert the Pilegrim · May 6, 2005

Calminian said:
Actually He did. He taught that the first male and female existed from the beginning of creation.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."

If I have a friend who is paying too much attention to malicious rumors and I tell him "If you are not careful you will go the way of Othello"; am I claiming the Othello was a real human being? Does the fact that Othello is a fictional character affect the truth of my statement?

Robert the Pilegrim · May 6, 2005

SBG said:
Do I need to know science in order to preach Jesus Christ crucified and risen? Will I be kept out of heaven because I spent my time teaching Jesus Christ instead of geology or evolution?

As long as you realize your limitations and don't make claims about physical evidence that is okay by me.

My faith is in Jesus Christ and it is this faith that convinces me He speaks 100% Truth in all aspects. Jesus Christ is God and by God the Scriptures were written. Jesus is the Creator and Him I trust, in Him I believe, in Him I am kept. I trust His Word when He said, I created the heavens and the earth, I created man from dust on the sixth day, I created by the Words of My mouth and it was so.

What do you make of the fact that for something like 3000 years all the people of God read the Scriptures, read a plain historical narative and concluded that the Sun goes around the Earth?

Joshua 10:12,13:

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up
the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of
Israel, �O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.�
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation
avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book
of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not
hasten to go down for about a whole day.

grmorton · May 6, 2005

SBG said:
I believe I commented on this accusation before. Again, can you find where I said I was infallible or that my interpretation is infallible?

It is actions which speak louder than words.

The clear difference between you and I, is that if my interpretation is wrong, it is not God who is a deceiver, but rather me that is wrong. You seem to think that there is no way your interpretation of the evidence can be wrong, nor any other scientists. Therefore if God did create in six days and there was a global flood, you will conclude God is a deceiver instead of you being wrong.

Not true. Because you have stated that you are just stating what God says in the Bible, if you are wrong, then so is the Bible. With me, If I am wrong about what geology says, then it has no impact on God or the Bible. It is just me who is wrong. And until you actually look at the evidence (something which you seem not to be willing to do) you really won't know what the evidence says. You claim you haven't done the research yourself, but you also seem unwiling to do any. Doesn't that seem really odd to you?

Is science only based on observation alone or are there assumptions to go with those observations? If you are suggesting that it is only observations, where you there when God created to observe it....or course not. So you *must* make some assumptions. And these assumptions, which you like to say are based on logic, are also based on your world view.

The assumption is that our observations tell us something true about the world. Christianity is also based upon this assumption. We must trust that the observations made by the disciples of an empty tomb were trustworthy. YEC, by saying that observational data is not to be trusted, undermines the strength of the resurrection because it make the observations of an empty tomb untrustworthy.

YEC does not undercut the resurrection. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ's redeeming gift. These writings were not just mere observations and assumptions as you want everyone to believe. The Apostles talked, walked and ate with Jesus after He rose from the dead. This was first hand experience, based on facts, not just observations with assumptions.

Lets see. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus doing miracles. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus walking on water. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus healing the sick. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus after they OBSERVED the empty tomb. You are simply wrong that Christianity isn't based upon mere observation.

I don't understand why you have turned to attack the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I haven't. I have merely shown that YEC undermines the resurrection by undermining the validity of observational data.

I DO NOT believe God is EVER deceptive. I believe God is beyond the human mind. I do not believe God *must* be understood completely by man, as some here do think.

Yes you do believe God is deceptive. YOu believe that God caused a global flood but arranged the evidence so that it looks like there was no global flood. That is deception.

I am having a hard time understanding why you ask why I follow God, who does what pleases Him. I don't understand why you question the fact of God making the path of salvation a lie.

If God can't be trusted to tell us the truth about what we see, then he can't be trusted to tell us the truth about what we don't see. Thus, if God arranges the data of the world to make a flooded earth appear as if it isn't flooded, then one can logically aske the quesiton if God tells us a plan of salvation which isn't the REAL plan of salvation. God telling us the truth is really an important thing.

You also reject where the Bible says He created the heavens and the earth and all that are in them in six days.

No I don't. I accept the six days. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm.

I don't think you understood what I said. Because a hindu has faith in something I don't agree with, doesn't make him stupid or intellectually challenged.

Can an intelligent person be wrong and still be intelligent?

Yes, but a person can't be intelligent if they willfully ignore any and all observatoinal evidence which shows that their belief system is wrong. That is why the hindu who insists on believing in the earth on the back of an elephant is intellectually challenged. And that is why a YEC who refuses to look at geological data is intellectually challenged.

So you honestly believe that intellect is based on what one believes, not how smart one is?

No, see above. I think you are intentionally trying not to understand a simple set of statements.

There are scientists out there that are incredibly smart and talented and they will deny the existence of God to no end. Are they also stupid?

Well you can't actually SEE God, but you can SEE that there is no elephant holding up the earth. And one can actually SEE data which shows us that there was no global flood.

I don't agree with this argument you hold to that if someone has faith in something you don't believe, it makes them stupid or intellectually challenged.

Once again, you must be intentionally trying to misunderstand.

I would never tell an atheists he/she is stupid because they don't believe there is God. I wouldn't because it would be untrue. I do believe they are wrong, but being wrong isn't the same as being stupid. Obviously, you disagree.

Once again, you must be intentionally trying to misunderstand.

Where did I say I don't care? I said I wouldn't waste my time talking about the earth first. I would talk about Jesus Christ instead.

Is focusing on discussing Jesus Christ with one who doesn't believe in Him, instead of the earth, stupid in your eyes?

Your actions in not correcting his misconception about physical reality shows me that you don't care.

Would you mind posting the verse so we are on the same page?

John 4:24

I have not argued against what we see. I have agrued against what scientists tell us to believe.

They are one and the same thing. When you argue against a scientist who tells you that he can see footprints on almost every level of the geologic column, then you are arguing against what we can see. When you then fail to draw the logical conclusion that this means that animals were walking around throughout the global flood, you argue against logic. And when you say you don't care what the scientist tell you,you are becoming self-delusional in avoiding looking at any thing that might contradict what you believe.

Tell me, was there truth in the 30 year lie about the dating of a human fossil? And why was this hidden so long? Did all these scientists know this and keep it hidden, or is science really that bad that it doesn't check up on other peoples work for 30 years??

It isn't a lie if people believe it. It is an error. Why do you say 'lie' do you have evidence that they knew it was a fraud but stuck with it anyway? And, have you noticed that it was a scientist (not a YEC) who proved that the fossil was wrong?

I had written:

grmorton said:
No, but if you want to preach to the scientist, you can't tell the scientist to shut his eyes tight and compartmentalize what he sees and what he beleives.

SBG replied:

SBG said:
I can too tell a scientist that they need to change what they believe. That Jesus Christ is not a figment of someones imagination. He is real, He is True, and He is the Only Way to the Father.

The above is NONRESPONSIVE to what I said. I said you want the scientist to compartmentalize what he believes. I said nothing about you telling him what to believe. Please pay attention to what is actually said, not what you want to be said.

I had written:

grmorton said:
They don't say it, they live it.

SBG had replied:

So you know me well enough from our brief conversations here to say how I live?

Can I ask you if you know the difference between the word 'They' and the word 'You'???? Do you have a reading problem? I said 'they' I didn't say 'you'. Why do you personalize this? Please pay attention to what is actually said.

Where did I say that? I said nothing even like that. I said Jesus Christ knows the hearts of all men. He knows my heart and if I am or not right with Him. Just as He knows yours.

Darn it, do you not understand the art of conversation? I say things, then you say things. It DOESN't mean that when I say something, you then ask me, 'where did I say that?'

Why should I believe what you tell me, when it is in direct contradiction with God's Word?

It is indirect contradiction to what you say God's word says. It is not in contradiction to what God's word says. There is a difference. Pay attention really closely because you need to know what I actually said here, not what you want me to say.

And if I believe you and all the other scientists, am I suppose to also believe them when they say God does not exist?

Don't be silly.

How do you know I don't do research before I go to the doctors?
How do you know I don't do research before I call in a repairman?

Because you don't seem like the research type. I draw this conclusion from the fact that several times you have said you don't do research on science. Therefore, since this area means something to you, I draw the rather logical conclusion that it is highly unlikely that you will do research before calling a repairman--an area that won't mean as much to you. And are you going to tell me that you do enough research to fix it yourself but then call a repairman to fix it for you? How gullible do you beleive we are?

You are making some very big assumptions about my life, in which you have never seen.

I have seen enough of it here in the way you approach problems.

In answer to your assumptions, I do do research before I go to a doctor to get a clue about what may be the trouble. I hardly ever call the repairman, because I do most fixes myself, and if I did, I would research it first. I like to save money.

Then why don't you do research on issues of great theological importance? YOu keep claiming that you don't want to believe the scientist because you haven't done the research yourself. Well get off your bum and get busy.

And I don't trust scientists when they keep 30 year lies in order to spread their doctrines that DO come in conflict with God's Teachings.

And what of YECs who keep misinformation going for longer than that?

Are you suggesting that 'erets must mean the same thing every time? I can only assume by your comments here that you don't have an understanding of the hebrew language. Most words have various meanings and are used accordingly. But if we read in context, we can understand what the author means.

There is no context for eretz meaning planet earth. Eretz is translated land, country or soil about 90% of the time. The few times it is translated planet earth is when the YECs say that the entire earth was flooded. One could read that entire account and use the word country every time eretz appears in the Hebrew and you would have no context to say it didn't mean country.

[/quote]'Erets is not the only word you must be concerned with. There are other passages as well that support a global flood. Statements such as all mountains under the heavens were covered. I would be more than happy to move to this discussion if you would like. We can look at the hebrew indepth.[/quote]

In job, he says that the thunder can be heard under the whole heaven. But, in fact, thunder can only be heard from horizon to horizon. That phrase means basically from horizon to horizon.

And maybe you have misinterepted the evidence.

If I have, where are the atheists who interpret the same evidence and believe in a 6000 year old earth and a global flood?

PLease show me where 'erets can never mean earth. Shall we look to Genesis 1:1 and conclude that God created the heavens and the country? Or how about God created the heavens and sheol?

It is quite possible that the account in Gen 1:1 means "And God created the sky and the land. Sure we know that the land is planet earth, but the ancient Hebrews had little knowledge of a planet circling the sun called earth.

I guess you haven't understood my points. I am not concerned about the science, I am concerned about the theology. I don't ignore what science says, I just don't trust those who interpret what they find and see when it conflicts with God's Word.

Pure Bull dung. You clearly ignore what science says. YOu always avoid it.

Christians are doing what Hindu's are doing....? TE's make the Bible a myth, not YECs. When has a YEC come out and said the Bible is not true, for no reason?

I agree that most TEs do make it a myth. I don't.

Your geology is just that, yours. It is your interpretation. You have spent all this time telling me how false my interpretation is, while holding up yours as if it cannot be wrong.

So what you are saying is that there is no objective truth. Everyone is free to conclude whatever they want.

I have said twice now that I never claimed Jesus did.

So, how old then is the earth?

SBG · May 6, 2005

grmorton said:
It is actions which speak louder than words.

I did say that I do not believe my interpretation is infallible. If you want to believe otherwise, than there is nothing more I can do other than tell you what I do believe.

grmorton said:
Not true. Because you have stated that you are just stating what God says in the Bible, if you are wrong, then so is the Bible. With me, If I am wrong about what geology says, then it has no impact on God or the Bible. It is just me who is wrong. And until you actually look at the evidence (something which you seem not to be willing to do) you really won't know what the evidence says. You claim you haven't done the research yourself, but you also seem unwiling to do any. Doesn't that seem really odd to you?

You seem to like to tell me what I think and what I believe. And then proceed to tell me I dont know anything about communication.

As I said, if I am wrong it is not God who is a deceiver. You can tell me again if you like that this isnt what I believe and you know me better than I know myself.

grmorton said:
The assumption is that our observations tell us something true about the world. Christianity is also based upon this assumption. We must trust that the observations made by the disciples of an empty tomb were trustworthy. YEC, by saying that observational data is not to be trusted, undermines the strength of the resurrection because it make the observations of an empty tomb untrustworthy.

From what I have learned, science makes assumptions after it has made observations. It first observes what it sees and then makes assumptions for how the observation came to be or is.

You seem to not understand the difference between Jesus Christs resurrection and a six day creation and global flood.

The Apostles were *actually* there. They saw Jesus Christ, bodily. They talked with Him physically. They touched His wounds.

Not one scientist can say they were there when God created. Not one scientist can say they were there when a global or local flood happened.

You dont seem to catch this difference between the two accounts. Many saw Jesus Christ in bodily form. Not one scientist was there during creation or the global flood. And if they were at the global flood, they have perished.

We have accounts of people who were actually there. You rather believe the accounts of people who were not there and make assumptions based on speculation.

There is a contradiction that exists with you. You want me to go and study science and then do scientific research instead of relying solely on Gods Word for Truth. You want me to go and do things first hand and see them for myself. Yet you do not accept the first hand accounts of those who saw the events take place.

grmorton said:
Lets see. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus doing miracles. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus walking on water. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus healing the sick. The disciples OBSERVED Jesus after they OBSERVED the empty tomb. You are simply wrong that Christianity isn't based upon mere observation.

First hand observation. They saw Jesus walking with their own eyes. Can you say you were there when God created to know for a fact that He did it by evolution? Were you somehow there for the flood to tell me for a fact it was local? You dont have first hand experience of seeing what took place with your own eyes. I am not sure if you dont understand this difference or you just dont want to admit this difference.

Honestly, I think your main question is, can we trust God for what He said.

grmorton said:
I haven't. I have merely shown that YEC undermines the resurrection by undermining the validity of observational data.

YEC doesnt. You just want to bring more blame to the YEC door. I think you really have a personal agenda to discredit any YEC because of your past experience.

grmorton said:
Yes you do believe God is deceptive. YOu believe that God caused a global flood but arranged the evidence so that it looks like there was no global flood. That is deception.

If you want to keep spreading this lie, it is your choice. Again, God knows the hearts of all men. I can rest knowing that God knows my own heart, can you?

I dont believe God did so with intent to deceive, but rather to decrease the waters. And if God wanted to test our faith by seeing if we will trust His Word or mans, it is His choice and He is still just and righteous.

You just dont think that God can be just and righteous if He does things according to His Will and you are unable to understand. That is why you come right out and call God a deceiver if He didnt do what you can understand.

grmorton said:
If God can't be trusted to tell us the truth about what we see, then he can't be trusted to tell us the truth about what we don't see. Thus, if God arranges the data of the world to make a flooded earth appear as if it isn't flooded, then one can logically aske the quesiton if God tells us a plan of salvation which isn't the REAL plan of salvation. God telling us the truth is really an important thing.

Well, I dont fall into that trap of saying if God cant be trusted. I have never thought that God cannot be trusted, even when I dont understand what He did, has done, or will do. God is God and His ways are above ours. If we cannot understand, this doesnt make God to be a liar or deceiver.

You trusting God, even when the world tells you differently, is a really important thing.

Salvation comes to those who have **faith** in Him. And when we have faith in Jesus Christ, He will lead us to truth, and the Bible contains Truth in all matters, thus the Authority in all matters. Would Jesus bring you into His flock and give you His book to teach us about Himself and what He desires of us, only for His book to be wrong?

Often YEC are called Bible idolaters because they hold the Bible as the Authority in all matters. But I see TEs doing the opposite, holding creation and the scientific interpretation of it as the authority.

And the world will hate you because you follow Me. Jesus Christ.

After I leave, many savage wolves will come and try to teach you falsely. Apostle Paul

False teachers will come and teach what itching ears want to hear. Apostle Paul

Test all spirits to see if they are from God because many false prophets have gone out in the world. Apostle John

They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of falsehood. Apostle John

grmorton said:
No I don't. I accept the six days. see

I read it. There is something interesting I saw in it, which you said:

If one takes this approach, then he can incorporate scientific data and he doesn't have to spend his life fighting every new scientific discovery as the YECs do.

You take an approach with Scripture with the intent to incorporate scientific data. You mold Genesis around what science says. Do you think God intended His Word to be true only if it was fixed just right to be in alignment with science?

At the end of your paper you apply human reasoning to suggest it is also Gods way of reasoning. I honestly dont think Gods ways are the same as ours.

grmorton said:
Yes, but a person can't be intelligent if they willfully ignore any and all observatoinal evidence which shows that their belief system is wrong. That is why the hindu who insists on believing in the earth on the back of an elephant is intellectually challenged. And that is why a YEC who refuses to look at geological data is intellectually challenged.

Really? So I can claim you are intellectually challenged because you willfully ignore Gods Word?

I just disagree that a belief makes someone stupid, even if the belief is wrong.

And if a YEC looks at the geological data and comes to a different conclusion than you or the mainstream, are they also intellectually challenged?

grmorton said:
No, see above. I think you are intentionally trying not to understand a simple set of statements. Well you can't actually SEE God, but you can SEE that there is no elephant holding up the earth. And one can actually SEE data which shows us that there was no global flood.

Well you can present evidence and people can come to different conclusions, even ones you completely disagree with and see no evidence for. Will you also call them intellectually challenged?

Are you honestly supporting atheists belief of saying God is not real? So if an atheist says God isnt real and we have much evidence to prove He is, you dont see this as intellectually challenged? But you do see someone intellectually challenged if there is much evidence for a local flood, and they believe a global one?

This is very inconsistent of you. Are you this way with your study of geology?

grmorton said:
Once again, you must be intentionally trying to misunderstand. Once again, you must be intentionally trying to misunderstand. Your actions in not correcting his misconception about physical reality shows me that you don't care.

Well than you misunderstand. I believe the importance of Salvation lies in Jesus Christ, not telling the Hindu about the earth. I would always start with Jesus Christ first, not evolution, not creation, not a global flood, or the earth being held up by whatever. Those can come much later. Jesus must always be the focus for telling one about Christianity.

And you show me that you are much more concerned with the physical than the spiritual.

grmorton said:
John 4:24

Have you read this in context?

I originally stated:

You are aware that works not derived from intelligence, but by faith. When a mentally handicapped human being with an I.Q. of 5, has complete faith in Jesus Christ and goes before Him on judgment day, shall this person be kept out of the Kingdom because his intelligence wasn't high enough?

And you replied with:

You are aware that the Jesus says:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

Truth does not exclude truth about the world we see.

aletheia truth = what is true in things appertaining to God and the duties of man, moral and religious truth.

Jesus wasnt speaking of what science says, but what is true in things appertaining to God.

Would you be suggesting that YECs have not been worshipping God in truth? That we have been worshipping God with lies? That is what it sounds like and looks like the reason you brought up the verse.

grmorton said:
They are one and the same thing. When you argue against a scientist who tells you that he can see footprints on almost every level of the geologic column, then you are arguing against what we can see. When you then fail to draw the logical conclusion that this means that animals were walking around throughout the global flood, you argue against logic. And when you say you don't care what the scientist tell you,you are becoming self-delusional in avoiding looking at any thing that might contradict what you believe.

So you are now equating what we see with what scientists say?

I am not arguing that you dont see footprints, but rather you have made the wrong assumptions about the footprints, if are in contradiction with Gods Word.

It seems I fail at logic when what I believe, doesnt match with your beliefs. That really isnt logical.

Have you ever considered the assumptions of your timing might be off? That those animals werent walking while there was a global flood, but rather before or after it?

Yes, I know I am self-delusional when I dont agree with what you and other scientists tell us all.

SBG · May 6, 2005

grmorton said:
It isn't a lie if people believe it. It is an error. Why do you say 'lie' do you have evidence that they knew it was a fraud but stuck with it anyway? And, have you noticed that it was a scientist (not a YEC) who proved that the fossil was wrong?

Now this is interesting.

Have you read about what the scientist did? He himself said he lied about it. Not that he was wrong, but rather lied. I presented the links a while back, go read them, or Google it.

I noticed it was a scientist who found it to be wrong. But Morton, it took 30 YEARS! 30 years of NO ONE questioning or testing these observations that you say we must believe. 30 years where not one scientist checks anothers work. And if they did, they would have found it to be a lie and so kept it hidden for those 30 years.

grmorton said:
The above is NONRESPONSIVE to what I said. I said you want the scientist to compartmentalize what he believes. I said nothing about you telling him what to believe. Please pay attention to what is actually said, not what you want to be said.

Can I ask you if you know the difference between the word 'They' and the word 'You'???? Do you have a reading problem? I said 'they' I didn't say 'you'. Why do you personalize this? Please pay attention to what is actually said.

No, I want more honesty in science, more checks and balances. For a lie to have been believed for 30 years says there is something seriously wrong within the scientific community.

My apologies that I misunderstood that you were not speaking to me.

grmorton said:
Darn it, do you not understand the art of conversation? I say things, then you say things. It DOESN't mean that when I say something, you then ask me, 'where did I say that?'

You made the inference of me being like a Pharisee. Did you not?

grmorton said:
It is indirect contradiction to what you say God's word says. It is not in contradiction to what God's word says. There is a difference. Pay attention really closely because you need to know what I actually said here, not what you want me to say.

Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished His work He had been doing

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

Exodus 31:17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

grmorton said:
Because you don't seem like the research type. I draw this conclusion from the fact that several times you have said you don't do research on science. Therefore, since this area means something to you, I draw the rather logical conclusion that it is highly unlikely that you will do research before calling a repairman--an area that won't mean as much to you. And are you going to tell me that you do enough research to fix it yourself but then call a repairman to fix it for you? How gullible do you beleive we are?

That is quite a big assumption make about me. I guess you feel qualified enough to know me even though we have never met and have only had a few brief conversations on this forum.

Is it highly unlikely I would do any research before calling a repairman? Are you claiming you know what I do, even though you dont even know me?

As I have said, believe as you will, it is your choice. Those choices you make have consequences.

grmorton said:
I have seen enough of it here in the way you approach problems.

Is this how you approach science as well? You do an extremely limited amount of research and them come up with a conclusion?

grmorton said:
Then why don't you do research on issues of great theological importance? YOu keep claiming that you don't want to believe the scientist because you haven't done the research yourself. Well get off your bum and get busy.

Believing in evolution and a local flood are of great theological importance? I always thought believing the Word of God was of great importance. I must be wrong then. Sigh..

grmorton said:
And what of YECs who keep misinformation going for longer than that?

They are equally wrong. But you keep preaching that science is based on observations that we must trust. Then we find 30 year lies and you say we should trust this?

If a lie has been going on for 30 years within the scientific community it says one of two things:

Science has covered this up to keep evolution going.
Science does not check other scientists as often as it should. I mean come on this took 30 years!

grmorton said:
There is no context for eretz meaning planet earth. Eretz is translated land, country or soil about 90% of the time. The few times it is translated planet earth is when the YECs say that the entire earth was flooded. One could read that entire account and use the word country every time eretz appears in the Hebrew and you would have no context to say it didn't mean country.

In job, he says that the thunder can be heard under the whole heaven. But, in fact, thunder can only be heard from horizon to horizon. That phrase means basically from horizon to horizon.

Cra erets = land, whole earth, country, sheol, piece of ground, inhabitants of land, surface, land of the living, end of the earth, people of the land, land of Canaan.

Earth is the first meaning of the word. Erets can be understood by the usage or context because when it is used in phrases it can mean something different than land, country or earth. It can mean Canaan, it can mean the people of the land.

Your statement saying there is no context for erets, shows you dont know the Hebrew language very well. The Hebrew language is a simplistic, but rich language. Each word usually can have various different meanings, thus context because very important in understanding what meaning is meant.

Looking at the context of Genesis 6-8 we can understand what Moses meant by the usage of the word, erets.

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (KJV)

It is not said here about certain men but with mankind.

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Again, mankind in the earth, not in a specific country.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Why would God repent for making man, if only a few in a specific area were wicked?

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Destroy all flesh (basar). In a previous verse (6:8) Noah finds Grace from God, and thus will be spared with his immediate family. You cannot conclude that all flesh can be anything different than it being all flesh of man and animals. For that is the meaning of basar.

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

We see the covenant between God and Noah, his sons, sons wives, and Noahs wife.

Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Raining non-stop for 40 days and 40 nights is an incredible amount of water. It once rained for 5 days straight in Northern California, and parks were flooded by 7 feet of water, and the I-5 was closed due to 4 feet of water flooding it.

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

The mountains of Ararat are about 17,000 feet in height.

grmorton said:
If I have, where are the atheists who interpret the same evidence and believe in a 6000 year old earth and a global flood?

If one did, you do think anyone would pay attention to him/her and give them publication? It doesnt happen today.

grmorton said:
It is quite possible that the account in Gen 1:1 means "And God created the sky and the land. Sure we know that the land is planet earth, but the ancient Hebrews had little knowledge of a planet circling the sun called earth.

And what evidence do you have to support the Hebrews not knowing or understanding that they lived on a planet?

Genesis 1:1 can also mean: In the beginning God created the sky and Canann.

grmorton said:
Pure Bull dung. You clearly ignore what science says. YOu always avoid it.

And you avoid and ignore theology.

grmorton said:
So what you are saying is that there is no objective truth. Everyone is free to conclude whatever they want.

Is that what I said? Science says there is no objective truth, only observations. Science is always changing what it believes from time to time.

You are free to conclude whatever you wish about me. I wouldnt suggest the same approach concerning God and His Word.

grmorton said:
So, how old then is the earth?

I couldnt tell you. It could be older than 10,000 years or could be younger. No one knows for sure, there are only assumptions.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 7, 2005

SBG said:
Science says there is no objective truth, only observations.

The general starting point of science philosophy is that there is objective truth.

We can only be certain of observations, we can not be absolutely certain as to what the absolute truth is.

Observation:
"Using a 500 nm filter over the meter the experiement produced an average light intensity of 500 lux with a standard deviation of 20 lux."

Absolute truth:
"The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is true."

There is debate, sometimes a great deal of debate depending on which subdiscipline or theory you are talking about, as to the relationship between a model produced by science and objective truth.

The meaning of Quantum Mechanics in particular has been heavily debated, and though there is currently a clear consensus opinion on the issue, minority opinions still exist.

Most physicists consider electric fields to be real. There are other mathematical constructs within E&M that whose reality is debated.

grmorton · May 8, 2005

SBG said:
Now this is interesting.

Have you read about what the scientist did? He himself said he lied about it. Not that he was wrong, but rather lied. I presented the links a while back, go read them, or Google it.

Ok, you will have to provide me with those links again. I thought you were talking about something other than what you are. Now, Do some people lie? Where have you been alll your life? Do some scientists lie? Sure. It is shameful behavior. Do some YECS lie? Sure. It is shameful behavior. Eventually with science, though, such lies are found out. I know of a case where a big name YEC was set up by another believer in a global flood on some footprints that made some fame several years ago. When my friend told the that YEC that it was a gag, the big name YEC said that he didn't really care if it was a gag or not, he would use it to further the YEC cause.

Now, I ask you, who, in your opinion, should behave better, the scientist who does not believe in God, or the christian who does?

I noticed it was a scientist who found it to be wrong. But Morton, it took 30 YEARS! 30 years of NO ONE questioning or testing these observations that you say we must believe. 30 years where not one scientist checks anothers work. And if they did, they would have found it to be a lie and so kept it hidden for those 30 years.

Are you talking about Piltdown? I would ask you how many YECs check up on the abysmal work of other yecs? Give me a break. YEC hasn't changed in 200 years.

No, I want more honesty in science, more checks and balances. For a lie to have been believed for 30 years says there is something seriously wrong within the scientific community.

I want more checks and balances in YEC. Their work is abysmal, many of them are nutcases yet they get large hearings. What about Carl Baugh's work? Anyone check on his stuff and denounce it?

Here is my favorite sample.

"In a 1982 Reader's Digest publication, "The Mysteries of the Unexplained," it was related that a century ago, a very phenomenal thing occurred. If this record is correct, and having so many other anomalies, we certainly do not doubt this account (also, it was related in a verifiable publication), this means it is absolutely impossible for evolution to be the explanation of how life forms got here.

"The article refers to the last of the great pterodactyls, the flying dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. The record states that in France, some workmen, in the winter of 1856, while working on a partially completed railway tunnel between St. Dizey and the Nancy lines, came across something unusual. In the tunnel, they had broken and removed a huge boulder of Jurassic limestone, which precedes the Cretaceous by several million years. After they had broken the limestone, stumbling out of the tunnel towards them was a creature which fluttered its wings, croaked, and collapsed dead at their feet. this creature had a wingspan of ten feet, seven inches, with four legs joined by a membrane like a bat. What should have been feet were long talons. The mouth was arrayed with sharp teeth. The skin was black, leathery, oily, and thick. Local students of paleontology immediately identified this creature as being a pterodactyl." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of Creation, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 20

Will you denounce this utter rubbish and work to try to get this guy off the air? I doubt it seriously, cause you dont' really want truth.
Here is another favorite--Who checks up on the YECs on TBN?

"NASA has found that when a red filter is used in space, the stars appear in beautiful color. This is exciting because God put the stellar bodies in space for signs, for days, for months and for years. We understand that by observing the rotation of the earth in relation to the movement of the sun and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, we can tell times. But now we can percieve that with the enhancement of the light, those before the flood could by the configuration of the stars, tell time at any moment. They would not need a Rolex watch; they would have something far better." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of Creation, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 61-62

You made the inference of me being like a Pharisee. Did you not?

I said that what you said reminded me of what the pharisee said. "I am glad I am not like other men." If that doesn't apply to you, then ignore it. If it does, then pay attention.

Quoting bible verses which are not in response to what I said, is poor communication. Say something meaningful or I will start citing verses, John 1:5; 2 Thes 3:3 See how much fun this is?

That is quite a big assumption make about me. I guess you feel qualified enough to know me even though we have never met and have only had a few brief conversations on this forum.

Is it highly unlikely I would do any research before calling a repairman? Are you claiming you know what I do, even though you dont even know me?

As I said, I watch what you say and I watch your behavior here. You don't seem to be the research type. Maybe you give off the wrong signals.

As I have said, believe as you will, it is your choice. Those choices you make have consequences.

And your choice not to do research or listen to science will run kids away from Christiantity when they find out that you have no answers for their questions.

Is this how you approach science as well? You do an extremely limited amount of research and them come up with a conclusion?

I observe your behavior. It is really abysmal when it comes to dealing with observation. Hey if you want to be thought of differently, then act differently.

Believing in evolution and a local flood are of great theological importance? I always thought believing the Word of God was of great importance. I must be wrong then. Sigh..

So you are saying that whether or not God created the universe is of no significance or importance? That was what I was referring to, but hey, I guess you YECs HAVE changed and don't care any longer if God created the world.

They are equally wrong. But you keep preaching that science is based on observations that we must trust. Then we find 30 year lies and you say we should trust this?

Look, you can't take one bad thing and then extrapolate it infinitely to say that nothing science does is wrong. How would you like to extrapolate Jim and Tammy FAye? Or Sweiggert? Or the pastor who ran off with the Church secretary? Come on, if you live in glass houses, you shouldn't throw stones.

If a lie has been going on for 30 years within the scientific community it says one of two things:

Science has covered this up to keep evolution going.

Science does not check other scientists as often as it should. I mean come on this took 30 years!

If preachers keep stealing church funds and having affairs with various people I guess according to your logic, it means that Christianity has covered all this up to keep Christianity going or that Christians don't care about morality? See, everyone can play the game you play. It is meaningless.

Craerets = land, whole earth, country, sheol, piece of ground, inhabitants of land, surface, land of the living, end of the earth, people of the land, land of Canaan.

Earth is the first meaning of the word.

What is wrong with you? 'Land' is the first meaning of the word. Can't you observe anything right?

Erets can be understood by the usage or context because when it is used in phrases it can mean something different than land, country or earth. It can mean Canaan, it can mean the people of the land.

And you can't tell which meaning comes first in a list from a dictionary. Why should I believe what you say?

Your statement saying there is no context for erets, shows you dont know the Hebrew language very well. The Hebrew language is a simplistic, but rich language. Each word usually can have various different meanings, thus context because very important in understanding what meaning is meant.

I have passed my views past several people who are expert on Hebrew--including some Hebrew scholars who teach it in conservative seminaries. THey agree it is a valid reading of the text.

Looking at the context of Genesis 6-8 we can understand what Moses meant by the usage of the word, erets.

No you can't not unless you presume that the flood must be global.

The mountains of Ararat are about 17,000 feet in height.

Using english in your quotes, doesn't help build confidence that you know what you are talking about.

Secondly, Are you aware that the present Mt Ararat is a volcanic mountain and the lava found there was NOT deposited underwater? Do you know how I know? Because if you quench lava underwater, it creates pillow lava. There is none on Ararat. It is not the place where Noah landed. But then, you don't care because science taught me that.

If one did, you do think anyone would pay attention to him/her and give them publication? It doesnt happen today.

If there were good evidence for it, yes they would get published. You simply don't understand how science works. Would it be hard? Yes, but they would get published.

And what evidence do you have to support the Hebrews not knowing or understanding that they lived on a planet?

The fact that they had no developed astronomy.

Genesis 1:1 can also mean: In the beginning God created the sky and Canann.

Then you prove my point precisely. Thank you.

And you avoid and ignore theology.

No I don't. I have a whole page on my web site discussing the theological issues. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm

Please retract that false statement.

Is that what I said? Science says there is no objective truth, only observations. Science is always changing what it believes from time to time.

You really don't know science at all. You seem to say there are no observations only the Bible.

I couldnt tell you. It could be older than 10,000 years or could be younger. No one knows for sure, there are only assumptions.

Not so. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu which says in part:

Bottom of Lake Refines Carbon Dating Technique

By Kenneth Chang
ABCNEWS.com
Feb. 23 - Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu, a small body of water in Japan. When these one?cell algae die, they drift down, shrouding the lake floor with a thin, white layer.
The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings. That has allowed scientists to fine?tune a technique called carbon-14 dating, which is used to pin down dates for artifacts tens of thousands of years old. "http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/carbon0220.html [I don't know if this is still out there]

Anyway, I got the Science article to see what they were talking about. It is H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B. P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production," Science 279(1998):1187-1190 and the picture below comes from that paper.

Here is the line of logic which shows that C14 works.
1. We see the Lake bloom with algae every year, today.
2. we see the algae die and make a white layer on the lake bottom.
3. We have no reason to think that the white layers are formed in any other way.
4. we see one white layer per year.

With this, we can then count the white layers to get what year the white layer was deposited. There are 100,000 of them in the lake (which presents its own problem for YEC apart from carbon 14)

Since the white layer is organic, we can carbon date it to see the age. Below is the picture of the dating. Clearly, carbon 14 and the white layer count come out pretty closely. If anything, however, the C14 is giving a slightly younger age than the white layer actually is. Because of this, we can know that carbon 14 works. Any explanation from the silent young-earth creationists?

I want the young-earthers to know in their heart of hearts that they can't explain this data. And if they can't explain the data, it means that they can't have the correct model of the earth history. Any explanation from the silent young-earth creationists?

Fineous_Reese · May 8, 2005

SBG said:
Believing in evolution and a local flood are of great theological importance? I always thought believing the Word of God was of great importance. I must be wrong then. Sigh..

grmorton said:

So you are saying that whether or not God created the universe is of no significance or importance? That was what I was referring to, but hey, I guess you YECs HAVE changed and don't care any longer if God created the world.

Click to expand...

what's wrong with you? saying something isn't of great importance (especially in a comparison statement) isn't the same as saying as saying it's not important at all. can't you observe anything right?

please don't get upset about the phrasing, it's yours.

grmorton said:
There are 100,000 of them in the lake (which presents its own problem for YEC apart from carbon 14)

did some searching and found nothing more than about 45,000 layers (on a pro-evolution site) so would you mind giving a reference for the 100,000 layers (other than your own site)?

had more including bits from a day or so ago but i've been otherwise occupied, more later as time allows. happy mother's day to all mom's out there

Vance · May 9, 2005

I have no doubt whatsoever that a lie, or misrepresentation, within the secular scientific community is more likely to be spotted and condemned by the liar's peers than one in the YEC scientific community. The competition in science is intense, with most of those who are scrutinizing another's research hoping to find something wrong with it.

Within the YEC community (with rare exceptions in extremes like AiG's lambasting of a couple of their fellows), it seems they are inclined to accept whatever anyone says, as long as it is following the basic party line of a young earth and opposition to evolution. I think Glenn's experience when he DID try to critique his fellow YEC scientists' work is a perfect example.

grmorton · May 9, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
did some searching and found nothing more than about 45,000 layers (on a pro-evolution site) so would you mind giving a reference for the 100,000 layers (other than your own site)?

I am always amazed at how sloppy YEC research is. Why don't you actually go to the original article. You know, it is a scholarly thing to do--you know--actually read the original article.

In that article they date the top 45,000 layers. But because Carbon dating doesn't work past that time, they didn't keep dating the lower layers comimg up with each time ">45,000 years". They dated down to the layers where they got too old to date with c14. THere were lots and lots of layers beneath that lowest dated layer.

"here we present a high-resolution atmospheric radiocarbon
calibration from annually laminated sediments for the total range
of the radiocarbon dating method [<45,000 cal yr B. P.] The
sediments were taken from Lake Suigetsu (35o 35'N, 135o53'E) near
the coast of the Sea of japan. The lake is 10 km around the
perimeter and covers an area of 4.3 km2. It is a typical kettle-
type lake with a nearly constant depth at the center, ~34 m deep.
A 75-m-long continuous core and four short piston cores were
taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The
sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and
are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting
from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the
depositions are preserved int he clay as thin laminations or
varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is
relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and
0.61 mm/yeard during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core
is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the
beginning of the last interglacial period."~H. Kitagawa and J.
van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr
B. P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope
Production," Science 279(1998):1187-1190, p. 1187

Robert the Pilegrim · May 9, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
did some searching and found nothing more than about 45,000 layers (on a pro-evolution site) so would you mind giving a reference for the 100,000 layers (other than your own site)?

You could go down to the library and check out the copy of Science that the study was published in. Or you could go to Hugh Ross's site, he has a copy over there somewhere. Do a google on japan varves and in 15 minutes you should get at least 3 copies of the paper.

Your question has been answered, but I was curious to know what difference 100,000 vs. 45,000 makes with respect to a 10,000 year old Earth?

SBG · May 9, 2005

grmorton said:
Ok, you will have to provide me with those links again. I thought you were talking about something other than what you are.

This is an exert from nature.com, which was posted on August 25, 2004:

"It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull. However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics. . . . According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten. "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. . . . "

Also you can read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/22/wnean22.xml

grmorton said:
Now, Do some people lie? Where have you been alll your life? Do some scientists lie? Sure. It is shameful behavior. Do some YECS lie? Sure. It is shameful behavior. Eventually with science, though, such lies are found out. I know of a case where a big name YEC was set up by another believer in a global flood on some footprints that made some fame several years ago. When my friend told the that YEC that it was a gag, the big name YEC said that he didn't really care if it was a gag or not, he would use it to further the YEC cause.

Everyone has lied. But to keep something hidden for 30 years, where no one during that time checked his stuff is rather amazing.

grmorton said:
Now, I ask you, who, in your opinion, should behave better, the scientist who does not believe in God, or the christian who does?

A Christian ought to. Are you a Christian? Should you not be hurling insults at myself in every response and to others as well, or is that ok too?

grmorton said:
Are you talking about Piltdown? I would ask you how many YECs check up on the abysmal work of other yecs? Give me a break. YEC hasn't changed in 200 years.

Let us watch how you keep turning the tables to make accusations at many Christians. Above is one.

grmorton said:
I want more checks and balances in YEC. Their work is abysmal, many of them are nutcases yet they get large hearings. What about Carl Baugh's work? Anyone check on his stuff and denounce it?

Two.

grmorton said:
Here is my favorite sample.

"In a 1982 Reader's Digest publication, "The Mysteries of the Unexplained," it was related that a century ago, a very phenomenal thing occurred. If this record is correct, and having so many other anomalies, we certainly do not doubt this account (also, it was related in a verifiable publication), this means it is absolutely impossible for evolution to be the explanation of how life forms got here.

"The article refers to the last of the great pterodactyls, the flying dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. The record states that in France, some workmen, in the winter of 1856, while working on a partially completed railway tunnel between St. Dizey and the Nancy lines, came across something unusual. In the tunnel, they had broken and removed a huge boulder of Jurassic limestone, which precedes the Cretaceous by several million years. After they had broken the limestone, stumbling out of the tunnel towards them was a creature which fluttered its wings, croaked, and collapsed dead at their feet. this creature had a wingspan of ten feet, seven inches, with four legs joined by a membrane like a bat. What should have been feet were long talons. The mouth was arrayed with sharp teeth. The skin was black, leathery, oily, and thick. Local students of paleontology immediately identified this creature as being a pterodactyl." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of Creation, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 20

Will you denounce this utter rubbish and work to try to get this guy off the air? I doubt it seriously, cause you dont' really want truth.
Here is another favorite--Who checks up on the YECs on TBN?

"NASA has found that when a red filter is used in space, the stars appear in beautiful color. This is exciting because God put the stellar bodies in space for signs, for days, for months and for years. We understand that by observing the rotation of the earth in relation to the movement of the sun and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, we can tell times. But now we can percieve that with the enhancement of the light, those before the flood could by the configuration of the stars, tell time at any moment. They would not need a Rolex watch; they would have something far better." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of Creation, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 61-62

Three.

grmorton said:
I said that what you said reminded me of what the pharisee said. "I am glad I am not like other men." If that doesn't apply to you, then ignore it. If it does, then pay attention.

It appeared as if you wrote to apply to me.

grmorton said:
Quoting bible verses which are not in response to what I said, is poor communication. Say something meaningful or I will start citing verses, John 1:5; 2 Thes 3:3 See how much fun this is?

I like your choices of Scripture.

John 1:5
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

2 Thessalonians 3:3
"But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil."

grmorton said:
As I said, I watch what you say and I watch your behavior here. You don't seem to be the research type. Maybe you give off the wrong signals.

Maybe you misunderstand or read into what I say too much.

grmorton said:
And your choice not to do research or listen to science will run kids away from Christiantity when they find out that you have no answers for their questions.

My choice is to trust God. Jesus is the answer, period.

grmorton said:
I observe your behavior. It is really abysmal when it comes to dealing with observation. Hey if you want to be thought of differently, then act differently.

You observe little and assume much. Is this your same practice in science?

grmorton said:
So you are saying that whether or not God created the universe is of no significance or importance? That was what I was referring to, but hey, I guess you YECs HAVE changed and don't care any longer if God created the world.

Again, you misunderstand. That is not what I said, but I know you know this.

grmorton said:
Look, you can't take one bad thing and then extrapolate it infinitely to say that nothing science does is wrong. How would you like to extrapolate Jim and Tammy FAye? Or Sweiggert? Or the pastor who ran off with the Church secretary? Come on, if you live in glass houses, you shouldn't throw stones.

Four.

grmorton said:
If preachers keep stealing church funds and having affairs with various people I guess according to your logic, it means that Christianity has covered all this up to keep Christianity going or that Christians don't care about morality? See, everyone can play the game you play. It is meaningless.

Five.

grmorton said:
What is wrong with you? 'Land' is the first meaning of the word. Can't you observe anything right?

You yourself say on your website that 'erets is often translated as earth. Are you changing your stance to suit your debate?

You can find it here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

Your words there say the following:

"I am going to suggest that the Hebrew word "eretz" which is often translated "earth" might more sensibly be translated "land" through much of Genesis 2-11."

grmorton said:
And you can't tell which meaning comes first in a list from a dictionary. Why should I believe what you say?

Why should I believe you? You observe little and assume much; you change your beliefs to suit the environment. Why should I trust you?

grmorton said:
I have passed my views past several people who are expert on Hebrew--including some Hebrew scholars who teach it in conservative seminaries. THey agree it is a valid reading of the text.

You yourself say 'erets is often translated as earth.

grmorton said:
No you can't not unless you presume that the flood must be global.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here with the double negative.

Genesis 6-8 are not that hard to understand to see that the flood was indeed global. It is your world view that keeps you from doing so.

grmorton said:
Using english in your quotes, doesn't help build confidence that you know what you are talking about.

Secondly, Are you aware that the present Mt Ararat is a volcanic mountain and the lava found there was NOT deposited underwater? Do you know how I know? Because if you quench lava underwater, it creates pillow lava. There is none on Ararat. It is not the place where Noah landed. But then, you don't care because science taught me that.

Lava came after the flood?

grmorton said:
If there were good evidence for it, yes they would get published. You simply don't understand how science works. Would it be hard? Yes, but they would get published.

Really? Even non-Christians are having a very hard time getting published if they go against the mainstream of science. Most don't because they are going against mainstream science.

grmorton said:
The fact that they had no developed astronomy.

Really? Are you familiar with archaeology? Have you looked into the library found at Nineveh? Astronomy was one of many of the sciences that were recorded.

grmorton said:
Then you prove my point precisely. Thank you.

Oh. Was your point that God only created sky and the country Canaan?

grmorton said:
No I don't. I have a whole page on my web site discussing the theological issues. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm

Please retract that false statement.

I won't. Let's look at a statement you make in those writings of yours:

"Then compare that to Genesis 6:19-20 which says "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls AFTER THEIR KIND, and of cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

What is fascinating is that anti-evolutionary Christians say that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1 implies something about the reproductive capacities of animals and yet no one says that the same phrase used in a parallel fashion in Genesis 6 means something about the reproductive capacities. Thus internal Biblical evidence says that the phrase "after their kind" does not mean what the creationists say it does! The creationists have engaged in a tremendous misinterpretation of the Bible."

Now, above you make a very bold claim about Genesis 6:19-20. In fact you do exactly what the Bible says not to do, subtract from God's Word.

Genesis 6:19-20
"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

grmorton said:
You really don't know science at all. You seem to say there are no observations only the Bible.

After spending time on your website and seeing some of your misrepresentations of Scripture, you present yourself as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

grmorton · May 10, 2005

SBG said:
This is an exert from nature.com, which was posted on August 25, 2004:

"It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull. However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics. . . . According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten. "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. . . . "

Also you can read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/22/wnean22.xml

And you can read in anthro books that this was not such a spectacular 'find'.

"Omitting the Neandertals associated with the Chatelperronian, the Kent's
Cavern, Vogelherd, and Kelsterbach specimens are left as the only
modern human remains associated with radiometric dates ~32 ka
B.P., and the Hahnofersand frontal bone is the only one with an
older (~36 ka B. P.) apparent age. All are basically modern in
morphology, although Vogelherd and Hahnofersand have features that
may be reminiscent of Neandertals." Fred H. Smith,
Erik Trinkaus, Paul B. Pettitt, Ivor Karavanic, and Maja Paunovic,
"Direct Radiocarbon Dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina Late
Pleistocene Hominid Remains," Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 96(1999):2:12281-12286, p. 12284-12285

Hahofersand is 'basically' modern. It isn't a Neanderthal. This was before the 2004 date of the article you referenced. If you knew much about anthro you would have known this. Big deal. So a modern human is only 7500 years old. Big deal. Since many anthropologists (not all most certainly) think that there was some interbreeding the finding of a person with some neanderthal traits is not big news. It is only big news to guys like you who have an ax to grind about theology.

Everyone has lied. But to keep something hidden for 30 years, where no one during that time checked his stuff is rather amazing.

The article didn't say that he had kept it hidden for 30 years. it said he had a 30 year career. And further, I hate to inform you that this was never considered a major anthropological find.

A Christian ought to. Are you a Christian? Should you not be hurling insults at myself in every response and to others as well, or is that ok too?

I always love it when a YEC claims I am not a christian, or questions it. A christian is one who is saved through faith. But if one looks at the above two sentences, you are defining a christian as one who doesn't throw insults. Can you show me where that is to be found in the Bible? Are you one who believes that one must have good works to be a christian? Sounds like you are.

One of the things I had written was:

grmorton said:
I want more checks and balances in YEC. Their work is abysmal, many of them are nutcases yet they get large hearings. What about Carl Baugh's work? Anyone check on his stuff and denounce it?

to which you repiled:

Let us watch how you keep turning the tables to make accusations at many Christians. Above is one.

So you are saying that it is ok for Christians to do sloppy work? Where does it say that in the Bible? God loves a sloppy worker! What book chapter and verse, my friend?

It appeared as if you wrote to apply to me.

If it applies to you, too bad. You be the judge.

I like your choices of Scripture.

John 1:5
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

2 Thessalonians 3:3
"But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil."

I think YEC is evil, because it never deals with the truth. Anything which is not truth is not of God.

My choice is to trust God. Jesus is the answer, period.

NO, your choice is to trust what you THINK God is saying. Not what God actually says. You think you are an infallible interpretor of God's word. How did you come to believe that about yourself?

You yourself say on your website that 'erets is often translated as earth. Are you changing your stance to suit your debate?

I just believe a YEC here. HArry Rimmer says:

"This word appears in the Bible 2,282 times
It is translated 'land'..............1,356 times.
It is translated 'earth'...............686 times.
It is translated 'country'............140 times.
It is translated 'ground'...............96 times
It is translated 'world'..................4 times." ~ Harry Rimmer,
The Harmony of Science and Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Erdmanns, 1936) 22nd printing 1973, p. 242

This is what a YEC says about eretz. Don't you believe your fellow YECs?

Your words there say the following:

"I am going to suggest that the Hebrew word "eretz" which is often translated "earth" might more sensibly be translated "land" through much of Genesis 2-11."

I stand by those words. Earth, you know might also mean 'the good earth'--which is soil. Or as used in the phrase, The farmer took a handful of earth.

You seem to think that 'earth' can only mean planet earth. You are sadly mistaken.

Why should I believe you? You observe little and assume much; you change your beliefs to suit the environment. Why should I trust you?

Because you are wrong. I didn't change my beliefs to suit my environement and because you are behaving exactly as I observe you to behave.

You yourself say 'erets is often translated as earth.

The phrase 'The black earth is quite fertile' is an example of where 'earth' does not mean planet earth. Why do you think that planet earth is black?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here with the double negative.

Genesis 6-8 are not that hard to understand to see that the flood was indeed global. It is your world view that keeps you from doing so.

You can't come to the assumption of a global flood without previously assuming that there was a global flood. And it isn't my world view which prevents me from believing in a global flood. For most of my adult life I was a YEC who believed in a global flood, published articles defending a global flood in the Creation Research Society quarterly among others and CEN Ex Nihilo technical Journal. My world view preference was for YEC. Unfortunately the data didn't support my presupposition. So I changed. You are quite wrong about what my presuppositions were.

Lava came after the flood?

Ararat's lava is post flood. But there is much lava during the flood which could not have been extruded underwater because it doesn't form pillow lavas.

Really? Even non-Christians are having a very hard time getting published if they go against the mainstream of science. Most don't because they are going against mainstream science.

Do you not read well? I said that they would get published. Just because someone writes an article does't mean that it will be easy to get published. NO one is given a free pass, christian or non christian.

Really? Are you familiar with archaeology? Have you looked into the library found at Nineveh? Astronomy was one of many of the sciences that were recorded.

Well, lets see, I have about 500 books I have read on anthropology and archaeology. I have several thousand articles in files at home on anthro. I have written several articles on anthro/archaeology. And I have extracted about 16 megabytes of quotations from those sources, so I think I am fairly familiar with archaeology. I would be willing to bet I have read more on it than you and I could probably out quote you in an anthropological/archaeological quoting contest. So, before you challenge someone you should understand who your adversary is.

Now to respond to your statement which was totally non-responsive to the issue at hand. We were talking about the HEBREWS, not the Ninevites. How confused you are. The HEBREWS had no developed astronomy. I didn't say anything about the Ninevites. Please understand if you don't, that the Hebrews were not Ninevites and the Ninevites were not Hebrews. If you can't keep these two peoples straight what hope is there for you?

Oh. Was your point that God only created sky and the country Canaan?

No, my point was that the Bible could be translated that way. Can't you follow an argument for even one exchange without getting all sophistical?

I won't. Let's look at a statement you make in those writings of yours:

"Then compare that to Genesis 6:19-20 which says "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls AFTER THEIR KIND, and of cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

What is fascinating is that anti-evolutionary Christians say that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1 implies something about the reproductive capacities of animals and yet no one says that the same phrase used in a parallel fashion in Genesis 6 means something about the reproductive capacities. Thus internal Biblical evidence says that the phrase "after their kind" does not mean what the creationists say it does! The creationists have engaged in a tremendous misinterpretation of the Bible."

Now, above you make a very bold claim about Genesis 6:19-20. In fact you do exactly what the Bible says not to do, subtract from God's Word.

I am not subtracting, I am merely correcting the erroneous YEC interpretation. Oh, I forgot, you YECs are infallible interpretors of Scripture and anything you say Scripture says must simple be accepted because you say it. I forgot. How silly of me.

Genesis 6:19-20

Click to expand...

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

So you are saying that the phrase here 'after his kind' is saying that animals can't evolve? Come on. where does that come from. It is saying that he kept alive every creeping thing after his kind. That says nothing about the reproductive proclivities of those animals. You simply want to beleive this but it is not there, my friend.

After spending time on your website and seeing some of your misrepresentations of Scripture, you present yourself as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I get a real laugh out of this. If you can't win on the logic, call them a wolf in sheep's clothing. What cunning, what scholarship, what intelligence! If you start name calling you have lost. I believe in Jesus Christ crucified, dead, buried and resurrected on the 3rd day. He ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God the father almighty. Anyone who accepts him as Lord and Saviour is saved through FAITH, not through the work of being a YEC (as you seem to think). You add works to salvation and make the Bible say, "Believe on me and not in evolution, an old earth or anything scientific and thou shalt be saved." What a vicious and false addition to the gospel.

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

grmorton said:
I am always amazed at how sloppy YEC research is. Why don't you actually go to the original article. You know, it is a scholarly thing to do--you know--actually read the original article.

In that article they date the top 45,000 layers. But because Carbon dating doesn't work past that time, they didn't keep dating the lower layers comimg up with each time ">45,000 years". They dated down to the layers where they got too old to date with c14. THere were lots and lots of layers beneath that lowest dated layer.

"here we present a high-resolution atmospheric radiocarbon
calibration from annually laminated sediments for the total range
of the radiocarbon dating method [<45,000 cal yr B. P.] The
sediments were taken from Lake Suigetsu (35o 35'N, 135o53'E) near
the coast of the Sea of japan. The lake is 10 km around the
perimeter and covers an area of 4.3 km2. It is a typical kettle-
type lake with a nearly constant depth at the center, ~34 m deep.
A 75-m-long continuous core and four short piston cores were
taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The
sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and
are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting
from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the
depositions are preserved int he clay as thin laminations or
varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is
relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and
0.61 mm/yeard during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core
is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the
beginning of the last interglacial period."~H. Kitagawa and J.
van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr
B. P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope
Production," Science 279(1998):1187-1190, p. 1187

thanks for the reference but please keep the ad homs to yourself. speaking of research, anyone know who it was that said "slinging mud only gets you dirty and causes you to lose ground"? i've lost a bit of ground in this thread due to it and it's my intent to cease. if it continues from 'the other side' then i reckon that shows something.

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
You could go down to the library and check out the copy of Science that the study was published in. Or you could go to Hugh Ross's site, he has a copy over there somewhere. Do a google on japan varves and in 15 minutes you should get at least 3 copies of the paper.

i posted in the half hour i had available before heading off to church and spending time with my mom on mother's day so research was quick and dirty (no pun intended) i did find that carbon 14 dating is only good to about 50k years which grmorton verified.

Your question has been answered, but I was curious to know what difference 100,000 vs. 45,000 makes with respect to a 10,000 year old Earth?

i never said the earth is only 10,000 years old, not sure what you're trying to imply.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

grmorton said:
I am not subtracting, I am merely correcting the erroneous YEC interpretation. Oh, I forgot, you YECs are infallible interpretors of Scripture and anything you say Scripture says must simple be accepted because you say it. I forgot. How silly of me.

If you go back and read what you wrote you left the phrase "of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind" out of the middle of your quote of Gen 6:19-20.

I'm not sure how it impacts your point, but that was what he was referring to.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

SBG said:
Everyone has lied. But to keep something hidden for 30 years, where no one during that time checked his stuff is rather amazing.

It is not at all clear how many dates he falsified, or how long they were not discovered. The one I could find was done in 1980.

The guy was a con man, and at least moderately lucky. And who caught him? YECists? No. Other scientists.

grmorton said:
I would ask you how many YECs check up on the abysmal work of other yecs?

Let us watch how you keep turning the tables to make accusations at many Christians. Above is one.
[...]
Two.
[...]
Three.
[...]
Four.
[...]
Five.
[/QUOTE]
You are right, after you accused science of covering up he provided several instances in which YECists ignored errors and continuously perpetuated falsehoods by other YECists.

And you think this makes a point for you ... how?

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

Fineous wrote: if your foundation isn't true then all the data, true or not, that you pile on it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

rmwilliamsll wrote: what explicitly is this 'foundation' and where in Scripture do you see it?

Fineous wrote: Creation in Genesis

rmwilliamsII wrote:
are you saying that i can not get my car fixed by a Moslem?(/)

Fineous wrote: yep, case in point for starting off on the wrong foot and using logic to get to a wrong conclusion.
[]
i propose my point was misconstrued and a rabbit trail was followed

grmorton et al point out that the data do not support either a 6 day creation or a global flood.

You respond that data is worthless unless you have the correct foundation, i.e. a belief in creation in Genesis.

I and, AFAIK, all the rest of the posters here believe in creation. Some of us don't believe that Gen 1-11 are to be taken literally. We believe that because of the physical data.

You, or somebody, brought up Jesus referring to Adam and Eve. Do you know he wasn't referring to them as metaphor, using a known reference point? There are verses in the Bible I don't understand that have nothing to do with creationism. I simply don't understand what they mean. This doesn't bother me (much). I understand the basic message of salvation.

Belief in the salvation of Christ's sacrifice, repentance of sins, loving God and neighbor.

THAT is the required foundation.

When I dig down and find a rock it is a pretty fair bet that the dirt above it wasn't put down before the rock was. When I look across a frozen lake and see somebody in the middle walking toward me leaving foot prints on virgin snow, it is a pretty fair bet that the footprints extending before where I first saw him indicate the path he had taken before I first saw him.

An ancient Earth, the lack of a global flood, biodiversity through descent with modification from a common ancestor... the evidence for these really are just as solid and on some scale just about as simple as the evidence for the rock and the path of the walking person.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
i never said the earth is only 10,000 years old, not sure what you're trying to imply.

I'm trying to imply that I don't quite understand your point
Peace be with you,
Robert

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
Fineous wrote: if your foundation isn't true then all the data, true or not, that you pile on it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
rmwilliamsll wrote: what explicitly is this 'foundation' and where in Scripture do you see it?

Fineous wrote: Creation in Genesis

rmwilliamsII wrote:
are you saying that i can not get my car fixed by a Moslem?(/)

Fineous wrote: yep, case in point for starting off on the wrong foot and using logic to get to a wrong conclusion.
[]
i propose my point was misconstrued and a rabbit trail was followed
grmorton et al point out that the data do not support either a 6 day creation or a global flood.

You respond that data is worthless unless you have the correct foundation, i.e. a belief in creation in Genesis.

I and, AFAIK, all the rest of the posters here believe in creation. Some of us don't believe that Gen 1-11 are to be taken literally. We believe that because of the physical data.

You, or somebody, brought up Jesus referring to Adam and Eve. Do you know he wasn't referring to them as metaphor, using a known reference point? There are verses in the Bible I don't understand that have nothing to do with creationism. I simply don't understand what they mean. This doesn't bother me (much). I understand the basic message of salvation.

Belief in the salvation of Christ's sacrifice, repentance of sins, loving God and neighbor.

THAT is the required foundation.

When I dig down and find a rock it is a pretty fair bet that the dirt above it wasn't put down before the rock was. When I look across a frozen lake and see somebody in the middle walking toward me leaving foot prints on virgin snow, it is a pretty fair bet that the footprints extending before where I first saw him indicate the path he had taken before I first saw him.

An ancient Earth, the lack of a global flood, biodiversity through descent with modification from a common ancestor... the evidence for these really are just as solid and on some scale just about as simple as the evidence for the rock and the path of the walking person.

what do we know about this God in whom we rely on for Salvation? that He "creates" through violence, decay, disease and death and calls it "very good"? that's the foundation i'm worried about.

The Stumbling Block

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency