Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[AV1611VET]

Of course, and in a hundred years, your successors will see all sorts of amazing stuff in the Bible that nobody ever noticed there until it was invented by scientists in real life.

That's right - (unless God's timetable intervents) --- why do you think the Bible is called "quick" (alive)?

For the word of God is quick...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Why not state, in your own words, why you think this is convincing, specifically? Because personally, I find it an attempt to wrap up the inconsistencies seen here in nebulous language so that it no longer seems contradictory just because the meaning is no longer clear.

Uhhyyyeeaaaahh-OK.

Sorry to introduce scholarship and study to cloud the issue of denigrating Christians with silly questions about Genesis.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That's right - (unless God's timetable intervents) --- why do you think the Bible is called "quick" (alive)?

Way to miss my point.

 

[Chalnoth]

Uhhyyyeeaaaahh-OK.

Sorry to introduce scholarship and study to cloud the issue of denigrating Christians with silly questions about Genesis.

Except you didn't do that. You posted a link to a well-known apologetics website without adding anything to the discussion. I'm asking you to engage, not simply quote and walk away. This isn't called a discussion forum for nothing.

You see, I don't think there is anything of use in that article. I think it sounded all scholarly and important to you, even though you couldn't exactly grasp what it meant. So I'm asking you to actually show that you are able to think and present in your own words what the argument for validity here is. Of course, I'm not expecting you to go over every little nuance and detail. This is a discussion forum, after all, and discussions work best if they focus on one single, specific issue at a time. I'm just asking you to post the primary reason you think the argument in that article is valid, and, in the context of this thread, what it means for the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

If you can't do that, then I don't know why you bothered to post in a discussion forum.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, and in a hundred years, your successors will see all sorts of amazing stuff in the Bible that nobody ever noticed there until it was invented by scientists in real life.

You got it.

So, don't ever say Gen 1 is wrong. It already starts to become right.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You got it.

So, don't ever say Gen 1 is wrong. It already starts to become right.

How so? Everything we've discovered in the last 100 years points farther and farther away from it.

 

[juvenissun]

You're reading something into the text that simply isn't there. First, these passages, if they aren't horribly wrong, are only correct in the most vague sense possible. Second, there is no indication whatsoever of special knowledge that they could not have deduced themselves.

OK, I see improvement. The criticism changed from wrong to vague. I accept that comment.

As one grades student's work, vague is a common word used to ask student to make more explanation. Because the instructor could not tell if the student's answer is a true understanding. However, the instructor will not say the answer is wrong, but to ask for more clarification.

This is what the nature of science said in the Bible, since science is not the intended purpose of the Book. However, instead of using the word "vague", which could still imply an error, I would use the word "incomplete" to describe the scientific description. Whatever has been spelled out in the Bible is part of the correct scientific description. It is precisely correct to a single word.

 

[Chalnoth]

OK, I see improvement. The criticism changed from wrong to vague. I accept that comment.

I haven't changed on this. I've tried to keep it clear that some statements are flat wrong, while others are just vague.

This is what the nature of science said in the Bible, since science is not the intended purpose of the Book. However, instead of using the word "vague", which could still imply an error, I would use the word "incomplete" to describe the scientific description. Whatever has been spelled out in the Bible is part of the correct scientific description. It is precisely correct to a single word.

No, these parts are vague. They aren't specific enough to actually deduce anything from. People read into them what they want to see, as you are doing.

Look, if the Bible was chock full of amazing scientific insight, even if it were vague, then people would have been using it for centuries to discover new things. Except this hasn't happened. In fact, quite the opposite: if believers do anything, they tend to block scientific progress. Sure, at times, people have engaged in scientific investigation through some theological motivation or another. But never have they actively pursued a scientific theory based on an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that turned out to increase our knowledge of the operation of the universe.

 

[juvenissun]

How so? Everything we've discovered in the last 100 years points farther and farther away from it.

No. They pointed closer and closer to it.

For example, Just 50 years ago, we did not know how is it possible to have water covered the mountain peaks. Now we know it is possible. Another one: we still think Mars may have some form of (animal) life. In a short future, we will know it does not. Like the Bible says: the earth is the only place in this universe where human exists.

 

[Chalnoth]

For example, Just 50 years ago, we did not know how is it possible to have water covered the mountain peaks. Now we know it is possible.

Wait, what? How is this possible? Unless you're talking about snow, there's just no way that water can cover a mountain peak.

Another one: we still think Mars may have some form of (animal) life. In a short future, we will know it does not.

No. We know that Mars has no form of animal life whatsoever. What it may have, however, is some form of microbial life. It seems unlikely, but it is at least possible.

Like the Bible says: the earth is the only place in this universe where human exists.

This is probably true, as evolution never happens the same way twice. But there is almost certainly life elsewhere. Probably even intelligent life, though other civilizations may be far away indeed.

I expect we'll have detected life outside of Earth within 30-40 years, though probably just microbial life. Sooner if we get incredibly lucky (e.g. Mars has microbial life in some regions).

 

[juvenissun]

I

haven't changed on this. I've tried to keep it clear that some statements are flat wrong, while others are just vague.

It is my turn: what is any of the description "flat wrong"?


L

ook, if the Bible was chock full of amazing scientific insight, even if it were vague, then people would have been using it for centuries to discover new things. Except this hasn't happened. In fact, quite the opposite: if believers do anything, they tend to block scientific progress. Sure, at times, people have engaged in scientific investigation through some theological motivation or another. But never have they actively pursued a scientific theory based on an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that turned out to increase our knowledge of the operation of the universe.

It is not used as it should have because 1) Most people (scientists) do not believe in Christian God. 2) Biblical science never becomes a source of science because it is not written for the purpose. 3) Scientific message in the Bible is only inspirational but not logical. The detail mechanism still needs to be worked out by scientific methods. 4) The appearance and the appealing of the evolution theory which is based on observation. And there are a few critical theological reasons that I don't think you will appreciate.

Practically, if I announced a research result which echoes a Bible verse, I would have no place to say it in the article. If it is a book, I may put it on the inner cover or before the index page. But all readers would think that is only a personal opinion.

That is the answer to your comment.

 

[juvenissun]

Wait, what? How is this possible? Unless you're talking about snow, there's just no way that water can cover a mountain peak.

Yes, it is true. It is a geological knowledge and you will not understand it in a short period of time.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes, it is true. It is a geological knowledge and you will not understand it in a short period of time.

Then try to explain it over a longer period of time.

 

[Chalnoth]

It is my turn: what is any of the description "flat wrong"?

I'm going to guess you meant to ask what part of the description is flat wrong. Well, since this is supposed to be about Genesis 1 & 2, why not go back to that? If there's one thing that Genesis 1 & 2 agree on, it's that God created humans and animals whole. This did not happen. We are a product of a long, gradual process of evolution. The statement that God created anything whole is flat wrong. That's just not how it happened, as we now know through a variety of sciences.

It is not used as it should have because 1) Most people (scientists) do not believe in Christian God. 2) Biblical science never becomes a source of science because it is not written for the purpose. 3) Scientific message in the Bible is only inspirational but not logical. The detail mechanism still needs to be worked out by scientific methods. 4) The appearance and the appealing of the evolution theory which is based on observation. And there are a few critical theological reasons that I don't think you will appreciate.

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand state that the Bible is a well spring of scientific truth, and through this we can know that the Bible is correct, while at the other hand claim that it's "not a science book" and can't be used to make new discoveries. If the Bible had any insight whatsoever into these things, it would have long been a superb tool in guiding us as to which ideas are more or less likely to be true. This just isn't the case. In fact, the best way of judging which directions of research are likely to be accurate is to look at past discoveries. The Bible is just meaningless in that context.

Now, if you want to step back from the statement that the Bible has within it insights into the nature of reality, then that's just fine with me. But I'm still left wondering why you think the Bible is accurate.

Practically, if I announced a research result which echoes a Bible verse, I would have no place to say it in the article.

I don't see why. You could always use it as a literary device. Just prepare to be laughed at if you take it seriously. One could take pretty much any work of fiction and find ways to make a discovery sound like it fits into some sentence or other. So it's absurd to actually take these vague associations seriously, but I bet there have been a number of scientific authors who have quoted Bible verses to make a literary point.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, it is true. It is a geological knowledge and you will not understand it in a short period of time.

Did you just make a pun? Or were you serious? Because I do actually know a bit of geology (and physics), enough to know that water covering a mountain top is simply impossible (unless you want to talk about a thin covering due to rain...but somehow I don't think that's what you're talking about).

Now, if you want to talk about how a current mountain might have been covered in the past by water, then that's all well and good, because current mountains weren't always mountains. We know of many sea deposits that now reside on mountain tops, not because those mountain tops were ever covered with water as mountain tops, but because they once were a sea bed instead of mountains.

 

[juvenissun]

Then try to explain it over a longer period of time.

You will not take it before the explanation is over.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you just make a pun? Or were you serious? Because I do actually know a bit of geology (and physics), enough to know that water covering a mountain top is simply impossible (unless you want to talk about a thin covering due to rain...but somehow I don't think that's what you're talking about).

Now, if you want to talk about how a current mountain might have been covered in the past by water, then that's all well and good, because current mountains weren't always mountains. We know of many sea deposits that now reside on mountain tops, not because those mountain tops were ever covered with water as mountain tops, but because they once were a sea bed instead of mountains.

It is not like what you think. Even what you said is true, it would not be a global ocean.

 

[Chalnoth]

It is not like what you think. Even what you said is true, it would not be a global ocean.

I didn't say it would be a global ocean. I know it wasn't, because the geological activity of the Earth prevents it.

The Himalayas are a good example here. They were shoved up when the Indian plate collided with the Asian plate. Before that collision, much of the rock that is currently at the tops of the Himalayas was at the bottom of the sea between the two plates. Since then some of that rock has been shoved up to make the tops of mountains.

Now how is it not like what I think, specifically? Because I think that either you are mistaken, and it is like I think, or you have no clue what I think.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, it is true. It is a geological knowledge and you will not understand it in a short period of time.

IOW, you're bluffing.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't say it would be a global ocean. I know it wasn't, because the geological activity of the Earth prevents it.

The Himalayas are a good example here. They were shoved up when the Indian plate collided with the Asian plate. Before that collision, much of the rock that is currently at the tops of the Himalayas was at the bottom of the sea between the two plates. Since then some of that rock has been shoved up to make the tops of mountains.

Now how is it not like what I think, specifically? Because I think that either you are mistaken, and it is like I think, or you have no clue what I think.

What you described is still happening today. A Global Flood only happened ONCE in the history of the earth. And it will not happen again. This is what the Bible says. It is also what modern geology says.