Young earth creationist questions

[Brandonspapa]

Thank You for saying what needs to be said! I am a former YEC, who left the position once I learned that YEC science failed as a theoretical model across several areas of science to the point I could not ignore it, or lie to myself any longer. Right now I reside in the Old Earth camp. I agree with Ken Ham that there is indeed one creation and universe, yet Mr. Ham and other YEC's fail to account for why their science fails constantly when applied as a theoretical model in the real world and universe that our Creator brought forth, when the rubber meets the road of actual unbiased scientific research. I'm still very much a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I have not negotiated away one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith!

Science is man made with our limited understanding of the things of GOD. Just as "global warming" has now changed to "climate change," and even now denied by those scientists who brought it to the forefront of scientific deduction, so is the idea that the earth is billions of years old. YEC's don't need to account for, as you claim, their science failing constantly when applied as a theoretical model......when we have literal scripture in which GOD HIMSELF describes Creation. I choose to believe GOD over the failed theories of flawed human beings. We will fully know as we are fully known when we get to Heaven, as the Bible tells us. Let's look forward to that day instead of debating the age of the Earth, which only plays into the hands of those who would claim that the Bible is not accurate or is only in the minds of foolish men. Praise the Lord!!!

 

[mikedsjr]

Religion is religion; science is science.

So you place Religion into the category of a value preference and factually untestable. Which pretty much makes it a wall finish preference. So it is no wonder you reject Scripture as when it speaks of creation. You've split science into the truth category and Scripture to subjective category.

 

[56Bluesman]

There is a distinction between an old earth view and an evolutionary view.

Which one are you

I'm more than aware of the distinctions, and there are distinctions regarding those who believe in evolutionary principles to various degrees as well. I believe in microevolution, it' been pretty much proven, especially in genetic science as well as genome mapping, and has been accepted, even by many creationists, both young and old earthers, who still might hold to some principles of ID as well, as for macroevolution as a subject unto itself, I still have my own unsettled questions at the moment. So I guess that leaves me in the Old Earth camp. I hope that clears things up. I do however try to keep up on the debates and discussions that theistic evolutionists, and evolutionists who are also theists, and yes they make those distinctions, engage in.

 

[56Bluesman]

Science is man made with our limited understanding of the things of GOD. Just as "global warming" has now changed to "climate change," and even now denied by those scientists who brought it to the forefront of scientific deduction, so is the idea that the earth is billions of years old. YEC's don't need to account for, as you claim, their science failing constantly when applied as a theoretical model......when we have literal scripture in which GOD HIMSELF describes Creation. I choose to believe GOD over the failed theories of flawed human beings. We will fully know as we are fully known when we get to Heaven, as the Bible tells us. Let's look forward to that day instead of debating the age of the Earth, which only plays into the hands of those who would claim that the Bible is not accurate or is only in the minds of foolish men. Praise the Lord!!!

Sorry, I know the party line and dogma and false dichotomies already, as I was once a dogged and determined YEC myself. Also real science never claims to be infallible or knows everything. Yes YEC pundits and their scientists and their claims, do need to account and be held accountable when their claims fail when tested as theoretical models, just the same as any other scientific claims that fall short in the real world, or they aren't practicing proper science! Real science is self correcting when practiced properly, and that some positions once held dear in science get overturned by new and further discoveries, is how proper science works! As for my faith, once again I have not given up one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith. If you want to remain in the young earth creationist camp, that's fine with me, and I really do wish you well.

 

[mikedsjr]

56bluesman, I would at least agree Brandon has incorrectly defined science as man-made. Real science is the study of what God created to the extent man can comprehend God's actions within our physical means. Science can not test God's miraculous abilities. To classify any part of Scripture as a mythical story for a moral lesson will essentially turn Christianity into a preference at its core.

 

[Brandonspapa]

Everything that does not point to Jesus Christ is man made. I understand GOD created science, but not any science that calls into question the Word, Who states that He formed Creation in 6 days; and gave us the generations of man in order for us to determine the age of the Earth.

 

[56Bluesman]

56bluesman, I would at least agree Brandon has incorrectly defined science as man-made. Real science is the study of what God created to the extent man can comprehend God's actions within our physical means. Science can not test God's miraculous abilities. To classify any part of Scripture as a mythical story for a moral lesson will essentially turn Christianity into a preference at its core.

I kept my comments focused on science only. I made no comments about the scriptures as Biblical Studies and all that goes with it, is an entire field unto itself. The scriptures do indeed make use of allegory and symbolic language, as well as the poetic and it speaks in parables as well, and the very literal too. The Bible is a very rich collection of books indeed! The scholars and theologians and men of God well versed in the scriptures who know far better and are more learned than I, have often debated these very things amongst themselves. I do believe in God's word and the non-negotiable doctrines of the faith.

 

[56Bluesman]

Everything that does not point to Jesus Christ is man made. I understand GOD created science, but not any science that calls into question the Word, Who states that He formed Creation in 6 days; and gave us the generations of man in order for us to determine the age of the Earth.

You do realize that not all Biblical Scholars, including some very devout men of God, well before one Charles Darwin was even born, did not hold to a hyper literal interpretation of the Biblical days of creation. As for dating biblical history let alone history itself by the generations listed, many biblical scholars will tell you that the ancient Hebrews telescoped their genealogical lists to focus on the most important personages in the lineages they were writing about. Hence if there was for example a ' Hiram the digger of ditches ' who was thought to be not important as a person to the account of lineages they were writing about, they would not have mentioned poor old now forgotten Hiram or any other persons of non-interest in a genealogical account.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Everything that does not point to Jesus Christ is man made. I understand GOD created science, but not any science that calls into question the Word, Who states that He formed Creation in 6 days; and gave us the generations of man in order for us to determine the age of the Earth.

The Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, expressly teaches that the earth is flat, rather than spherical.

Gen. 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
10. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Gen. 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
12. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Moreover, only a flat earth has four corners:

Isa. 11:12. He will raise a signal for the nations,
and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.

Rev.7:1. After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on earth or sea or against any tree. (NRSV)

The literal four corners of the earth in the Bible gave rise to today’s popular expression.

Furthermore, Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the world from “a very high mountain.” This would have been impossible on a spherical earth:

Matt. 4:8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

Notice that Matthew states that the mountain was “very high,” realizing that for Jesus to see over all of the mountains in the region, the mountain that Jesus was on would have to be very high! Obviously, Matthew rejected proof from science that the earth was spherical, and was faithful to the word of God in the Old Testament which expressly teaches that the earth is flat and covered with a dome.

In Daniel 4:11, we read of a tree so tall that it could be seen from all over the flat earth,

11. The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

In Job 38:22-23 we read of the storehouses of the snow, and the storehouses of hail, which God has reserved “for the time of trouble,”

22. “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23. which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
for the day of battle and war?”

In these verses, God Himself is speaking to Job in the context of Hebrew cosmology:

My Flat Earth Firmament Drawings

Centuries before Christ, Greek scholars taught that the earth was a sphere, but first century Christians still believed in the ancient Hebrew cosmology of the Old Testament—and the New Testament reflects that point of view in Matt. 4:8 and Revelation 7:1. Unfortunately, Christians, with reinforcement from the New Testament, continued to believe that the earth was flat until the Middle Ages when they began to realize that in matters of science, science must be allowed to prevail. Today, over 99.99% of all Christians accept the proof from science that the earth is not flat, but spherical. Moreover, the very large majority of Christians today accept the proof from science that kangaroos did not hop from Australia to Noah’s Ark, and that penguins did not fly there from Antarctica!

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NRSV)

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Religion is religion; science is science. I am an advocate for teaching an academically defensible interpretation of the Scriptures that glorifies the Creator while manifesting to man his need for salvation from his sins through his personal faith in Christ Jesus. I am NOT an advocate of Theistic Evolution!

So you place Religion into the category of a value preference and factually untestable. Which pretty much makes it a wall finish preference. So it is no wonder you reject Scripture as when it speaks of creation. You've split science into the truth category and Scripture to subjective category.

I was originally educated as a scientist, and subsequently in biblical exegesis and translation theory. Science has a love for the natural, but a disregard for the supernatural. Religion has a love for the supernatural, and a tolerance for the natural. Christianity focuses on the spiritual while not taking her eyes off of the physical,

Luke 9:10. On their return the apostles told Jesus all they had done. He took them with him and withdrew privately to a city called Bethsaida.
11. When the crowds found out about it, they followed him; and he welcomed them, and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed to be cured. (NRSV)

When Genesis 1-11 is read with a focus on the physical, the message is blurred and distorted. When Genesis 1-11 is read with a focus on the spiritual while not taking one’s eyes off of the physical, the message is clear and understood as the word of God.

 

[P1LGR1M]

There is a distinction between an old earth view and an evolutionary view.


Which one are you

I'm more than aware of the distinctions, and there are distinctions regarding those who believe in evolutionary principles to various degrees as well.

But you don't really answer the question. Your statement lends itself to both the Evolutionary side and yet seeks to maintain an orthodox Christian view.

I would agree that a term such as microevolution could be used to describe an adaptive process that most life can perform, but you should understand that microevolution, in an Evolutionary view, is simply a part of the process of macroevolution, and according to Evolutionary adherents, the distinction between the two is primarily a Creationist argument.

In other words, both Creationists and Evolutionists would usually agree concerning microevolution.

However, when we look at the science involved, there is a lack of integrity on the parts of some Evolutionists. As I said initially, we can find error on both sides of the fence, but I have witnessed the same arguments denied when it caters to a Creationist view.

For example, in the argument that the Genesis Account is not literal because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, and could not survive on a vegetarian/herbivorous diet, I have had biologists deny that the eating patterns of animals could change so rapidly, that they would have died out.

Is that true? And should we appeal to biology to affirm what the Word of God states?

The fact is that no Evolutionary Biologist is going to give support to a Creationist view from their science. It would conflict with their belief system. And when a believer indulges in their "evidences," and is not for himself investigating those evidences, it is not surprising that believers end up embracing Evolution.

But, as I said before, you study the Word of God, God will direct you to ask the right questions, and lead you to avenues of research which help us understand the manipulation of data, whether it be on either side.

When's the last time you heard a Geologist talk about Turbidary Currents and how recent studies show that rapid formation of sedimentary layering can occur rapidly, while you were keeping up with the debates?

When's the last time you heard mention of cranial capacity in Neanderthal Man versus man's current cranial capacity, while you were keeping up with the debates?

The biggest question, though, is why would you think that a direct repudiation of Scripture...is an act of faith on the part of a Christian?

I believe in microevolution, it' been pretty much proven, especially in genetic science as well as genome mapping, and has been accepted, even by many creationists, both young and old earthers,

Which I have had Evolutionary Biologists (two of them on the last forum I was on)...deny.

It is impossible for a carnivore to survive on vegetables and herbs, and vice versa.

Science would not verify that. And the biggest reason is not having a precise understanding of the conditions of that time.

The conditions of the Fall present land animals (as well as man) as vegetarian, and after the Fall animals begin eating each other (and man began eating animals). In order to have an accurate understanding, we would need to know the nutritional value of plant-life. Today, different type of plants provide different nutritional value. Can we say that extinct plants did not have nutritional value that has been lost? That surviving plant-life has not decreased in nutritional value?

So a question to you is...can we have faith that when God's Word records God as saying man and land animals (and I make the distinction because there is no mention of marine life) will survive on plant-life, that those were in fact the conditions then?

who still might hold to some principles of ID as well,

This raises a big question mark, and makes your statement unclear, meaning, I am not sure you embrace Intelligent Design.

Do you?

as for macroevolution as a subject unto itself, I still have my own unsettled questions at the moment.

Well, I would guess, how you decide will be guided by first, what you want to believe, and secondly, by which avenue you take to settle this question.

Will it be Atheist Propaganda, which is produced by those hostile to the Word of God? Or will it be the Word of God and direction from the Lord?

As I said before, the Lord will direct us in answering the objections of those hostile to the Word of God, and I have found that the best way to address the assertions of Evolution is to examine the "evidences" they produce.

So I guess that leaves me in the Old Earth camp.

You sound a little unsure.

I hope that clears things up.

Not really.

I do however try to keep up on the debates and discussions that theistic evolutionists, and evolutionists who are also theists, and yes they make those distinctions, engage in.

My suggestion is to simply study the Word of God. Before trying to answer the objections of the Genesis Account, we need to first be familiar with the Account. Many of the arguments are contrived, and misdirect our attentions so that the focus leaves the Word of God and instead we get involved in debates that neither prove, nor disprove the Account.

Neither side is going to prove anything, and both sides can be seen to be in error at times. So if we make faith in a strong argument and evidences (both of which are products of men) the determiner of truth, then at the end of the day, it is not God, but men...we are trusting in.

But, if, in faith, we submit to God's Word, as I said before, God will show us the weaknesses of the arguments offered from both sides. Only one side acknowledges the need for faith, and one side is actually hostile to faith. We must first have faith, I believe, before God strengthens that faith as we grow.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Sorry, I know the party line and dogma and false dichotomies already, as I was once a dogged and determined YEC myself. Also real science never claims to be infallible or knows everything. Yes YEC pundits and their scientists and their claims, do need to account and be held accountable when their claims fail when tested as theoretical models, just the same as any other scientific claims that fall short in the real world, or they aren't practicing proper science! Real science is self correcting when practiced properly, and that some positions once held dear in science get overturned by new and further discoveries, is how proper science works! As for my faith, once again I have not given up one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith. If you want to remain in the young earth creationist camp, that's fine with me, and I really do wish you well.

You make it sound as though the Scientific Community is beyond question, and that Creationists are very deceitful.

Real science is self correcting when practiced properly, and that some positions once held dear in science get overturned by new and further discoveries, is how proper science works!

I would agree, but that is not how Evolutionary Science works.

Evolution has been touted as truth for many years, yet since it first became popular has always been a theory in search of justification. When Science makes it clear that the "truth" and "facts that have been taught are no longer tenable...they alter it in ways to give the appearance there was never any error.

One example would be the missing link. It was thought for years that a specimen would be found that would prove that man was once an ape. How scientists classify fossils is entirely up to them. I saw a recent article and chart where in seven years, the general consensus of the scientists involved in categorizing fossils changed the classification of certain fossils, once thought to be ape...to human.

That is some great evidence they have there. When that new categorization appears in books, the newer generation will never be told that prior to the new categorization, most scientists viewed these fossils as animals, not early human.

But I don't see you questioning the integrity of Evolutionary Science.

It is the "evidence" evolutionists offer that should be examined, and I think if we do this, some very obvious problems in their doctrine arise.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I kept my comments focused on science only.

That is not entirely accurate: you have been somewhat derisive towards YEC "scientists" and "Science" which extends to advocacy and support of, not old earth view, but Evolution itself.

There is a difference between Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Theology. One denies the Word of God, and one does not. It is just my view that Old Earth Theology is a compromise in response to the "science" Evolution has been producing for years. While I do not question the salvation of either of these groups, I can and do question their approach to Scripture.

And we have to wonder about those who say they believe in God when they call into question the very Word of God.

Theistic Evolution cannot be reconciled to the Word of God.

I made no comments about the scriptures as Biblical Studies and all that goes with it, is an entire field unto itself.

And that is what we usually see lacking in a lot of the forum debates.

The Word of God.

The scriptures do indeed make use of allegory

Show me allegory in Scripture.

and symbolic language,

This is true. We also see hyperbole, metaphor, and typology, but...how does this detract from the truths such literary elements convey?

Does Satan being described as a dragon deny the existence of Satan?

For many...it does.

Genesis does not say that "...the evening and the morning was kind of like a day," it says...


Genesis 1

King James Version (KJV)

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


We also read...


Exodus 20:10-12

King James Version (KJV)

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.


Here we see the days of Creation used as a parallel to the days of a week.

as well as the poetic and it speaks in parables as well,

And do we see truth conveyed in Psalms and parables? In parables...do they represent literal truth?

Trying to dismiss the intent of the Word of God, even when literary styles differ in delivery, is what the result of allegorizing and spiritualizing Scripture accomplishes. This is an ancient error that we can see in the doctrine of the Sadducees, who dismissed the Word of God as meaning what is states.

The Lord dealt with that:


Matthew 22:28-30

King James Version (KJV)

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


"There's no resurrection," the Sadducees taught, "you would have to be crazy to think Scripture meant that literally!"

But we identify the intent of the Word of God despite the literary style used, and to make part of a collective work literal and then abruptly change does not make much literary sense to begin with.

Furthermore we see the Lord affirm, not deny, the Genesis Account. He confirms the Flood as well as the Creation of Man. That is what Evolutionists fight against. Their real fight is against...


Genesis 1:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Undermine part of the Bible and they think they can undermine all of it. Liberal Theology and so-called theologians and scholars make Scripture a personal book which they can interpret as they see fit.

and the very literal too.

All of Scripture is literal. We recognize the use literary styles which have to be placed in proper context, but that is usually fairly easy to do. If it says "like" or "it was as..." then we recognize what is being described is being described in terms which are not meant to be an exact representation, but, we do not also then deny what is being described.

We can take literalism too far as well, but better to err on the side of caution than to throw out the Word of God, making it a literary work which one feels they can interpret how they choose, and that is okay, and if someone else interprets it another way, well, that's okay to. Rather, we try to bring out what is there, not impose what is not and neglect what is.

The Bible is a very rich collection of books indeed!

Why does it seem there is a "but" coming?

A basic principle is that God gave us His Word for the express purpose...that we know Him and His will for our lives.

Why would we think that He would not also give us understanding?

The scholars and theologians and men of God well versed in the scriptures who know far better and are more learned than I,

That is a bit of a defeatist attitude. Do you not know that God will open your understanding? Are we supposed to believe that only those who are "professional" can properly understand the Word of God?

I would suggest to you that many of the institutions of "higher learning" have for years produced a modern approach to the Word of God, and I hate to say it, when we look at the trend toward an intellectual focus, many that go into these institutions as Bible believers leave as Bible questioners.

I would just encourage you that, if you are diligent in study, God will help you to understand His Word as a whole. My usual advice is to get into the Books of the Bible, and get out of books about the Bible. That doesn't mean we can't utilize the ministries of men God has blessed and uses for the purpose of instruction, but those should be secondary sources in our studies.

have often debated these very things amongst themselves.

And both sides are going to sound credible...depending on the hearer. If one has a premise of acceptance of evolution, because they grew up confronted with the "evidences" of evolution, then Theistic Evolution is going to sound very credible. If one has grown up more fundamental, then a Creationist view will appeal.

But if we simply study what we know is genuine, then we are better prepared to address the issues that arise. Certain arguments which sound very credible will be found to be irrelevant.

I just do not think that either side is going to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that this is a testing ground for believers as they grow. While neither view precludes salvation, because we are not saved by information, I will say that those who take the Word of God on faith as being accurate stand in a far better light than those who are hostile to the Word of God.

If one denies God created man in his completed form...how can one believe God created the Heavens and the Earth to begin with?

Evolution does not support Creation at all, and actively seeks to undermine faith in the Word of God.

I do believe in God's word and the non-negotiable doctrines of the faith.

You say "non-negotiable doctrines of faith."

So list the negotiable doctrines of faith.

What part of the Word of God can we negotiate, my friend?


God bless.

 

[mikedsjr]

Princeton, when Gen 1-11 with an empiricism philosophical worldview, and the person is a Christian, the world's collide and empiricism wins out.

What I'm not saying is science is faulty. I am saying empiricism, which modern science is built on, turns Scripture into value judgments and Gen 1-11 is in turn ruled myth by empiricist Christians, which in turn puts into question inerrancy of Scripture. Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, 1 Tim, Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, John, Jude & Revelations must then be called into question as they speak of these events as real events. But even before this, Truth is called into question. Is the fear of the Lord truly the beginning of knowledge, or is the fear of empiricism?

 

[P1LGR1M]

You do realize that not all Biblical Scholars, including some very devout men of God, well before one Charles Darwin was even born, did not hold to a hyper literal interpretation of the Biblical days of creation.

This is true. The Sadducees, who also denied the Word of God, which Christ Himself verified in His quotation...are a good example.

They denied the supernatural...just like Evolutionists.

And where do we draw the line between literal and hyper-literal? Who decides?

I would suggest God's Word decides, not men.

As for dating biblical history let alone history itself by the generations listed, many biblical scholars will tell you that the ancient Hebrews telescoped their genealogical lists to focus on the most important personages in the lineages they were writing about.

I would agree that genealogies are not always said to be complete, but the overarching point made in Biblical genealogies is that they always, when they go back to the beginning, have a human father to start with.

Not an ape. Not an inferior man. But a man, a man that is said to be far superior to the specimen we have on exhibit today.

Creation is under a curse, mankind is degenerating. That is the Biblical pattern and it cannot be denied. Adam is seen as superior to man's state today both in regards to his physical state as well as his spiritual. He was in relationship with God, and because that relationship was lost, all mankind began the degenerative process.

We can be thankful for Medical Science and how it lengthens lifespan in an Age when man's self destructive habits, on a regular basis, purposely set the lifespan of man at less than zero. Meaning death before one is even born.

Hence if there was for example a ' Hiram the digger of ditches ' who was thought to be not important as a person to the account of lineages they were writing about, they would not have mentioned poor old now forgotten Hiram or any other persons of non-interest in a genealogical account.

So just how many "Hirams" do you suppose have been left out to support millions of years of "progressive" evolution?

The bottom line is...did God create Adam as a man...or a lower life form?


God bless.

 

[Hupomone10]

There are today about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists.

In 1517, I'm sure it could have been said that there was only one scholar who believed that justification with God came through faith and faith alone.

... Theologically liberal Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had little, if anything, to do with the process.

And theologically conservative Jewish and Christian scholars believe that He did. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone here?

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

 

[56Bluesman]

But you don't really answer the question. Your statement lends itself to both the Evolutionary side and yet seeks to maintain an orthodox Christian view.

I would agree that a term such as microevolution could be used to describe an adaptive process that most life can perform, but you should understand that microevolution, in an Evolutionary view, is simply a part of the process of macroevolution, and according to Evolutionary adherents, the distinction between the two is primarily a Creationist argument.

In other words, both Creationists and Evolutionists would usually agree concerning microevolution.

However, when we look at the science involved, there is a lack of integrity on the parts of some Evolutionists. As I said initially, we can find error on both sides of the fence, but I have witnessed the same arguments denied when it caters to a Creationist view.

For example, in the argument that the Genesis Account is not literal because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, and could not survive on a vegetarian/herbivorous diet, I have had biologists deny that the eating patterns of animals could change so rapidly, that they would have died out.

Is that true? And should we appeal to biology to affirm what the Word of God states?

The fact is that no Evolutionary Biologist is going to give support to a Creationist view from their science. It would conflict with their belief system. And when a believer indulges in their "evidences," and is not for himself investigating those evidences, it is not surprising that believers end up embracing Evolution.

But, as I said before, you study the Word of God, God will direct you to ask the right questions, and lead you to avenues of research which help us understand the manipulation of data, whether it be on either side.

When's the last time you heard a Geologist talk about Turbidary Currents and how recent studies show that rapid formation of sedimentary layering can occur rapidly, while you were keeping up with the debates?

When's the last time you heard mention of cranial capacity in Neanderthal Man versus man's current cranial capacity, while you were keeping up with the debates?

The biggest question, though, is why would you think that a direct repudiation of Scripture...is an act of faith on the part of a Christian?





Which I have had Evolutionary Biologists (two of them on the last forum I was on)...deny.

It is impossible for a carnivore to survive on vegetables and herbs, and vice versa.

Science would not verify that. And the biggest reason is not having a precise understanding of the conditions of that time.

The conditions of the Fall present land animals (as well as man) as vegetarian, and after the Fall animals begin eating each other (and man began eating animals). In order to have an accurate understanding, we would need to know the nutritional value of plant-life. Today, different type of plants provide different nutritional value. Can we say that extinct plants did not have nutritional value that has been lost? That surviving plant-life has not decreased in nutritional value?

So a question to you is...can we have faith that when God's Word records God as saying man and land animals (and I make the distinction because there is no mention of marine life) will survive on plant-life, that those were in fact the conditions then?




This raises a big question mark, and makes your statement unclear, meaning, I am not sure you embrace Intelligent Design.

Do you?




Well, I would guess, how you decide will be guided by first, what you want to believe, and secondly, by which avenue you take to settle this question.

Will it be Atheist Propaganda, which is produced by those hostile to the Word of God? Or will it be the Word of God and direction from the Lord?

As I said before, the Lord will direct us in answering the objections of those hostile to the Word of God, and I have found that the best way to address the assertions of Evolution is to examine the "evidences" they produce.




You sound a little unsure.




Not really.




My suggestion is to simply study the Word of God. Before trying to answer the objections of the Genesis Account, we need to first be familiar with the Account. Many of the arguments are contrived, and misdirect our attentions so that the focus leaves the Word of God and instead we get involved in debates that neither prove, nor disprove the Account.

Neither side is going to prove anything, and both sides can be seen to be in error at times. So if we make faith in a strong argument and evidences (both of which are products of men) the determiner of truth, then at the end of the day, it is not God, but men...we are trusting in.

But, if, in faith, we submit to God's Word, as I said before, God will show us the weaknesses of the arguments offered from both sides. Only one side acknowledges the need for faith, and one side is actually hostile to faith. We must first have faith, I believe, before God strengthens that faith as we grow.


God bless.

As I said, I'm an Old Earth Creationist who keeps abreast on the different viewpoints and debate and discussions that are going on. If I don't fit one of the neat little categorical boxes you seem to be fond of making for others, so be it. As I said, I know the YEC party line, the doctrines, the scriptural interpretations, etc, etc, as I was once a dogged YEC myself. I question evolutionists as much as I question YEC's and I question my fellow OEC's too! I do not believe that science is infallible or that it can know and answer everything. If you'd read my posts, I made that clear. Oh, I also still believe that the Bible is the Word of God, though I no longer hold to a young earth hyper literalist interpretation of the length of the Biblical days of creation, and neither did the men who wrote ' The Fundamentals ' as well as many other devoted men of God past as well as present. If you want to join Ken Ham in attacking your fellow believers in Christ who aren't holding to the YEC party line by calling them compromisers, etc, and even worse, I can't help that. I've stated my position clearly, and I have nothing more to say, other than I truly do wish you well.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, expressly teaches that the earth is flat, rather than spherical.

Sorry, no.

While a view of a flat earth may have been held in ancient times, your premise is false, in that the descriptions you use make no statement to a teaching of a flat earth.

Building on that false premise, your commentary may appeal to those who fall for such teaching, but those who do have already decided, and simply look for justification for what they want to believe.

Let's look at your teaching:

Gen. 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
10. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Maybe you could explain how raqiya` speaks to flat or spherical in Scripture? Could you show me one verse it is found in that implies the specific flatness you falsely impose on it?

Perhaps you can show how it's root, raqa` , does this? A verse where we could support your derision to what the Word of God states and for those you mock for believing the earth was flat?


What is found in the text is separation of the waters above and the waters below.

So we see a good example of what is found in the text is completely ignored, and what is not in the text is presented.

And "dome?"

KJV-firmament; NIV-vault; NASB, YLT, and ESV...expanse.

So tell me, did these guys also view domes as...flat?

Gen. 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
12. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

No-one denies figurative language.

Did these flat earthers also see literal windows in the sky? Is that what Moses would have been thinking when he wrote of these windows?

Let's look at what is in this passage: Noah is six hundred years old...is that allegorical? Is that figurative for "Noah was an old guy at this point"?

The fountains of the great deep burst forth; the windows of the heavens were opened; it rained for forty days and forty nights?

Given in terms which would be understood by the recipients of that day, we would not expect them to understand moisture content in the atmosphere. We would not expect them to have great knowledge of subterranean conditions.

But they, like we, can understand that the event describes tumultuous and radical change in the conditions that preceded them.

And again...nothing in there that teaches a flat earth.

Moreover, only a flat earth has four corners:

Isa. 11:12. He will raise a signal for the nations,
and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.

Rev.7:1. After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on earth or sea or against any tree. (NRSV)

So who is guilty of hyper-literalism?

But when it is used, falsely, to support the nonsense we read here...it is evident that your agenda is to ridicule both the Word of God as well as believers in the Word of God.

And this because you are an Evolutionist, which is rooted in doctrines of men who are openly hostile to God, His Word, and His people.

"Four corners" is simply figurative, not a precise and scientific declaration.

The literal four corners of the earth in the Bible gave rise to today’s popular expression.

So you say. What is more reasonable is to understand that people have always used figurative language. The question in view would be, is this the case in the Genesis Account. Keeping in mind that the Genesis Account is penned in a day which is not the time of the Account itself, we see terminology which would have been employed in Moses' day, not in Adam's, and not in Noah's (I mention these two because they are the focal point of the debate).

Furthermore, Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the world from “a very high mountain.” This would have been impossible on a spherical earth:

Matt. 4:8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

It would have been impossible for Satan to show Christ all the Kingdoms of the world?

Amillennials take the same approach when they interpret Revelation. Do you also think it was impossible for God to show John end-time events?

I notice you do not mention these following verses:


Job 22:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.


Proverbs 8:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:


Isaiah 40:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:





I have included links to Strong's Online Concordance and Biblegateway if you should care to see the usage of chuwg in Scripture.

I will also point out that again...we don't take the above verses and try to make a scientific declaration, because in view, in Scripture, is not what Scripture teaches about Science, but what is in view is what God intended for you, and me, to understand about God, Man, and the relationship between the two.

Your premise is false, which is a good indication your conclusion/s are not only to be questioned...but rejected.

Notice that Matthew states that the mountain was “very high,” realizing that for Jesus to see over all of the mountains in the region, the mountain that Jesus was on would have to be very high!

Okay, I get it...you do not believe the Word of God means what it says.

Obviously, Matthew rejected proof from science that the earth was spherical,

Obviously syllogism is a necessity for those hostile to understanding the Word of God.

and was faithful to the word of God in the Old Testament which expressly teaches that the earth is flat and covered with a dome.

Sorry, no.

So tell me, would you have concluded that the Word of God was teaching a flat earth if you had lived in Moses' day?

Here's another quote from the NRSV:


Matthew 19:3-5

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?


Do you see unions between apes as marriage?

In Daniel 4:11, we read of a tree so tall that it could be seen from all over the flat earth,

11. The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

What does the tree represent?

Again, figurative language describing a literal person. When is the last time you actually discussed the content and intent of this verse with someone? Have you ever?

In Job 38:22-23 we read of the storehouses of the snow, and the storehouses of hail, which God has reserved “for the time of trouble,”

22. “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23. which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
for the day of battle and war?”

And those storehouses will one day be opened:


Revelation 16:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.


Sure hope those "windows" are still functional...


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

In these verses, God Himself is speaking to Job in the context of Hebrew cosmology:

My Flat Earth Firmament Drawings

Centuries before Christ, Greek scholars taught that the earth was a sphere, but first century Christians still believed in the ancient Hebrew cosmology of the Old Testament—and the New Testament reflects that point of view in Matt. 4:8 and Revelation 7:1.

Imagine that...people who did not view the earth as flat.


Matthew 4:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


Did Angels minister to Christ after this event? Or is that more error in Scripture?


Revelation 7:1

King James Version (KJV)

7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.


So do Angels have power over the winds? That they can restrain it?

Consider...


Ezekiel 7

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord God unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.


...is God and His Word teaching that Israel is a square here?

If we use your method of reasoning that is the conclusion we must draw...

...right?

Unfortunately, Christians, with reinforcement from the New Testament, continued to believe that the earth was flat until the Middle Ages when they began to realize that in matters of science, science must be allowed to prevail.

In this statement you clarify your agenda, which separates you from Christians and seeks to glorify Science.

You may convince some with twaddle of this sort, but you are not going to undermine the faith of those who have invested time in the content and intent of the Word of God, rather than spending their time mastering arguments of contradiction.

I would only advise and exhort the same thing I have said from the beginning (of the debate, not the world)...read your Bible. Learn faith which is from God and strengthened by God and His Word.

Today, over 99.99% of all Christians accept the proof from science that the earth is not flat, but spherical.

So what percentage of atheists accept the supernatural? Even when Science will readily admit, when it is honest and not seeking to further an agenda...that is likely there is a plane of existence we have not identified yet?

We don't view what we do not know as evidence, but speculation. Christians, based on the Word of God, acknowledge that there is a Realm which mankind cannot put under a microscope, and cannot peer into with a telescope.

And just because Science cannot reach into that realm and study it...doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So what do you accept concerning the supernatural elements of Scripture? God can create the Earth but not in six days as it is written? God can create the universe but not destroy it in a flood?

The "dome" God created in that day...can Science speak to this in scientific terms? Can there be moisture in the atmosphere? Could it be of such significance that if it fell upon the earth the results would be devastating?

I have seen the effects of 20 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. Devastating. I can't imagine forty days of that. I can't imagine, at the same time, massive geological disruption.

So exactly what in Scripture do you see as meaning what it states? And who made you the determiner of what it states?

Moreover, the very large majority of Christians today accept the proof from science that kangaroos did not hop from Australia to Noah’s Ark,

What proof?

Let me ask you something: is there a possibility that mutation is why we have some of the odd creatures we have today? Is there scientific evidence for events which might have brought about migration, mutation, and adaptation to new conditions?

Just how knowledgeable are we about ancient conditions?

What exactly were those conditions? I can think of a couple of things that would be necessary in understanding the progression of life, plant nutrition for one, but how about the actual abilities of animals in ancient times? Has marine life been constant throughout the Ages or was the ability of marine life to survive in differing conditions something that might have been lost? For example, the shark can survive in both fresh and saltwater, yet many will die if displaced. Can we identify, from the fossil record, osmoregulatory habits of ancient marine life.

What we don't know should be enough to keep both sides honest. And what we think we know has to often be taken with the grain of salt of ignorance.

But, what we can say that Scripture teaches, which is denied by no-one...is that we are called to faith.

Do you really feel you qualify as one who has faith in the Word of God? Do you really think what you say in this post evidences faith in God's Word? Or, as it appears to at least me...an attempt to undermine faith in Scripture by openly saying it is in error.

I just have to question how one can honestly say they embrace part of Scripture when they are openly hostile to other parts.

and that penguins did not fly there from Antarctica!

How do you know that penguins even existed in their current form then?

And this is what is humorous. Is it not reasonable that migration and adaptation occurred...after the Flood? The premise is that penguins have always existed. We don't know that. I personally doubt it. I view there was likely a common stock that most animals came from, and that variants appeared as time progressed. That this could occur in a shorter time frame would seem very evident, and I would give new dog breeds as an example.

Can we dogmatically (no pun intended) determine breeding habits of animals? Are they capable of what they may have been capable of before? Do they have the strengths they had before?

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NRSV)

Sorry to sound so antagonistic, but your teaching is, in my view, contrary to a Biblical Worldview. It is more of a Secular Humanistic view which does not differ greatly from the doctrine of atheists. You are openly declaring error in Scripture and presenting your teaching as superior, and this is just a common trait of Secular Humanism, and it is far more heinous when someone tries to associate such views with a Christian view.

If Christ believed that God created man male and female for the purpose of partnership and procreation, and believed that there was a flood that destroyed everyone apart from a few, then that is good enough for me and many.

You can ridicule a traditional view, but do me a favor...don't fabricate untruths and then use those as a premise for your own teachings. Scripture does not, as you have said in this post...teach a flat earth. If you would take your mind and heart off of defending Evolution long enough to read your Bible, perhaps what is taught might impact your heart, and you might begin to understand Scripture outside of a secular worldview.

We are called out to be separate from this world...not join ranks with it.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

As I said, I'm an Old Earth Creationist who keeps abreast on the different viewpoints and debate and discussions that are going on. If I don't fit one of the neat little categorical boxes you seem to be fond of making for others, so be it.

I'm not the one placing someone in a box, as we are all placed in a "box" when we express our views.

That I point something out in your expression of faith does not make the determination, and if you have found something I have said to be untrue, then I would be happy to examine it with you.

The "boxes" in view in this discussion are really simple: the box with those that view the Word of God to mean what is written, and the box with those that do not.

We are not discussing whether YEC or OEC is correct, both can be seen to still embrace the Creation account. It is a dispute between Creationists and Evolutionists.

And you still do not make a declarative statement as to which you are.

Why is that?

As I said, I know the YEC party line, the doctrines, the scriptural interpretations, etc, etc, as I was once a dogged YEC myself.

This means about as much as the atheist that says "I was once a Christian so I know all about the Bible."

Again...I don't have a problem with OEC. Some great men of God with worthy ministries were OEC, and again, I believe this was a response to Evolution as it arose in popularity, and think that the basis has in large part an imposition into Scripture that I do not think justified, but...maybe I am wrong.

But when it comes to Evolution...this I reject outright. I do not see it reconcilable to the Genesis Account.

I question evolutionists as much as I question YEC's and I question my fellow OEC's too!

And when you commend someone that is deceitfully hostile to Scripture I have to question your ability to discern such hostility.

You said...

Thank You for saying what needs to be said! I am a former YEC, who left the position once I learned that YEC science failed as a theoretical model across several areas of science to the point I could not ignore it, or lie to myself any longer. Right now I reside in the Old Earth camp.

So your belief was founded on YEC science?

I don't need YEC Science to know that God created the World. I need Scripture.

You weren't "questioning evolutionists and YECers," you were supporting an Evolutionist.

I do not believe that science is infallible or that it can know and answer everything. If you'd read my posts, I made that clear.

I think it is pretty obvious I read your posts.

Oh, I also still believe that the Bible is the Word of God, though I no longer hold to a young earth hyper literalist interpretation of the length of the Biblical days of creation,

Again, the question is...do you believe in Evolution?

Whatever your answer, at this point, you are going to reveal that you are not really sure of what you believe.

Your initial response was a support for Evolution...not an OEC view.

and neither did the men who wrote ' The Fundamentals '

Who exactly are you referring to?

as well as many other devoted men of God past as well as present.

Great. Another 3 million agreements and it must be truth argument.

If you want to join Ken Ham in attacking your fellow believers in Christ who aren't holding to the YEC party line by calling them compromisers, etc, and even worse, I can't help that.

First, I do not appeal to creationist apologetic sites to discuss the Word of God. I appeal to the Scriptures themselves, as well as examine the "proofs" and "evidences" that atheists and liberal theologians offer.

And secondly, if you feel you have been attacked by being asked to clarify your position...you might consider whether or not your position has solid footing.

Third, I do not assume that those who subscribe to Evolution are my fellow believers, because, as this discussion shows...we do not believe, at all, the same things.

I've stated my position clearly, and I have nothing more to say, other than I truly do wish you well.

Appreciated, of course, and I will make this my last post to you as well. It is not my intention to upset or sound offensive, simply to get you to examine what you are saying in public. I see you supporting an Evolutionist who has several times denied Scripture, pointing out "error," and presenting false premise to draw convenient conclusions which will to those predisposed to Evolution sound reasonable.

You can be old earth without supporting the doctrines of men which are hostile to God.

All I asked was clarification as to whether you were an Evolutionist yourself, and to be honest...I am still left guessing.


God bless.