Id be interested in reading the references used by proponents of these doctrines…I can almost certainly guarantee that I will fault them biblically or explain them in a manner that is not at odds with our reality with the exception of “explaining the nature of an Almighty Triune God” to an atheist.
Of course, few literalists hold to many of these biblical statements, but rather pick and chose which ones they want to hold to and which they reject, knowing they look foolish if they hold to them. A problem arises when the positions they do hold too are seen by others as foolish as well, as is the YEC view of dinosaurs spreading over the earth and then dying out all in the last 5000 years.
1 Like
I don’t see any issue with the time period for dinosaurs to die out. It is plainly obvious from Andrew Snellings (and many others such as Kirt Wise, Stephen Myer, Dell Hacket etc etc) view of the layering of rock formations in the Grand Canyon and other places around the world, this is consistent with a flood/post flood model put forward by YEC movement. Its consistent with literal reading so i don’t see any problem with it…particularly as these guys are not reliant on Scientitists who insisted on following a model that starts with Stephen Hawkings scientific statement “there is no God”. How one can make a scientific claim of this nature illustrates why we should not follow his lead on this!
Going back to your last post…Three tiered universe is not a problematic theology…it really is a non issue for Seventh Day Adventist theologians and Scientists and other YEC based demoninations. In any case, my understanding is that this refers to secular vs Religious Cosmology and not Theistic Evolution…so i am not sure why you would even bring that up here as this is a religious forum?
Geocentrism is confused by most simply because they do not understand the concept of the earth being the centre of the universe in terms of the “Great Controversy” (to use an EG White book title) between God and Lucifer/Satan/Devil. It is the place where the entire plan of salvation is played out and the reason for this is because according to Christian scriptures dated at more than 2500 years old, this is the place where sin entered this world and since the Messiah can only die once (for all of the universe), he was incarnated on this planet to pay the price for sin. There is nothing more to it than that.
Whilst I am not one who has focuses on such things in the sacrificial system of the Israelites, I look at the Antitype application of the Sanctuary service and how it realtes to the entire theme of Salvation. i found an interesting article on the kidneys statement…i think this article probably refutes your view on this Hebrew Anatomy Part 2: The Kidneys - Torah Apologetics
I think the planting of seed by the male into the womb is plucking at straws…seemingly a nonChristian attempt to discredit ancient writings…writings of Old Testament from a language that has only a few thousand words (7,000) and lack the complexity of modern language…and this matters.
I do not have issue with stars falling from the sky…not sure where you are going with this? For example, The bible refers to the morning star (lucifer) falling from the sky…clearly this refers to a person and not an object.
Sitting on 3 pillars…what is your theological point here that is problematic? its very obviously a theological concept not for example literal brick pillars.
We could talk about the 4 winds of heaven and the 4 corners of the earth…surprised you left those out. Again, theological concepts. no problems here.
The issue is ancient biblical understanding as written being in conflict with what now know is factual knowledge, with geocentrism being the most well known example, but in this context a young earth falling into the same category for most of us. That conflict is what seems the issue for many.
1 Like
Tell me more about this “sinful breeding program” of dinosaurs by early mankind! It sounds fascinating.
1 Like
How can a flood or series of brief floods make this?
or this?
or this?
Faunal succession matching with radiometric dates, coherent temporal ranges of taxa across the globe, and partial induration of multiple layers are rather unlikely without large time spans.
2 Likes
as always, comprehension of statements requires context…you quoted out of context. I did not say i support this view or that AIG supports it. Neither of those two is true.
She didn’t say you did, speaking of comprehension. But it’s novel to me too, and was she was just expressing curiosity.
you are forgetting a simple fact… the false claim by secular scientists that a world wide flood cannot create/be responsible for sedimentary deposits of the nature described…oh hang on, did i just say sedimentary deposits? Sheesh how do they form…almost always in water isn’t it???
The fossilized burrows through the many layers of the cliffs of Dover belie YECism too, if I recall correctly, and might be simpler to understand?
how might one come to this conclusion?
And you are forgetting a simple fact: it’s not their sedimentary nature that is the problem.
Yes, floods can and do deposit sedimentary rock layers. But they don’t create burrows in them, and they don’t neatly stratify them into distinct layers, let alone not distinct layers with a clear progression of fossil types, and they certainly don’t create arbitrary correlations between the layers and their radiometrically measured ages.
You can’t just point to one high-level factoid and claim that it solves everything, Adam. Your explanation has to account for all the fine details, right down to the precise measurements, with at least as much accuracy and precision as the theory that you’re challenging.
And no, a requirement such as this is NOT “secular science.” Secularism has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s simply the standard that everyone has to meet when doing science, Christian and secularist alike.
The starting point for conventional science, leading as it does to a conclusion of billions of years of biological evolution, is NOT “there is no God.” It is, “you must have accurate and honest weights and measurements.”
5 Likes
AiG adheres closely to the Bishop Ussher chronology and literal week of creation. They are as hardline YEC as they come. Only flat-earthers are a significant group more anti-science.
The fossil record reflects segregated ecologic successions over a geological history of hundreds of millions of years. AiG rejects the fossil record.
You participated in this recent thread on Behemoth and Leviathan. They are clearly not dinosaurs. There are no multi-headed, fire breathing, dinosaurs.
Then what is the harm in kids learning science?
Waaaay off topic. Beware the off topic flag.
It is not consistent with the evidence. The flood model is not even consistent with itself.
Geocentrism is no more a theological and no less a physical description in the Old Testament than the creation or flood covering the Earth. The firmament, foundations and four corners of the Earth are part and parcel of this.
Was the recent flood covering Pakistan Noah’s flood? Was the flooding in western Canada Noah’s flood? Japan? Germany? There are floods all over the place, and nobody calls them Noah’s flood. Yet, the slightest evidence of water in geology, and YEC always pounces with “Noah’s flood”. Do you think there was never any regular flooding in the past? Anyways, sedimentary rock does not require flooding; just go to the beach and you will find water eroded sediment.
3 Likes
I never said that you support the view or that AiG supports. But I’d like to know more about the “sinful breeding program” of dinosaurs that you mentioned. Where do you get the idea of a sinful breeding program of dinosaurs?
One approach that has worked in my interactions with people that lean towards young earth creationism is to talk about the origins of the young earth creationist movement and how it is not the only Christian view over the course of Church history. I think once you convince them that six-day-young-earth creationism it is not “The Christian view,” but one among several orthodox Christian views, people are more willing to listen. They may not agree with you, but they will agree to respectfully disagree. It could then be argued that although YEC does not contradict special revelation it does contradict what we see from general revelation and is therefore not the best approach to take in interpreting Genesis. If YEC parents came to me asking about how to answer doubts that their child had due to learning about evolution, I would probably start with addressing the belief that young earth creationism is the only or main view of Genesis 1-11 throughout Church history.
2 Likes
I am stating that the deposits which I, and those whom I have personal contact with, have personally observed are incompatible with deposition during a global flood, because
-
They ocellate between terrestrial or freshwater and marine multiple times, each layer lasting long enough for animals to arrive, live, die, and have others live on or in their shells (>40 years each).
-
Extinction rates increase with age.
-
Species and genera have consistent and well-defined temporal and geographic ranges.
-
Sediment particle size varies unpredictably through a section.
-
They look exactly like (at a broad level) modern subfossil to recent deposits, i.e., recognizable ecosystems, depth ranges, habitats, etc.
4 Likes
don’t you mean extinction rates “decrease with age” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ele.13441
I think you may be confusing this with age and mortality?
The royal society states that…
“The main direct causes of extinction are loss and degradation of habitats due to human use of land and sea; overexploitation of wild populations; and the impacts on populations and ecological communities of invasive alien species, pollution, and climate change”
I do not see any conflict between this and the biblical model. God did not say the flood would be a natural process…it was purposeful and direct. The change in environment, climate, and human population interaction with them, in the aftermath of the flood, is consistent with the royal society definition. It is also consistent with the statement made in Daniel chapter 12.
What happens when kids find out that what Wise, Myer, and Hacket told them aren’t true? Is there some Christian theology that supports the teaching of falsities and misinformation?
How are kids going to react to someone telling them that in order to be a Christian they have to believe in things that are demonstrably false?
The problem is that it isn’t consistent with observable facts.
4 Likes
This is it, isn’t it?