Ok, what am I missing here?


(Phil) #22

I am quite sure it is not satisfactory. Though I would say “go against what I can see and measure…”


(Tim) #23

I could be wrong, but free will does not necessarily mean original thought. I do not think that God had to create history. Where did that thought come from? Does history have anything to do with the act of creation? I think the biggest problem is trying to get an exact history, either through science or through the Biblical account.

The EC claim there was no Flood to get their historical evidence to work. The YEC group claim the Flood changed the dynamics. I do not think the claim, “there is no evidence of a Flood” is totally being honest. For one thing, floods are evidence of how we get fossil fuel to begin with.

To the literal fact that there is millions of years of history that need to be accounted for. As it stands the earth is no older than 4 billion+/- years old. So any dating done will be consistent if at creation the earth had that 4 billion age attribute. The current cosmology states the moon formed at a later date, but is also roughly the same age but was the result of a solar system event. This event would be history. From other ancient accounts it would indicate God did NOT create the arrangement of the earth and moon with this historic view. In fact the indication is that humans actually witnessed and lived through this event. In ANE text, the sun and moon were third and fourth generational phenomenon. So for a period of time in actual human history the sun and moon were not even prominent factors for those living on the earth. One point of History the Genesis account totally leaves out. The formation of the current state of the moon and earth and the spatial relationship both currently have with the sun. All Genesis says is that there are planetary objects created for the purpose of seasons, but not that such season were implemented at that point in history. Now even the Hebrews thought that there were 14 generations between Adam and Noah. I do not think that any one has recently taken into the account that at the time of the Flood, even the spatial relationship to the sun changed. This would seem to me a change in the actual measurement of time in regards to resolving the “history” the Bible seems to not account for.

We do have God claiming there would be a life expectancy change, which would not make sense unless there had been a Flood and a shift in the current lineup of planets. Another thing to take into account is the point that the current position does not bode well for the gigantic fossils found who seemed to have lived quite comfortably before the Flood. To me the miracle would be how could such a variety of life noted in the fossil record even exist if there was never a Flood and such a drastic change in the earth’s eco system. Now we would make the claim there have been many of these life changing events that the evidence proves and yet there seems to be a need to toss out the one that humans actually recorded.


(Mitchell W McKain) #24

Boy! You have that a little backwards. The objective evidence works just fine by itself. There was no earth-wide flood. It just didn’t happen. Thus the question is whether we throw the Bible in the garbage can or we realize that people at the time had nothing like our conception of the world as a planet. Why should “the world” mean anything more than the Tigris and Euphrates rivers?


(Phil) #26

Tim, I must say that I have no idea where your information is coming from, but it is so contrary to observed reality as I know it that I have difficulty understanding what you are talking about. While I doubt we will ever agree about any of this, would you please site the basis of your assertions, just to satisfy my curiosity?


(Quinn) #27

First of I wish to say that one can still be a faithful Christian while also still accepting evolution as a means that God made the universe. Many early church theologians and fathers took a non-literal view of Genesis while other did but not from the YEC point of view which is a mid-19th century creation.

So what about the creation account of Genesis 2 then? If you read and compare Genesis 1 and 2 you will see that we have two different creation accounts. One with the earth starting off as a watery chaos as typical in a lot of ANE creation stories and Gen. 2 with the a barren, dry and dead earth. I have asked YECers to answer me on this and so far they have not, which bums me cause I want to see what their response would be. Anyway, if you can respond to if we are to take the creation account in Genesis literally then which one? Gen. 1 or Gen. 2? Thanks


(Chris) #28

Real scholars understand that Genesis 1 (which really ends at 2:3) is the summary outline of creation, while Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of man and explains it in more detail. This recapitulation was typical for narratives of the Ancient Near East. As explained by Gleason Archer (1916–2004), Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois:

[The] technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance. [Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction , p. 118, 1964.]

Differences between Genesis 1 and 2?

OK you have now had a YEC answer you on this.


Evidence for a young earth
(Tim) #29

@jpm

By reading and re-reading several ANE accounts including the Enuma Elish and the Ugarit account.

@aarceng
I would like to clearify that before light there was no water. The abyss and deep are referring to space. Water is represented by the third part of the first triune god. God being nothingness, then earth, then water. But before there was earth and water the Word spoke into existence motion via the comand for there to be light. Without form and void means the earth had no form. It was not even round or flat. It was just matter without form. Water has form, so there was no water either.

@mitchellmckain

If you dig down under almost every land mass there is plenty of fossil fuel. It takes water to lift and move the land above these deposits. Can you prove that there are no fossil fuels under ground?


(Quinn) #30

Interesting, but the issue is that if this is a retailing then it seems a lot of stuff is out of order, why was the earth barren if plants were made before man and why does man come around and then animals, which is also out of order of Genesis 1:24-25? I should have been more specific when I said Gen. 2 as 1-3 are also a follow up of Gen.1 as you have said and it starts in 2:4. If this is a follow up then where in the timeline is this then? We seem in my opinion to be in a different environment were the earth has no vegetation before man while Genesis 1:11-12 in which it was the third day. Just minor details that i’m noticing that go in conflict with Gen 1 and Gen 2. Of course we can be as you said dealing with another narrative in the story but maybe in a different place that is barren and dead?


#32

And geologists using the standard age of the earth have no trouble finding fossil fuel.

Sorry but this doesn’t make sense. While water may be the method that is used to bury fossil fuel it doesn’t “lift” the land. That is plate tectonics.


(James McKay) #33

In fact, the ability of geologists to find fossil fuel is a pretty conclusive demonstration that old-earth dating methods are, in fact, accurate.

In summary: they need to determine how old the deposits are in order – and what temperature they’ve been at – to tell whether they will be able to get them out of the ground. Too young, or too cold, and the plant material won’t have decomposed yet. Too old, or too hot, and it will have baked away into oblivion.

I’m yet to see a satisfactory YEC response to that article.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #35

:warning: :warning: The following statement is sarcasm: :warning: :warning:
Thanks for clarifying what real scholars understand.

My post begins here:
I see that your post was taken from the CMI link at the bottom in its entirety which means it was their language they used. That certainly is one way to bolster confidence in your readers that they don’t have to worry about what other scholars say that contradict your reading because real scholars are all in agreement with the YEC interpretation.


(Mitchell W McKain) #36

Why would I want to do that? This is just more evidence of the very long age of the earth during which so many living creatures died in order to store all that energy from the sun in the form of fossil fuels. The fossil fuels by themselves make the earth at least 650 million years old.


(Mark Kellam) #38

Good afternoon. You seem to have veered off topic. The topic is Darwinian evolution and the Genesis account of creation and that they are not compatible when the biblical account is taken literally, and I did not say that none of the books or passages from the Bible are figurative or allegorical.


(Mark Kellam) #39

I am not understanding your reply, can you elaborate?


(Mark Kellam) #40

Thank you for the welcome. I agree. Semantics, ya gotta love that. If I may ask, how would the discussion differ from what it is now if the forum were a debate forum instead of a discussion forum? I see people posting their views on matters and people that do share those views and oppose them posting the reasons why they do not agree, so how would the dialog be different with the title change, and so are you as a moderator asking me to edit the post?


(Mark Kellam) #41

Nice to meet you. Mark here as well

Have you researched any of the molecular biologist and their reviews and papers published against the Darwinian theory, or in general considered checking into those scientist that oppose it even as a valid scientific theory? And I agree (if I have understood you correctly), reconcilliation of reality and the Christisn doctrine should be at the top of everyone’s list of priorities here.


(Mark Kellam) #42

Depends on your definition of the fixity of species. This is related to the definition of the word “kind”. Kind is an English word with an English definition.
kind1
/kīnd/
noun

  1. a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
    Kind and species are interchangeable, such as birds, lizards, cats, dogs, are different kinds of animals just like a car is a different kind of mode of transportation than a bicycle.

By point two I am pointing out that out of one of the latest (or fairly recent) discoveries of the 20th century (DNA) the intelligence behind the Genesis account obviously knew this information thousands of years before we did, and that this same source went further (as an evidence) to mention that not only were all things created “as-is” to reproduce after their own kinds (or within their species without change of species whatsoever and without exception) from a common material (which DNA verifies thousands of years later) that all living things will return (or revert back to) that same common material. In case you have not noticed every living thing from plant to animal IS the physical composite makeup of the forest floor…dirt, which is also mentioned AS THIS MATERIAL WE WERE CREATED FROM. Just a coincidence?


(Mark D.) #43

Thank you and nice to meet you as well. Honestly I’ve never seen any research, presented as discrediting the theory of evolution, which has seemed at all credible. Have you?


(Mark Kellam) #44

Lol, maybe this will help clerify my point.

When you observe ANYTHING AT ALL in the universe, point at it, then describe it (what it does, it has eyes, it swims, it flies) then make a positive truth statement from your observations that "this shows [me & ‘others’] <—(remember this)…

"this shows that “[this] is true”.

That is a positive truth claim.

When confronted by a different view and asked to justify your “claim” with evidence that supports the claim, and you again point to the same things and simply repeat the claim, “[this] shows [this] to be true”, you are not actually providing evidence that supports the claim, it is a simple repeat of the claim and nothing more. You can look at that like this.

[This] “shows” us that…

…"this is what has happened, is happening, and “is the case”. If I ask you, “how do you know that?”, and you repeat the same thing can you honestly say you have shown me how you know that to actually “be the case”?

So, that being said, produce ANY physical evidence for the assumption of natural selection and common descent that:

1- is not a repeat of the claim [“other life forms share common biological attributes and genetic traits with humans and therefore these and humans are descendant related”]

2- Is ACTUALLY observable

3- Does not require an excuse or explanation as to “why it is not actually observable” (such as “it takes billions and billions of years”) so as to invoke the necessity and employ of faith (or belief) in any way, and…

4- Does not ALSO support the biblical account of creation.

And last as a side note, I don’t really know where you get your information but the lack of a complete fossil record showing a Darwinian theory hierarchy of events is the single biggest blow against the theory. There is absolutely no complete fossil record of the common descent OF ANY SPECIES, and what could be considered as any ‘transitional fossil’ is simply adding another claim to your list of claims the theory makes. Just so you know (or in case you are unaware of this) there are a growing number of molecular biologist that are stating that Darwinian evolution is not even a valid scientific theory.


(Mark Kellam) #45

Because?

“No that is only dangerous to your chosen way of life and thinking, because if you open your eyes, ears, and mind, well gosh, you might have to admit that you were wrong…It enables people to believe what other people tell them ignoring all the evidence to the contrary”

First of all the arrogance and irony in your response are rivaling for the top spot in your show. Second, if you actually have evidence for Darwinian evolution feel free to post that at any time, just make sure it:

1- is not a repeat of the claim [“other life forms share common biological attributes and genetic traits with humans and therefore these and humans are descendant related”]

2- Is ACTUALLY observable

3- Does not require an excuse or explanation as to “why it is not actually observable” (such as “it takes billions and billions of years”) so as to invoke the necessity and employ of faith (or belief) in any way, and…

4- Does not ALSO support the biblical account of creation.

“No, there is no such words in the Bible. Thus you are editing the text to fit what you choose to believe. You might want to closely examine why you think that you can get away with that?”

I really don’t have the time or desire to argue your personal interpretation of scripture, mine, or anyone’s.

“What I have noticed is that the human genome still has the DNA for tails…”

This and the rest of that statement is nothing more than a repeat of your claim. Repeating it over and over does not make it true.

“What I refuse to ignore as you apparently choose to ignore is that over the last 4.5 billion years for which we have fossilized evidence…”

More claims and a repeat of the claim “this shows this to be true. Guess what? I don’t believe you and your opinion has been noted. What is being ignored here is the FACT that the lack of a complete fossil record showing common descent of ANY species is the single biggest flaw in the theory and everyone seems to be aware of that but you. Any 'transitional” fossil you triumphantly point to is a compound and add-in claim to your already overgrown pile of unsubstantiated claims you’ve already made.

" they are living in a total fantasy world of their own self-deception."

It’s now official. Irony wins.

“The thing about the objective evidence”

Is that it is all subjectivly evaluated.

“No… they are not. 99.999% of what is observable right now is NOT mentioned in the Bible anywhere. And a few things mentioned in the Bible are not observable because they are now extinct.”

Your strawman means you have veered off topic.

“Oh and the literal treatment of the biblical account??? No that is certainly not observable:”

Not observable to who? Hint, you can’t speak for everyone.

And last, I don’t particuraly like your attitude. If it persist don’t be shocked if I just ignore anything else you have to say.