Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Exactly.. People blithly mentioning millions of years could easily be wrong by millions or even billions.. Or even wrong in an attempt to manufacture a tale by punching it back to cartoon limits of unprovable time.. Like; humans were (ultimately) bred in a muddy puddle(as a Virus) in a distant past until they "evolved".. You know like God is a mental construct and their tale/yarn/story is not a cartoon..
I would happier if liberals(scientists) could re-construct Joseph McCarthy's history and work correctly.. which is a mere 50 years ago.. or so.. He was indeed (as Ann COulter says) an American HERO.. Wonder how many "scientists" even know Joe McCathys evolution contribution correctly?..
If it's not there, then don't put one there by implication.
"Finally, Genesis says that God entered into rest on the seventh day. If we were to hold to the YEC theory that yom must mean a literal 24-hour day, it means that God's rest was only on that 7th day."
No it doesn't. It means that the *entered* into rest on the 7th Day. Where does Scripture say he *left* his rest? It doesn't. He's still there.
"I did both. Please look again at what I wrote -- you even mentioned my "evening, morning, n day" study in your first question!"
I saw what you wrote the first time. When you did a word study w/ 'evening, morning, n day' you had to add an 'implied' article to maintain your position. Your other lame attempt was at using Zech 14:7 as an example and merely showed that you misrepresent Scripture to preserve your belief since that verse clearly refers to a single day.
"Why did I do a word study on yom? Because it is the centerpiece of the YEC argument. If YECs admit that their interpretation of yom is incorrect, then the whole argument for YEC vanishes."
Uh no. You do a word study on 'yom' because a word-study using 'evening, morning, n day' doesn't fit your OEC belief. If OECs admit that their focus solely on 'yom' is incorrect, then the whole argument for OEC vanishes.
"The interior of the earth is heated by nuclear fission caused by nuclear decay. If the rate of decay is faster, you would have a hotter earth. For the adherents of YECs to be correct, the earth would have molten at best and blown apart at worst."
No, you didn't understand the difference between nuclear time and dynamic time. Nuclear time is c dependent. Atomic processes are c dependent. Dynamic processes are not c dependent. The same amount of nuclear energy per unit of dynamic time is released over a larger number of nuclear events. No meltdown.
"Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? 1. The body of science and observation point to an old earth. 2. The Bible does not claim that the earth is young. Why not just accept the simplest explanation, which also happens to agree with the Bible?"
Have you ever tried applying Occam's razor to Scripture, rather than multiplying the number of assumptions you insert into Scripture to get it to conform to the greater faith you place in man's word? Why not just accept the simplest Scriptural position and recognize that man's word is based on so many assumptions and interpretations that invoking Occam's razor is simply laughable. Doesn't fit with your faith in man?
"Lord, have mercy and give me patience."
Oh dear God, have mercy and give me patience with this poor, confused person.
"Setterfield's work has been thoroughly discredited in many, many places, including here. To accept Setterfield's theory, you again have to add on layers upon layers of "what if?" arguments."
You make the same mistake here that you make everywhere else. You rely on others to tell you what has been discredited and what has not. Look through your supposed refutations and then find the answer on Setterfield's site for yourself. You will find that the 'discrediting' is on the other side.
"Conveniently for Setterfield, he claims that light stopped slowing down in the 1960s. Even the Institute for Creation Research is dubious about Sutterfield's work."
Not his claim at all. His claim is that it appears to be oscillating. That's what you get for not reviewing Setterfield's site for yourself. And why should I believe everything the ICR puts out any more than I should believe everything that talk.origins put out?
"If one accepts a reasonable and consistent meaning for the word yom, one does not have to create a whole set of Rube Goldberg contraptions to explain the universe."
Actually, you already have a 'Rube Goldberg contraption' with the current model of the universe. What with 96% of it supposedly consisting of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that are, by definition, *invisible* who really has the 'Rube Goldberg' model? You do.
"No, it doesn't. Zechariah 14:7 refers back to the "Day of the Lord" in Zechariah 14:1."
Oh yes it does. And with a specific time of day, 'at evening'. Again you must obfuscate the clear meaning of Scripture to preserve your OEC belief.
"Research the many passages in the Bible that refer to the "Day of the Lord." Please do it yourself for your own benefit. I'm tired of doing Biblical research for people who claim to know that Bible better than I do."
Please do your own Biblical research with more clarity of thought for your own benefit. You currently approach every Scripture from the 'a priori' position of OEC. I too am tired of doing Biblical research for people who insist on placing the word of men on a more authoritative plane than the Word of God.
"You talk like this and wonder why reasonable people sometimes fight back?"
Since you obviously forgot, that statement was in response to your statement when you said, "Today, I have to convince my peers that not all Christians are anti-intellectual and anti-science. I have seen the damage done by YECs -- that's why I'm so passionate about battling it."
Clearly, I just repeated your own words and attitude back at you. Are you still a hypocrite like you were when you chided me for using the word 'ilk' when the post you responded to showed that I was only responding to a supposed 'intellectual' Christian who used it against me?
"You refuse to accept a reasonable interpretation of the Bible that completely agrees with both science and the rest of the Bible. To defend your belief, you have to insert increasingly complex layers of "what if?" claims that are without basis. "
That's always a lame tactic. Define your own position as the only 'reasonable' one and anyone who disagrees simply isn't being 'reasonable'. Never mind that you constantly redefine Scripture to try to make it conform to what man says in the face of mountains of assumptions and interpretations that man inserts into his 'theories'. You are the one who refuses to accept a 'reasonable' interpretation.
"Why not just accept a reasonable, Biblically-sound interpretation of the Hebrew word yom? That solves the whole problem."
Back to focusing on 'yom' again? As noted earlier, you do that because of your 'a priori' commitment to OEC and a desire to obfuscate Scripture as much as is necessary to reconcile it to man's word. It's a fool's wager to compromise Scripture to justify man's assumption-based, interpretation-filled word about the universe. I'm sorry that you choose to go down that path.
Sleep tight sweetheart. Maybe you'll think of an answer in the morning.
[[As for the “evidence” that has been posted, it’s very easily refuted.]]
You’re welcomed to you a priori opinion-
[[I am a science by training and profession. So is TXnMA. Do you think that it maybe, just might be possible that what we write has a little more credibility than the musings of someone without science training?]]
Not when it relies on assumptions that defy the science- but again- you’re welcome to your a priori beleif that defies the evidnece- let’s just not pretend it’s anythign else shall we?
Oh, if it’s an answer you want I can do that right now.
In every case I can find in the Bible bara’ means to bring something into existence that wasn’t there before.
‘asah meaning to make or fashion for a certain purpose, to place.
Gen. 2:3,4 uses both to explain not only bringing forth from non-existence but placing or making the created thing suitable or appoint it.
Gen. 1:17 uses the word nathan or set to describe the causing to serve a purpose, perform.
While the Hebrew words used have great latitude in their use the various words are not the same and it is the confusion of the meanings and English words that seems to be confusing to you.
Try to remember: create is not make or setting in function in Hebrew and attaching English misunderstanding to these words is the source of misunderstanding the Genesis account.
Any other questions?
Are you an unmitigated hypocrite?
No, I did not notice it until you pointed it out. I can't speak for TXnMA, but if you wonder why scientists in general get frustrated on these threads, my suggestion is to look back on this and other similar threads and see how people with real science backgrounds are treated. It isn't very well.
Here's a fun, but painfully authentic representation of how these threads run.
Note: I refer to You and Me in this example. I am not referring to either one of us in real life. In the example thread, both You and Me are composites of a lot of people.
============
You are a strong Christian and have been educated as a mathematician. You have multiple degrees in math, a long career in math, have written mathematical articles for publication, and have taught a couple of semester of math classes at a local junior college just for grins. You have been exposed to a lot of other science disciplines through your career as well.
Me is also a sincere Christian, but I know nothing about mathematics and have been taught by Pastor Bubba in Lower Podunk, Oklahoma, that zero does not exist.
============
Me: This article by Dr. Rusty Humps proves that zero does not exist. The Bible never mentions the number zero, which was invented by non-Christians. The Bible talks about plenty of other numbers, but not zero. Therefore, the number zero is atheist science and anybody who believes in zero is a boot-licker at the Temple of the Cult of Quickbooks.
You: Just because the Bible does not mention zero does not mean that zero does not exist. I use the number zero every day in my work. If you don't believe in the number zero, prove to me that it does not exist. Dr. Rusty Humps leaves out facts, manipulates facts, and completely fails to prove his point.
Me: LOL! You show your ignorance. Rusty Humps is a genius. And yet you call yourself a mathematician. Yeah, an atheist mathematician inspired by Satan. Here is proof that 1=2.
Zoobie: Zero is not in the Bible. Only atheists believe in zero.
Doobie: Yeah, real Christians don't believe in the number zero.
You: No, that's not a proof at all. It's incorrect because you are dividing by zero. You cannot divide by zero. 1 does not equal 2. That's nonsense.
I am a deeply committed Christian. You guys don't know what you're talking about.
Me: Zero does not exist! And 1 equals 2. You've tossed your lot in with Satan using your atheist mathematics. Why won't the scared little Albert Einstein debate with Dr. Rusty Humps?
You: That is not true. I am a strong, conserevative Christian. Quit posting things that are not true and that are easily proved false. Prove to me that zero does not exist. Why won't you do that? Dr. Rusty Humps says that he will only debate Einstein in front of an audience of 3-year olds. Einstein wants to debate Dr. Rusty Humps in a forum with other mathematicians but Humps refuses.
Me: Zero does not exist because the Bible does not mention the number zero. You don't believe in the word of God. You're not a real Christian -- you're just another bootlicker at the Temple of the Cult of Quickbooks trying to impress your atheist friends. Your little atheist Einstein is too scared to debate with a real mathematician.
You: Cut out the name calling and the lies. You and your ilk are posting things that are completely false.
The sad thing is that everything I said in my example is all too real. Now do you understand why people with a science education and career ultimately lose patience on these threads?
Look back at your post in 302. It shows that you don't particularly care much for real scientists.
I would love to hear your testimony. Go right ahead!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, it would be poor form to lecture Christ about what he "must" do according to the timeline you have!
And to be fair, not all pre-mill, pre-trib believers believe in YEC or think they have a special revelation of who the anti-Christ is. But I do believe that the system Darby created has many problems and its chief problem is that it actually distracts the church from Christ and points people in many needless directions. But I think preterism is an unsatisfactory answer. There are a lot of conservative Christians who follow amillennialism but don't go as far as preterism.
I have known a fair number of people who would call themselves pre-trib fundamentalists and they really do believe all or most tenants of YEC. Let's just say I would be shocked to find a believer in YEC who was also an amillennialist.
There are a few good critiques of millennialism. "The Apocalypse Code" by Hank Hanegraaff is pretty good, although about 20% of the book strays into side issues. Also, "A Case for Amillennialism" by Kim Riddlebarger gives a traditional Reformed view.
"The Orthodox Study Bible" came out last year and I have enjoyed that, although I am not a member of an Eastern church. They have helpful notes about the book of Revelation, etc. It is something I found very worthwhile.
==Vs 16 uses ‘asah’ in reference to sun, moon, etc and v 26 uses ‘asah’ in reference to man. V 27 uses ‘bara’ in reference to man.
I just looked up the Hebrew in verse 16, 26, and 27...And GourmetDan is quite correct. Asah is used to refer to the creation of man in 16 and 26, whereas bara is used in verse 27 to refer to the creation of man. This suggest that asah and bara are interchangeable, or that there are some aspects of man that were created, whereas other aspects were formed (or both). If the words are interchangeable, the explanation for their use may be as simple as using synonyms so as not to be repetitive re: word usage.
The same thing occurs in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4. In 1:1 God uses the word bara in reference to creating the heavens and the earth, whereas 2:4 uses asah to refer to the same. This definitely strengthens the idea that both words can be used interchangeably (although it doesn’t rule out that God was both creating and making within the same timeframe). There are a number of other verses that could be given, but I think the above is a sufficient case-in-point.
I assume you are referring to my use of the perfectly fine term, "ilk" from my ancestral Scottish.
"Ilk" has no negative or pejorative connotation whatsoever. It simply refers to membership in a group, family, class or clan. In fact, we Scots use it fondly when referring to a kinship-group. For example, I even refer to myself as "Macpherson -- of that ilk"... (I am descended from members of Clan Macpherson through three of my grandparent-lines. And, yes, I wear the kilt in Macpherson tartan with some degree of pride...) Note: Scots clanship is an allegiance to a common Chieftan -- not a genetic grouping...
Thesaurus: ilknoun
A class that is defined by the common attribute or attributes possessed by all its members: breed, cast, description, feather, kind, lot, manner, mold, nature, order, sort, species, stamp, stripe, type, variety. Informal persuasion. See group.
I don't recall exactly how I used "ilk" here, but I probably did so in reference to a shared belief system or persuasion.
So -- no foul, no harm intended...
And please do post your personal testimony, dear TXnMA! I would love to read it.
Truly, there is only ONE Great Commandment.
For God had to make the very "lifeless dust" — next after the very origin of space and time — out of which His Creation was made, according to His Will and Purpose.
Which is the Act which made science possible in the first place.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
God is not a hypothesis.
He lives. He has a Name. His Name is I AM.
And He knows everything. Every thing we think, say or do. He knows our motives - whether we are speaking because of our love for Him or for ourselves or someone or something else.
Jeepers, He knows us better than anyone. He knows us better than we know ourselves.
And He loves us anyway.
Amazing grace.
I concur.. Could a human life's express purpose is to prove "to US" what we are made of.. meaning what we are capable of, or not.. Testing our qualia, hopes, and dreams.. or lack of them.. for our own information and judgment... Not to prove anything to God..
And that "the TEST" is not a fleshly test but a spiritual one.. A spiritual test of spirits.. inverted into the flesh for a time of testing.. Pure genius this test.. Humans self-sorting themselves into sheep pens of every kind and shape.. (John ch 10).. Or even into goat or pig pens.. And the prodigal son story(metaphor) carries more impact than we can know.. with only implied other options than those stated.. The prodigal son had many other possible options than the one taken.. Lived out daily by many I've known and been acquainted with.. sometimes with trajic results..
Thanks for your kind words and your understanding.
My first degree (chemistry) is from a well-known Christian university. I saw fellow students who had come from homes and churches where YEC was emphasized. Once they came into contact with reality, some of them lost part or all of their faith.
I've had plenty of discussions on FR about YEC versus OEC and things never got heated. These last few threads have been different though. Some of the YECs seem to base their entire faith in YEC, and if YEC was shown to be untrue, then it would destroy their faith.
The creation story takes up less than 2 pages in my big Bible, and even a cursory reading shows that the emphasis is on the Who, not the how, or when.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.