Posted on 02/05/2009 5:00:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
It is not a trick and a lie to fool us into believing in a vast and ancient universe, one needn't fool with the laws of physics and create the light from dying stars that have not even existed within the last 100,000 years.
You are free to pursue your pagan heresy whereever it takes you.
Haven’t you caught on yet? I no longer read your replies (including the one I am responding to now). So you are arguing with yourself. You really should seek professional help about that.
Let’s see. Darwin’s fanciful creation myth his falling to pieces (to include his mythical “tree of life”), whereas Creation Science is getting stronger and stronger without any help from the entities that the Temple of Darwin relies on to keep its “theory” viable (read: government and the courts). LOL
Very nice. I’ve never doubted your faith or sincerity. If you wrote more things like this, you and I would be best friends. I’ve no doubt that we will be close friends in heaven.
Is that where this happened? [Isaiah 14:16-17] Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof.
No, I don't. I've wondered a bit but assumed it was pulled out of thin air, like so many other things.
Yes, Post 54 was very nice.
The KJV is not the Bible, it’s a translation of the Bible.
Bullsh#t. Pure and simple.
Believe what you will. Don’t dress it up as science.
You are correct and I have pointed out that fact on a number of YEC threads. I either get the online equivalent of a blank stare or someone tells me that other physical properties, like Planck's constant, the speed of light, and the mass of atomic particles, have also decayed proportionately. Thus E=mc^2 is not violated.
Despite the fact that I have degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering from major universities and a lifetime science career, I'm just too dumb and too much of an atheist for not buying into that reasoning.
In a miraculous coincidence, all those constants assumed steady state around 1960, which also happens to be about the time when our technology was advanced enough to perform extremely accurate and repeatable measurements. One YEC pointed out to me that, according to the latest work of the great scientist Barry Setterfield, the speed of light and other constants are now in an oscillating state. Unfortunately, experiments don't reflect this revolutionary new discovery.
I’m confused as to why this is confusing you. That question is being asked after Satan is finally defeated, or I should say when his defeat is manifested (he is presently defeated and earth has been redeemed from his hand, though the redemption has not been manifested). That passage is prophetically talking to Satan about his eventual imprisonment while calling to remembrance his fall from Heaven.
It is the Bible because it’s a translation of the Bible. I’m thankful for that. The other versions are not translations but interpretations. That’s why they’re only fit for the garbage can. I would take them to the range but people wouldn’t understand.
So sharks ate salads?
God's creation is perfect. However, you cannot logically leap from the fact that is perfect to the conclusion that there was no death or physical decay.
Read the creation account again. Eden was a special place, different from the rest of the earth.
You mean to say that the KJV is the translation with whose interpretations you agree.
You’re your own Pope, and you have canonised your own Scriptures, congratulations.
Actually, neither support the concept of a young earth. Here's a short word study I did on the yom, the main word that YECs rely on for their Biblical interpretation. It also links to refutations of some of the "scientific" claims for a young earth.
The simple fact is that all of the scientific evidence points to an old universe and old earth, and this evidence agrees perfectly with the Bible.
Sigh.... You’re partially right.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Though I don’t deserve congratulations as I didn’t merit any entry into this priesthood.
It's more likely that Genesis 1:1 is an "executive summary" and what follows later are merely various perspectives on God's creation of the universe, earth, and its inhabitants.We modern, western readers too often forget the poetic aspects of Hebrew. In Hebrew, poetry is usually expressed by repetition. And, for you YECs, by calling the Genesis account poetry, I am not dismissing the reality behind the poetry.
But nothing in Peter demonstrates why the KJV is an infallible guide to geological history, whereas the NRSV is merely damnable heresy fit for the rifle range.
Other than your own personal preference, that is.
LRM, you do need to draw a distinction between Young Earth Creationists, who reject much modern science as the work of the devil, and Old Earth Creationists, who believe that God has revealed himself to us through the wonders of his creation as well as through his word.
There are plenty of us strong, conservative, believers in the God of the universe who do not reject good science. There is bad science, of course, like the "settled science" of global warming, but that does not mean that all science is wrong.
For what it's worth, I care very little about the creation story, except when it interferes with people coming to know God. I believe in God because I have seen him change my life and the lives of others. I have also witnessed his miracles and been the recipient of miracles many times.
Two years ago, my father was dying in the emergency room. His blood pressure was almost too low to measure and his heart rate was dropping. My wife and I arrived, I quickly anointed him, we laid hands on him and prayed, and within 20 seconds both his blood pressurements were up by 10 points. Within 10 minutes, his heart was functioning normally and dad was awake and talking.
Just one of many encounters with God that I could share with you.
Me, too. That's the reason I'm so passionate about the YEC heresy. I've seen it hurt too many people and I've seen it become a stumbling block for people to know Christ.
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.