"The guy who no Troll has ever heard of."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apparently the FR database hasn't either...
satchmodog9
Nobody by that name
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having delusional attacks -- again?
Put it down and come back when you're rational...
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 ...
I'm in a rush right now and can't provide cites, but I agree with you. Further, Satan still apparently holds this position. Oh, here:
Satan had the authority to give these things. Although Satan still holds power over the world, we are not of this world and have dominion over Satan. Strangely enough, we still must give Satan some sort of respect:
Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!'' Jude 1.9
Very interesting, eh?
What you submit that he told us in His word disagrees with what he appears to be telling us in His Creation.
Many 6000 year old Earth folks feel that this idea of a pre Adamic Earth is a recent revelation from nineteenth century theology, but Hebrew scholars were debating this issue at the beginning of the second century. The Targum of Onkelos, one of the earliest Aramaic versions of the Old Testament translates [Genesis 1:2] "and the Earth was laid waste". Obviously something in the original language led them to believe that "something" had caused some type of general destruction between 1:1 and 1:2.
Origen (186-254), in his commentary "De Principiis" explains that [Genesis 1:2] says "That the Earth had been cast downwards"!
In the middle ages Victor Hugo (1097-1141) says this about [Genesis 1:2]: Perhaps enough has been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, "how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering....of it was taken in hand"?
The Dutch scholar, Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the Earth had been created before the six days of re-creation described in Genesis. This is about 200 years before geology was to discover evidence for a more ancient origin.
Thus.....the separation of a great gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history of discussion and thought.....much of it pre dating the KJV, which in my opinion has caused much of the mis-understanding because of its limited scholarship. Anyone who would claim that this idea was of recent origin to attempt a reconciliation between geology.....and theology is mistaken.
“Dissent is not allowed in these threads and any dissent is met with personal attacks.” [excerpt]Which is exactly what you have been doing to anyone who disagrees with you.
“I have no quarrel with the person in question, other than posting material that is so obviously wrong.” [excerpt]Then refute the material and have the courtesy to refrain from harassing people
“But try to point out the problems with material and you're met with wrath and fury.” [excerpt]Its the harassing people that gets you all the wrath and fury.
“TXnMA, myself, and others who happen to be trained scientists with real science careers are not welcomed, but insulted.” [excerpt]I should point out, James Hanson is also a trained scientist with a real science career.
“Unfortunately, YEC gives the enemy more tools to batter us with.” [excerpt]However, the enemy doesn't need any more tools when he has OECers going around bashing anyone who does not agree with them.
“Instead of abandoning YEC, they abandoned Christianity.” [excerpt]And let me guess, it was you who was pressuring them to accept OEC, and instead of listening to what you were saying, they jumped ship.
“Although I was taking Hebrew and could show them that OEC does not conflict with the Bible, it still didn't help.” [excerpt]I've looked at both the Hebrew and the Greek.
“Also, I happen to work with very highly educated and smart people, and I have to get around the "all Christians are stupid because they believe the earth is 6,000 years old" problem.” [excerpt]They call YECers stupid and you bash em'.
“However, I do have problems with YEC beause, in the circle of people that God put me in, it's a real stumbling block.” [excerpt]And I could say that all OECers are rabid YEC bashers.
"The guy who no Troll has ever heard of."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apparently the FR database hasn't either...
satchmodog9
Nobody by that name
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having delusional attacks -- again?
Put it down and come back when you're rational...
“Having delusional attacks -- again?” [excerpt]Because you don't know where to find stuff means I'm delusional?
Scripture is full of "proof texts" for a pre Adamic Earth. one of my favorites is [2 Peter 3:5-7] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Notice that Peter speaks of the old heavens and the new heavens. He also references the world that was then....and the world that is now. My FRiends.....the heavens that are now (ours also) are the same heavens that both Adam and Noah saw. The Sun, the Moon and the Stars. There has been no change in the heavens since Eden. What are the heavens that Peter says were of old? His heavens....the same as ours were the same as Noah and Adam.
There are only two places in scripture that speak of a world wide flood. Noah's [Genesis 7 and 8] and [Genesis 1:1-2]. Peter is referencing the flood of [Genesis 1:1-2] and not that of Noah. Nothing happened after Noah's flood that changed the heavens....the Sun, the moon and the Stars. His flood had no effect on the heavens but confined itself to the Earth only.
So....we must ask ourselves, why does the passage in Peter clearly speak of a former heaven? Was it a reconstitution of former things? Did this alteration of former things take place in seven days?
Note that Peter says "the Earth was standing in the water and out of the water" or......the planet Earth was submerged with part of the land protruding from the water. Imagine a planet Earth awash in water in a dark, dismal ruined solar system and rolling around in a big formless mess.....a flood of major proportions.
By the time that The Lord had undertaken the re-creation of this Earth, Satan was now a fallen creature as he re-entered Eden. He had been the past ruler of this Earth, but had rebelled and this had caused the great catastrophe of [Genesis 1:1-2]. He had convinced many other angelic beings to rebel with him, to dethrone God and become the supreme ruler of the universe [Isaiah 14:12-14][Ezekiel 28:11-17][1 Timothy 3:6]. His rebellion caused the destruction of every living thing on this pre Adamic Earth. [Jeremiah 4:23-26] I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
Was the Earth ever described as being without "form and void" during Noah's flood? Does this verse perhaps account for some ancient fossils that we have unearthed?
I guess you didn’t read my post did you? What I did was bring out evidence. What you are doing is making an assertion.
I am with you. When Moses wrote the Genesis account, he was not concerned with the time of the creation, but with its nature, i.e., that the one true God was its Author, and that nothing in the created order was divine. Also, if you read king lists and other things from the ancient world, you will conclude that an ancient earth was a commonly-held notion back then.
“I guess you didn’t read my post did you?” [excerpt]Yep, sure did.
“What I did was bring out evidence. What you are doing is making an assertion.” [excerpt]You are projecting.
The earth is not 6,000 years old. You have every right to believe that, but to do so puts you in the same company as the flat-earthers.
==Young-earth creationism is impossible. We have evidence from Egypt of continual cultural development from 7,000 B.C. to the present.
Could you please cite your evidence, atilldahun2? Thank you—GGG
“The earth is not 6,000 years old. You have every right to believe that, but to do so puts you in the same company as the flat-earthers.”And if you breath air, it puts you in the same company as every single Communist, tyrant, thug and genocidal maniac.
==And if you breath air, it puts you in the same company as every single Communist, tyrant, thug and genocidal maniac.
Not to mention, flat-earthers :o)
You think death is a “marvel.” You feel that God saw death as “good” — that cycles of death were “very good.”
I concur with Scripture, though, and see death as an enemy, an enemy defeated by Christ at the Cross.
I see your point; if you can't argue against the logic of what I said, argue against the logic of what I didn't say. What I actually said was that evolution was one of the processes used by God in the creation and population of the universe. Besides, you need to differentiate between physical death and spiritual death to get the full appreciation of what you said.
Evolution states that through many cycles of death, various forms of life emerge, including human life. Death, therefore, is a *good* and *preferred-by-God* vehicle through which human life came about. A good vehicle that’s described in Scripture as an “enemy” (please see 1 Cor. 15:26).
Scripture records God labeling creation as “good,” and humanity as “very good.”
Those who adhere to both evolution and the Bible, therefore, would have to believe that the Creator labeled this cycle of death as “good” and “very good,” that the enemy is good.
Tell me how that argument lacks logic.
Again, you say that evolution is how God brought “all this” about. Right? That He used cycles of death to bring about humanity, that our heritage is a bloody mess, rather than the beautiful crafting and inspiring that is described in Scripture.
Where did you get such a convoluted description of Charles Darwin's theory? Darwin simply made five primary observations that, when viewed in the context of one another, lead one to the understanding of a process by which life adapts to a dynamic environment. To summarize Darwin's Theory of Evolution;
1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)
I can regurgitate Darwin’s ideas as good any anyone. That’s not my point,m though.
Let me make it very simple for you, as you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me ask five very simple questions.
1) Is evolution possible without cycles of death?
2) Does Scripture describe God as having declared the creation of humanity as “very good”?
3) Does it follow that if God were to have used evolutionary processes to bring about humanity, then that process was “very good”?
4) Does Scripture label death an “enemy”?
5) According to evolutionary thinking, then, isn’t the “enemy” therefore “very good”?
It’s not hard, my friend, to follow this. Is it?
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.