Posted on 11/21/2005 1:32:29 PM PST by truthfinder9
This is old, but a good article on myths and urban legends:
I always approach an article like this one with a great deal of fear and apprehension. This journal has one basic premise on which it operates, and that is that science and faith do not and cannot conflict. If, in fact, "God created the heavens and the earth," and if God revealed Himself to us through His word the Bible, they have to agree. If they disagree, it is either because we have bad science or bad theology or both. The lesson of history is that there have been a lot of both. Most of what we try to do in this journal is positive evidence. We do not spend a lot of time in criticism and try to avoid anything that might be viewed as an attack on an individual. I think most of us are very tired of yellow journalism no matter who it comes from or who it attacks.
There are a number of individuals and programs in the world today that operate as a defense for a particular denominational creed. These folks have a set of beliefs that have been a part of a long tradition, and they are attempting to use science to defend that tradition. Many of them have good things to say, and some of the traditions being defended are valid. The problem is that many of the claimed scientific supports are totally erroneous, and every time such claims are made, skeptics and the media are fed more ammunition which they can use to attack believers and convince the world of the foolishness of Christianity.
We are not interested in debating these claims nor do we wish to make any attacks on any individual. On the other hand, we felt it might be useful to our readers to print a list of some of the claims being made and give a one-sentence comment on why these claims are not true. If you wish to know who made the claim or why it is not true in more detail, you are welcome to contact us, but as you see things on line or in print or hear speakers make these claims, we hope you will not use them yourself or pass the claim on to children. We also want to emphasize this list is not exhaustive--only the tip of the iceberg.
1. Atheists have a petition they have submitted to the FCC to remove religious programming from radio and television. No such petition exists. (See page 30 of this journal)
2. Scientists have found a missing day in the calendar through their space research matching the biblical missing day. No such study has been done nor is it possible due to alterations in the calendar (whole weeks and days have been removed).
3. An international conspiracy exists to dominate the world titled "The New World Order" run by the ACLU, Israel, Ted Turner, etc. Their target date is May 5, 2000. That date has passed and most of the people listed are antagonistic to each other.
4. The speed of light is decreasing in a half-life curved way, making all science based on the speed of light wrong. There has been no measurable change in the speed of light, and things like e=mc2 are easily shown to be correct.
5. At the site http://www.darwindisproved.com, Darwin has been disproven This was an April Fool's joke and is not a serious site.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decreasing and, if the earth were old, we would not have any magnetic field. It is easy to prove that the earth's field flips back and forth.
7. A yellow dinosaur (with a beard) was caught in Lake Erie. No evidence.
8. Pterodactyls fly around Papua, New Guinea. No evidence.
9. Japanese fisherman caught a plesiosaur. It was a rotted whale.
10. Drawings near Ica, Peru, show clear drawings of dinosaurs and humans living together. These are found all over the world and are ancient drawings of spirit creatures and humans.
11. Hyperbaric pressure can grow giant tomato vines 40 feet high and producing 15,000 tomatoes. Has not been done. No evidence.
12. Vitamin B17 cures cancer. This is based on testaments of people, not doctors. No evidence.
13. Human and dinosaur tracks have been found together. No evidence, and it has been admitted to be untrue by the original proponents.
14. The Smithsonian has 33,000 sets of human remains in the basement, many taken while the people were still alive so they could prove their theory. No evidence.
15. Loch Ness is so big that five billion people could drown in Loch Ness, and there have been 11,000 sightings of the Loch Ness monster. No evidence.
16. Darwin's theory was the cause of the Trail of Tears when the Cherokee Indians moved to Oklahoma. The Trail of Tears occurred in the 1830s Darwin's theory was published in 1859.
17. Microchips are part of the mark of the beast. All bar codes end with two lines which stands for 666 (the mark of the beast). First of all, all bar codes are random depending on the numbers. Secondly, six is not two lines--that is a three in the binary system.
18. Ancient Hebrew records indicate regular contact between humans and dinosaurs like those referred to in Job 40:15. The words in both the Bible and secular documents do not refer to animals anything like dinosaurs. Jewish scholars recognize leviathan as a creature of the deep ocean (see Psalm 104:26) and behemah as a large ungulate (see Genesis 1:24).
One of the critical phrases in this listing and in a large number of other terms that could be added is the phrase "no evidence." It is easy to make a claim about something. I can say "science has proven that the moon is made out of cheese," and someone might be impressed by the claim. I can even say "this is proven by the fact that moon rocks from Apollo 11 and cheddar cheese have the same compressibility." I have now supported my statement that the moon is made out of cheese by a fact, and I can document the fact that the compressibility data is valid. Is the moon made out of cheese? What went wrong here? The problem is that an isolated piece of data is being interpreted without paying any attention to other data. The density of the moon, its magnetic properties, its surface features, compressibility data from other locations, and our understanding of how cheese is produced do not support the assertion that the moon is made out of cheese. All of the denominational creationist claims in our list (and countless others like them) have the same problem. There may be an isolated fact that supports the claim, but abundant evidence exists that proves that the claim is not valid. When our students are given a claim that is said to be biblical, and when they later come to realize there is abundant evidence that the claims are untrue, they can logically come to the conclusion that the Bible and the whole Christian system is false.
It is vital that we think about the claims that are made by any writer or speaker. Is evidence provided that is from multiple sources and by people who have valid credentials in the field they are discussing? Is the documentation checkable, or is it hearsay? Using personal testimony of any kind is a very dubious technique because virtually nothing is able to be verified. The number of denominational creationists is growing as religious division increases. Every group wants its own expert on the issues facing mankind today, and the entertainment value of that expert is weighed far more heavily than their credibility or the soundness of their teachings. Those of us who listen and work with young people and the issues they face are the only ones who can help minimize the damage done by the tabloid mentality promoters of denominational creationism.
Actually, from God's perspective, he didn't take any time at all. Many young-earthers ask "Why would god 'take' millions of years?" By the same token we could then ask, "Why would he 'take' 6 days?"
An old universe and evolution are two different things. The age of the universe actually figures into powerful evidences for design. In any case, a being outside of time wouldn't 'take' any time, it's only from our time-bound perspective that time passes.
With exception of #18, I don't know of any "denominational creationists" who advocate any items on this list. Additionally, what does the writer actually mean by "denominational crestionists"? There are a number of nondenominational ministries devoted to biblical creation - are these included?
Actually, I'm not sure what exactly "denominational creationists" means, unless he is referring in general to well-known creationists and groups. I have seen creationists refer to many of these items. Kent Hovind is a major offender, having many of these things on his website, though many other creationists have distanced themselves from him.
If that were true, the Hebrew would say "24 hour days." It doesn't, so try again.
"If that were true, the Hebrew would say "24 hour days." It doesn't, so try again."
We've been over this, but for the sake of others I'll quote from JohnnyM who answered you on this issue ...
"evening and morning means 24 hour day.The word used for day in these passages can mean a time period (i.e. in my father's day) or a 24 hour day. Evening and morning point exclusively to a 24-hour day."
"the word for "day" here in Genesis can either mean an indeterminate amount of time (i.e. in my father's day) or a 24 hour period. The fact that the terms morning and evening are used to describe this word "day" points exclusively to a 24 hour period. Add to that the fact that these days are using a numbering scheme (i.e. first, second, third, fourth, etc ) makes the general era interpretation of day make no sense. I would never say "in my father's first day he did this and in my father's second day he did that." All that would be lumped together in one generic day. Add to this the fact that God used the creation days in Exodus to highlight the observance of the Sabbath, and its pretty much a slam dunk case."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1524477/posts
post #26 & 31
Include me with those that distance themselves from Kent - a long distance. His arrogance is giving a blackeye to the Movement.
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God.
He didn't answer me, only ignored the inconvienent facts, among them being:
1.The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy. In 1 Samuel 7:2, the word for day is translated as “long time” or “the time was long” and refers to twenty years. In Deuteronomy 10:10, day is translated as “the first time” and refers to forty days. In 1 Chronicles 29:27 the word for day is translated as “the time” and refers to forty years (some translations leave it out since the context makes it repetitive).
2.Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.
3.The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, the text specifically states that the land produced plants and trees. After they were produced, the text refers to seed bearing fruit being produced by these trees. Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees require several years to mature before they produce fruit. Note the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a “day” could not have been only 24 hours long.
Here's a bonus:
Both 1 Chronicles 16:15 and Psalms 105:8 refer to God commanding his word to “a thousand generations.” This seems to confirm that the genealogical listings were incomplete. A “thousand generations” also seems to roughly confirm scientific dating on human origins.
Schroeder tries to combine young-earthism and old-earthism. It's interesting and he makes some good points in his books, but the physics is ultimately flawed.
"2.Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13..."
Rule #156 of arguing your point on the Internet: Repitition of a disproven argument, no matter how many times, does not make it more true.
"3.The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer."
Waaa, haaa, haaa, haaa!!! Stop! stop! Your're killing me!! God creates a whole universe and then has to hang out waiting for the fruit to ripen!!!! Ho, ho, ho - that's good!
"16:15 Remember his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations"
It's refering to the future, friend. Abraham (to whom He first spoke the covenant in reference) was not 1,000 generations back from David.
I just don't get the controversy. God created the world, and none of us can say "how" He did it. It is just as hard to imagine why it would have taken 6 literal days as it is to understand why it would have taken billions of years, as opposed to a single instant of "let it be". It is not up to us to question, or even understand God's creation. The six literally days idea could be right for all I know, though the physical evidence of the material world suggests otherwise (and why would God make the evidence ambiguous then give us the brains to develop science). I just don't understand why believers fight over this issue, which is irrelevant ultimately to our relationship to the Eternal (meaning outside of time), and Infinite (beyond all possiblitity of our rational understanding) God.
"I just don't understand why believers fight over this issue, which is irrelevant ultimately to our relationship to the Eternal (meaning outside of time), and Infinite (beyond all possiblitity of our rational understanding) God."
Actually it is of the utmost importance - though that is not apparent at first glance. As I have posted elswhere recently...
"Every major doctrine of the Bible is based in the first few chapters of Genesis. If Genesis is non-historical then the doctrines are based on myth. You can work it out from there."
I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth", but there is a world of difference between myth and literalism. Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time? Not at all of course, the spiritual truth in that book is one of the most powerful found in the Bible, but it is not history. Similarly, the book of Esther. I would consider both profoundly spiritual and important, but neither is literally true history in their entireties.
"I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth","
I'm sure you didn't.
"Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time?"
I don't believe Daniel is myth. It sounds like you have been introduced to higher criticism in some form. As a former student of and reader in HC, I can tell you that often it is the higher critics and radical scholars themselves who are "writ[ing] long after the events... [and] unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time."
Here is an additional problem. If you are a Christian (not meaning to assume) then you must give the words of Christ significant, if not the very ultimate value with regards to the topics he addressed. He spoke directly of Daniel when he said:
"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." - Matt 24
So it is clear that Jesus himself ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the work under his same name.
(BTW there are many strong arguments for retaining the historical position of the authorship of Daniel if you are interested.)
You mistake my legitamite evaluation that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel himself with the idea that Daniel was not a real prophet, but sorry, there are many historical details of Daniel (and the fact that a very significant amount was written in Aramaic, and that it confuses geography with terms that would not have existed until much later in history) that are obviously put onto paper by someone much later than the events described. I have no doubt that Daniel was a real prophet whose teachings were preserved, but I do not think that book was written by him, and really, that is pretty obvious with the vaguest intellectual inquiry.
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.