Posted on 01/16/2006 11:53:14 AM PST by truthfinder9
Well, Ross didn't say much of anything in the debate you linked to, so I'll suspend judgement on his arguments. All I have to go on is what Kaiser said, and frankly, his arguments were lousy. He's a prime example of how NOT to argue against YECS.
In the young-earth view you have plants appearing before the Sun, but the OE view recognizes that in the early Earth that the Sun was hidden by the clouded atmosphere. This matchs percisely with Genesis, especially when the Hebrew is properly rendered.
That's a bit of a stretch, it seems to me, but if you find it convincing, more power to you. I honestly don't see how it matters for salvation. I'd only caution you against using this on YECs, 'cause it's not going to convince them .
The sequence of animals is also correct when one correctly considers the Hebrew meaning(s).
Okay, this I've got to see. Ross didn't say anything about this in the link you provided. Would you mind enlightening me a bit?
Most people don't realize that ancient Hebrew had limited vocabulary and that most words had multiple meanings.
Maybe, but birds didn't come before land animals, and the Bible says they did. Now it doesn't seem to me that you'd need a big vocabulary to express the sequence correctly. Are you telling me Hebrew doesn't have a precise word for bird?
If you've got a way of rationalizing this one, I'd love to see it.
"do have special insight into theology and Biblical exegesis because they lived closer to apostolic times."
That's ridicoulous. They knew virtually nothing about ancient Hebrew and had a fraction of the manuscripts we have now.
Appealing to the "fathers" is a logical fallacy. Pointing to people who agree with you doesn't prove you right. Maybe it will make you feel good, but it doesn't prove a theory.
"I don't think that's true. As far as I know, the polls all indicate that the most evolution skeptics are YECS."
You mean the polls created by evolutionists to marginalize design? Virtually every design supported you hear about in the movement are OECS of one type or another: Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Denton, etc.
"What does amaze me are the militant, emotional, and unChristian attacks I see Old Earth creationists level against theistic evolutionists."
Now there's a lie if I've ever seen one.
"Well, Ross didn't say much of anything in the debate you linked to, so I'll suspend judgement on his arguments. All I have to go on is what Kaiser said, and frankly, his arguments were lousy. He's a prime example of how NOT to argue against YECS."
Ross will be heard from more in the other parts of the debates. Kaiser is a well-respected defendeder of the literal Bible, whereas the best Ken Ham could do is make things up or refer to other YECs.
"That's a bit of a stretch, it seems to me, but if you find it convincing, more power to you. I honestly don't see how it matters for salvation."
It's not a stretch, it's a matter of fact. And it's the YECs who time and time again have made the days of Genesis a matter of salvation. The explicitly say so.
"Okay, this I've got to see. Ross didn't say anything about this in the link you provided. Would you mind enlightening me a bit?"
I thought you were well-educated in all this? Obviously not. How do you people persume to talk about the Bible and don't even know fundamental things about it? Ross details at great length these issues in the book "The Genesis Question."
"Maybe, but birds didn't come before land animals, and the Bible says they did."
Wrong again. In Genesis 1:20, the word translated as "bird" is never used to describe birds elsewhere in the Bible. It's used to describe insects. In Genesis 1:21, the hebrew used refers to all sorts of higher animals, including birds.
Now that you're fundamental argument is gone, try studying the text in more detail, not in the superficial manner that YECs do.
Here's my source:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1138060759-1624.html
Hebrew Scholars at ASA also seem to agree with this definition of the word.
Hugh Ross is really grasping at straws if he claims it just refers to insects.
You may want to believe him, if you like, and it's not important for your salvation. However, don't you think it's a bit strange that just about all other Hebrew scholars have a contrary opinion? If the word really means just insects, don't you think it's a bit strange that not a single English version of the Bible translates it as such?
No, polls by mainstream polling organizations, like Gallup.
Virtually every design supported you hear about in the movement are OECS of one type or another: Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Denton, etc.
Yes, I know the leaders of the ID movement all say they accept an old Earth when pressed, though they try to avoid talking about it. Some, like Behe and Denton, even accept evolution. They just believe that God had to constantly intervene in the process with mini miracles.
I was talking about the rank and file, not the leaders of the movement. There are a bunch of polls out there showing that the vast majority of the public who doubt evolution believe in a literal 6 day creation. That's a fact.
Now there's a lie if I've ever seen one.
Oh? What do you think of this statement by Dembski?
What theistic evolution does is take the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptize it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution...
"No, polls by mainstream polling organizations, like Gallup."
You mean the same Gallup known for wording polls to get certain results?
"Yes, I know the leaders of the ID movement all say they accept an old Earth when pressed, though they try to avoid talking about it. Some, like Behe and Denton, even accept evolution. They just believe that God had to constantly intervene in the process with mini miracles."
So you admit they are OECs? Regardless of kind, they are still OECs. At least thiestic evolutionists like Denton don't abandon ALL of science like YECs do.
"There are a bunch of polls out there showing that the vast majority of the public who doubt evolution believe in a literal 6 day creation. That's a fact."
Let's see: Polls prove evolution, polls also prove YECism. As you seem to have stumbled upon, polls aren't science. Using polls as "evidence" is a logical fallacy. That's a fact.
"What do you think of this statement by Dembski?"
He's saying thiestic evolution is not valid. Same thing I say, as do most OECs, with only a few exceptions. Thanks for pointing out that I'm right again.
"No, polls by mainstream polling organizations, like Gallup."
You mean the same Gallup known for wording polls to get certain results?
"Yes, I know the leaders of the ID movement all say they accept an old Earth when pressed, though they try to avoid talking about it. Some, like Behe and Denton, even accept evolution. They just believe that God had to constantly intervene in the process with mini miracles."
So you admit they are OECs? Regardless of kind, they are still OECs. At least thiestic evolutionists like Denton don't abandon ALL of science like YECs do.
"There are a bunch of polls out there showing that the vast majority of the public who doubt evolution believe in a literal 6 day creation. That's a fact."
Let's see: Polls prove evolution, polls also prove YECism. As you seem to have stumbled upon, polls aren't science. Using polls as "evidence" is a logical fallacy. That's a fact.
"What do you think of this statement by Dembski?"
He's saying thiestic evolution is not valid. Same thing I say, as do most OECs, with only a few exceptions. Thanks for pointing out that I'm right again.
Thanks very much for your link in post #14...I take a lot of interest in the ongoing evolution/creationism/ID threads, and always find lots of information of those threads...your link is another link to add to my every growing list of things I need to read...its appreciated..
Let's see, you say it's not commonly used for birds, but in Genesis 1:20 it has to be because that fits your view? Any scholars who think that way aren't being very scholarly.
A lot of "scholars" believe in UFOs and bigfoot. Seems being a scholar doesn't prove a whole lot if your scholarship is poor.
A lot of people only study one side of the debate or believe what they have always been told. I'm glad at least some people like you decide to study and think things through.
Introduction to the Creation-Date Debate
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/cr3.html
Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html
Biblical Creation
http://www.evidence.info/apologetics/creation.html
I love reading up on material on both sides of the debate...how else can anyone learn anything?...just taking someones word for something, because they say so, does not work with me...I read, I think, I reread, I think some more, when I need 'technical' or 'scientific' or 'religious' help, I ask for it, and almost always get it from someone who is willing to help...FR, is good that way...there is always someone who can answer your questions, or is always willing to help...
Incidentally, your second link does not work...
That link worked..thanks...so many links to information...so little time...but I do always make an effort to read as much as I can...
No, I'm saying that its standard definition includes birds. It's a broad term for flying creatures, including bats, birds, and flying insects. That is how it is used throughout the Bible.
William Meister found the fossils of several trilobites, in Utah in 1968, in a fossilized, sandeled footprint of a man. Why is this signifigant you may ask? Well, according to people who believe in evolution, the trilobites are the very earliest lifeform. Therefore, trilobites and man should not be anywhere near the same time period. They are many millions of years apart, supposedly, by the evolutionary time scale.
There are also problems with evolutionary theory on another accounts. Manmade artifacts have been discovered in solid rock strata (layers) that some claimed were laid over billions of years ago: a thimble, bell, gold chain, coins, doll etc.... There was a modern iron hammer that was discovered embedded in stone near London, Texas. Geologists had computed that rock layer to be 4 hundred million years old.
One creationist theory proposed by Russel Humphreys, who holds a theory that perhaps God used sort of a "white hole" to create the universe. And since time doesn't move as fast in higher gravities as it does in lower gravities, if the Earth was at or toward the center of this "white hole", it would be at this high gravity part. Therefore as God "Stretched out the heaveans", the outer part of this "white hole" would be moving at a faster rate in time compared to the inner part where the Earth is. Thereby causing the universe to perhaps look billions of years old, while the earth remains young. This would also explain the Earth being able to see distant star light, despite the universe only being 6000 years old. And it would explain why we can see spiral galaxies and other things evolutionists can't explain. (Spiral galaxies, for example, in them the inner stars rotate faster than the outer stars, and if they were really billions of years old, they would look more like a featureless disc rather than a spiral."
recently scientists have found out that the supposed "neaderthal man" wasn't very primative at all but actually more advanced than we are today. They found that "neanderthal man" seemed to have better enzymes than we do today and even longer lifespans than we do today. And the reason for their odd facial features was do to a prolonged lifespan, because if someone was able to live hundreds of years, while they won't grow taller, bones in the face do continue to grow. And this is what the "neandertal man's" bone features seem to indicate. And if you have ever seen drawings of neandertal man, most evolutionists draw him looking apelike. This is to fit their evolutionary viewpoint of "monkeys to men". But how do they come up with these drawings? Well, they do this by looking at the bones and developing drawings from them. Problem is, because of their evolutionary viewpoint, they try and set the bones in the face region, particularly the jaw bone, to make the neandertal man look more apelike. In fact, on some skeletons they have even sawed off part of the jaw to make it look more ape-like. The problem is, the way they have the jaw bone set, the teeth will not fit together properly. But when you set the teeth in proper occlusion, they suddenly look more human like and their faces look considerably smaller.
Also there is one scientist, who's name I can't think of off the top of my head that is an evolutionist. He went to Africa and found living dinosaurs and wrote book about.
There is a good video out there people might be able to pick up for free off the net call "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" If you search around enough sites your bound to find somewhere you can download it. if i can find the link I'll post it. Anyway in it the guy has pictures of things like fossil human footprint found next to a trilobite.
ANd I can't believe some of you never heard about the trilobite being found next to a human footprint. You obviously go to some piss poor school.s All my EVOLUTIONARY science teachers even know about this. You can read many evolutionists books discussing such things. This is some pretty widely known news and shouldn't be new to anyway that seriously studies the subject
If you're going to refute evolution, don't use Russel Humphreys, his physics is "piss poor," as you say.
See:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml
As for William Meister, it's not a footprint by a longshot, see:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm
As for "living dinosaurs" see:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm
http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/hovind.htm
It's these types of things that evolutionists use to discredit their skeptics. Granted, many creationists have abandoned them, but in many of their isolated circles people still believe them and they still proliferate on the internet.
As for "recently scientists have found out that the supposed neaderthal man wasn't very primative at all but actually more advanced than we are today," that's one of the most ridcoulous things I have ever heard. More adavanced? Is that why they're all dead? DNA studies have shown they are unrelated to man, a seperate hominid species, perhaps the most advanced non-human hominids, but non-human nonetheless.
Anyone who seriously studies this subject should known these things. Obviously you are getting only one side of things. Time to start checking the credibilty of your sources and stop embarassing Christians.
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.