Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

So...

Your reasoning just does NOT seem to fit with the 197 OT instances of the term...like, right here, for example... 1 Sam 20:34...'on the second day of the new moon'.....which is quite specific....not your 'around that time'....

Get a grip...

i almost forgot to reply to this half of your post...

in the post you quote i clearly said that the phrase -'in the day'- is an idiom to convey 'around that time' information...

and for your clumsy attempt at refutation you referenced the phrase 'on the second day of the new moon' in 1 samuel 20:34...

'on the second day of the new moon' is obviously -not- the same phrase as 'in the day' which is the one i said means 'around that time'

in fact your 1 samuel 20:34 reference supports my -other- point that i -also- stated quite clearly in the post you were responding to...namely that -numbered days indicate a specific time-...

and to think that for quite a while now -you- have been claiming that -my- examples 'imploded' my position and supported yours...but as anyone can see from this post it is the other way around...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The bottom line is that there are competing interpretations of Scripture pertaining to the age of the earth, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, and a global flood.

But there is no competing interpretation of science.

actually there is...yet again you fail to understand what science is...science is -based on- competition between different theories with different interpretations of the data...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You might also find it interesting that those who insist that "yom" means "literally 24 hour period" will have trouble explaining Gen 2:4:

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Again, the word used is "yom." If "yom" has to mean a literal 24 hour period, then Gen 2:4 suggests that God created everything in 1 day, rather than 7. This would present a problem between Gen 1 and 2, with Gen 1 saying that God created everything over 7 days and Gen 2 saying he created everything in 1 day.

this objection has been dealt with already...see my series of posts addressed to bowman on this subject for details...

short summary...'in the day' as in genesis 2:4 is an idiomatic phrase with a general meaning like 'at the time'...-numbered- days as in genesis 1 are a completely different thing and refer to specific dates...

 

[Tintin]

I do believe that everything was created by God. Whether or not the account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally is another matter. The main problem I have noticed is that those who advocate a young earth cannot explain in a believable way why there are so many fossils of creatures that obviously existed sometime in the past but are not here now.
There are thousands of species and more are found every year. In particular China and South America seem to have a tremendous amount. Too many to squeeze on an Ark. Perhaps God did a trial run before he settled for the present state of affairs. Having said all this the only important thing is our salvation.

Kind, not Species. Kind, kind, kind. Did you bother to read anything in the previous page or two? Because I just explained Kind on the previous page. As of the many fossils of creatures that existed in the past, the answer is easy. Natural selection, speciation and extinction account for all of these Flood fossils. Huge numbers of animals have become extinct just in the last couple hundred years. That said, while not all fossils were caused by the Great Flood, the vast majority were.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Your story sounds like a children's fairy tale to me.

Did Noah take a juvenile T. rex and a juvenile Apatosaurus on the ark?

Are they different kinds?

Did they interbreed?

How old were these juveniles?

How do you know they were ready to breed upon exiting the ark?

You said "exciting" but I think you meant "exiting."

Although maybe you meant "exciting" and that they were breeding on the ark?

Or maybe it was "exciting" because T. rex was having Apatosaurus for dinner.

And how exactly did all those Apatosaurus fossils found in the Morrison Formation in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Utah get there? And when?

And how exactly did all those dinosaur fossils, T. rex, and many others, found in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana and the Dakotas get there? And when?

What does the geological record in and around the Hell Creek Formation tell us?

apatosaurus and tyrannosaurus rex would have definitely belonged to two different kinds...

in general young earth creationists associate the dinosaur kinds with the order or family level...for example the superfamily ceratopsoidea probably consists of a single baramin...although someone could credibly argue that the protoceratopsidae and bagaceratopsidae families should also be included in that baramin too...i suppose someone could even make a case for including the entire infraorder neoceratopsia in one baramin...

anyway it is difficult to do baraminology on extinct organisms...the most reliable method of baraminology is the one implied in genesis 1...namely grouping all species that can crossbreed into a single baramin...obviously this method is right out when you are dealing with extinct species...

it is interesting that you brought up the geology of the hell creek formation...because there is a paper about the hell creek formation in the new issue of 'creation research society quarterly' which is dedicated to reporting on their idino project...

i haven't read the paper yet but i skimmed it...the author's view seems to be that the hell creek formation contains some of the last of the dinosaurs to be buried in noah's flood...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You made a few good points but then you went due south and right in the tank with this.

Young earth vs. old earth and the resurrection of Christ et al are totally separate issues.

Many Christians believe in an old earth and the resurrection of Christ et al.

Trying to merge the two, which YECs and non-believers both do for different reasons, is nonsense.

actually although i strongly disagree with his conclusions...he has done a perfect job of taking rejection of the bible's teaching on the age of the earth all the way to its logical consequence...

in doing this he has actually been far more intellectually consistent than the old earth creationists who try to keep all of these issues of biblical credibility separate...because inconsistency -is- the only way old earth believers can still be christians...young earth creationists sometimes call this 'blessed inconsistency'...

but you old earth creationists simply can't expect everyone to be as willing to live with bad logic as you are...people who insist on logical consistency will either become young earth creationists or atheistic evolutionists...

lastly i will point out that this is an example of exactly the kind of thing bowman some time ago said he had never seen...namely a belief in old earth paradigms causing someone to reject all of the distinctive truth claims of christianity...

 

[kedge]

Evolution.

Some folk are looking for satisfactory answers, harmony, even atonement


How does Evolution explain purposeful design in nature?. What best explains the mechanisms of Evolution and are there any scientific experiments that have shown how those Evolutionary mechanisms can create a new life form from scratch? (not from existing information from nothing). I will try to make a comprehensive list of the known mechanics of Evolution, if you want to add to the list please do, i don't know everything so there might have been something i have missed out?. I am going to skip the mechanisms of Evolution for our known universe for the time being and just try to concentrate on living organisms or life on our planet and how to best explain its existence.


I will leave out billions and millions of years because people don't live for this amount of time so this time fame can never be proven nor verified through scientific inquiry nor any other method of inquiry, it is impossible and so billion or millions of years can only ever be assumed to be part of Evolutions purposeful design mechanisms.


The Mechanics of Evolution?

Quantum Mechanics
Random Chance
Natural Processes
Natural Selection
Mutations

 

[kedge]

a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which God does not detail.

But YEC's do, therefore creating a division in Christianity and all claiming that God's Holy Spirit guided them, of course this creates confusion and so it's either one or the other, surely Christians worldwide can't have unity with disparity?.

 

[valiant]

actually although i strongly disagree with his conclusions...he has done a perfect job of taking rejection of the bible's teaching on the age of the earth all the way to its logical consequence...

in doing this he has actually been far more intellectually consistent than the old earth creationists who try to keep all of these issues of biblical credibility separate...because inconsistency -is- the only way old earth believers can still be christians...young earth creationists sometimes call this 'blessed inconsistency'...

but you old earth creationists simply can't expect everyone to be as willing to live with bad logic as you are...people who insist on logical consistency will either become young earth creationists or atheistic evolutionists...

lastly i will point out that this is an example of exactly the kind of thing bowman some time ago said he had never seen...namely a belief in old earth paradigms causing someone to reject all of the distinctive truth claims of christianity...

this is pure arrogance. Properly read in terms of the usages of its time the detailed interpretation of Genesis is nowhere as clear as you suggest. You read it as a modern text book which it is not, and you ignore its background. No oriental would agree with you, and the Old Testament is an oriental book.

I have not bothered to argue much on this thread because it is evidence of minds which are stuck in a mould, which are unable to get beyond it.

you only hold this simplistic view because you are lacking in sufficient knowledge to be aware of the facts. A little more humility on your part is called for, but I realise that is beyond you.

Properly interpreted te Bible actually says nothing about the age of the earth.

 

[mwc68]

this is pure arrogance. Properly read in terms of the usages of its time the detailed interpretation of Genesis is nowhere as clear as you suggest. You read it as a modern text book which it is not, and you ignore its background. No oriental would agree with you, and the Old Testament is an oriental book.

I have not bothered to argue much on this thread because it is evidence of minds which are stuck in a mould, which are unable to get beyond it.

you only hold this simplistic view because you are lacking in sufficient knowledge to be aware of the facts. A little more humility on your part is called for, but I realise that is beyond you.

Properly interpreted te Bible actually says nothing about the age of the earth.

Goodmorning Valiant! How is it that the OT is an oriental book? I always thought it was a Jewish book. Are you referring to origin?

 

[JackH]

you are showing yet again that you don't understand at all how science works...science is not an 'all or nothing' set of propositional truths...you can reject one theory while accepting others...

this is especially true in cases like this...genetic testing of neanderthal fossils and dating of neanderthal fossils rest on entirely different methodologies...i merely view one methodology as credible and the other methodology as not so credible...

LOL.

You don't agree with the dating of the fossils because that does not conform to your 6,000-year worldview, so it can't be right, no matter what.

You do agree with the Neanderthal DNA because you think it supports your 6,000-year worldview.

You are the one who does not understand how science works.

You don't start with your conclusion that the world is around 6,000 years old and try to fit everything into that constraint.

 

[valiant]

Goodmorning Valiant! How is it that the OT is an oriental book? I always thought it was a Jewish book. Are you referring to origin?

good morning Mike

when I say oriental I mean not western. Israel is in the Middle EAST or as it was earlier called the Ancient Near EAST. They thought as 'easterners/orientals' not as 'westerners'.

 

[JackH]

maybe the truth is just that these organizations and i are both capable of seeing the obvious...

in any case...strong evidence of DNA -has- been found in dinosaur fossils...i understand your reluctance to accept the strength of the evidence because it would present a problem for your old earth worldview...but who would have thought that young earth creationists would be more accepting of scientific evidence than you?

No DNA has ever been discovered in a dinosaur fossil.

You either are very confused or intentionally distorting the facts.

Please note the following quotes from an article by paleontologist Gareth Dyke that also was published by major news outlets like Fox, CNN, etc.

"No DNA has ever been extracted, for example, from a dinosaur bone precisely because this complex molecule degrades away over relatively short periods of geological time.

But other kinds of molecular and cellular preservation have been reported in fossils, including blood cells, skin cells and the original cellular components of feathers and muscles."

Found: preserved dinosaur cells – but sadly scientists still can't build Jurassic World

 

[JackH]

actually although i strongly disagree with his conclusions...he has done a perfect job of taking rejection of the bible's teaching on the age of the earth all the way to its logical consequence...

in doing this he has actually been far more intellectually consistent than the old earth creationists who try to keep all of these issues of biblical credibility separate...because inconsistency -is- the only way old earth believers can still be christians...young earth creationists sometimes call this 'blessed inconsistency'...

but you old earth creationists simply can't expect everyone to be as willing to live with bad logic as you are...people who insist on logical consistency will either become young earth creationists or atheistic evolutionists...

lastly i will point out that this is an example of exactly the kind of thing bowman some time ago said he had never seen...namely a belief in old earth paradigms causing someone to reject all of the distinctive truth claims of christianity...

Nonsense.

And YEC nonsense turns far more away from faith.

Here's a quote from an article about what is happening at Christian colleges:

"As students learn science, they discover that they have been misled by their religious upbringing. They discover that evolution is not tottering and about to collapse; the Big Bang is not an unfounded speculation; the earth is clearly very old; Noah’s flood can’t possibly have been worldwide; and the scientific community is not filled with secularist lemmings. The result is an intellectual crisis and many young Christians simply walk away from their faith with a feeling of betrayal."


How Creationism Hurts Christian Colleges—And Their Students - The Daily Beast

 

[mwc68]

good morning Mike

when I say oriental I mean not western. Israel is in the Middle EAST or as it was earlier called the Ancient Near EAST. They thought as 'easterners/orientals' not as 'westerners'.

Cool, thank you!!!

 

[flob]

... creating a division in Christianity and all claiming that God's Holy Spirit guided them, of course this creates confusion and so it's either one or the other, surely Christians worldwide can't have unity with disparity?

Right, oneness is more important than this relative trivia, and judgment begins at the house of God.
With Satan's destruction of religion in the end-time, all believers left behind will have much 'help' to drop the nonessentials
and go to the Lord, Jn 17:17-23

 

[Tintin]

But YEC's do, therefore creating a division in Christianity and all claiming that God's Holy Spirit guided them, of course this creates confusion and so it's either one or the other, surely Christians worldwide can't have unity with disparity?.

No, biblical creationists do not believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Read plainly you cannot find a gap, it's an outside insertion into the Bible (eisegesis). Instead, let's practice good exegesis.

 

[JesusIsAll]

One aspect of the issue(s), when it comes to the Christian, is do you believe the word of God in scripture, and in the power of God, or not? Are you going to rely on the word of God, first, or the word of junk sciences, from atheists? It wouldn't hurt, the lesson of Job, that we are called upon to have faith and trust the Lord, even in things we don't understand, especially then, as this is what strong faith is about: trusting God, honoring that His every word is truth, and not relying on your own, sinful creature understandings. If all of God's word of scripture is inspired, God-breathed, it seems to me that, for the most part of all the debating among those claiming Christ, that debate shouldn't be. If your God can't create the universe as we know it, in six mornings and evenings, you have a quandary that you can believe anything that is God, and it doesn't seem you've really gotten past Genesis 1:1.

 

[kedge]

oneness is more important than this relative trivia.

When good human beings die do they go to heaven/paradise?, when bad human beings die do they go to a fiery hell place of punishment? when good or bad human beings die do they all go back to the earth?, is there a soul and a fleshly body when someone is alive making them two persons in one? these are just some of the things i don't see as trivia, in fact they are very important to know and it's the truth about these things that people would like to know, but the problem is that Christians teach different things about such matters. It is either one or the other, you can't have both, that's the way i see things anyway.

 

[kedge]

No, biblical creationists do not believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Christians have different views on the subject, the way i see things is you can't have true union if there are conflicting interpretations of the Bible, a fool can see that.