Evolutionists - Willingly Ignorant of the Truth

Discussion in 'Science' started by Gup20, Aug 2, 2005.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not surprising as most persons on Planet Earth dispute Christianity -

    Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    Just because someone is convinced enough to become a Christian doesn't mean they have mastered christian doctrine. Any sound hermeneutical study of scripture leads to a literal reading of Genesis. It's a good thing we don't decide Bible doctrine based on the majority vote - as the majority of the world doesn't even believe in Jesus.

    I have yet to see any Biblical debate regarding origins even come close to favoring anyting but a literal reading of Genesis. In fact, it is the evolutionist argument that the Bible is entirely silent regarding our origins and evolution - that is a de facto concession it seems.

    It's really awkward when someone who is holding an ax says "what ax... I don't see an ax".

    Clearly Genesis says that the earth was made in six days. Clearly, anyone can ad up the dates in the historical geneologies and get ~ 6000 years. Unless one dismisses these things as something other than literal history, there is no other possible explaination.

    Add to this the fact that Jesus himself - as well as many prophets, apostles, etc all treat Genesis history as literal, and you have a complete picture which leaves ABSOLUTELY no room for any other interpretation.

    You are - as 2Peter 3 says - willingly ignorant of the truth.

    2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
    3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
    4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
    5 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:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    7 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.

    Those who do not take Noah's flood (or the other literal history of Genesis) literally are called "scoffers, walking after their own lusts". The Bible has used this description before:

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    I have just given you ample scripture that supports the idea that not taking Genesis creation literally leads to a loss of morality. But lets delve into an example - let's take homosexual marriage - this is currently a hot button issue.

    Where is marriage ordained and instituted? Genesis 1 and 2.

    Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    Then Jesus quotes this passage as though it were a real, literal passage:

    Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
    5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
    6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    Why is marriage for 1 man and 1 woman for life? Jesus said the reason for that morality was the literalness of the creation of Adam and Eve - in that God created one man and one woman - not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The institution of marriage was created and ordained in the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve. If, however, there was no Adam and Eve - and God didn't create one man and one woman - if evolution is true - then there is no moral basis for homosexual marriage to be wrong.

    In fact, the passage in Romans chapter 1 I gave you - which describes how a person who believes evolution (gives the creation credit for the Creator's work) - directly correlates a belief in natural history with severe immorality - including homosexuality:

    Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (Gup: sounds like an evolutionist/humanist to me)
    8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (Gup: yet another reference to the literal history of Moses)

    2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
    13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Then you are willingly ignorant of the truth, as the Bible describes.
     
  2. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    By what rule do you decide when a Biblical passage is to be interpreted literally and when it is to be interpreted figuratively?

    Sometimes the clue is there in the formatting of the passage. Nobody goes for a literal interpretation of this passage:

    Rev 12:13-14
    3 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.
    NASU

    Sometimes it is because the thing is so obviously not literally true we are forced to consider a non-literal interpretation:

    Luke 14:26
    26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
    NASU


    This is a saying of Jesus that has absolutely no clue whatsover about it that it is not to be interpreted literally; except, of course, that to so interpret it is to fly in the face of God's known desire that we LOVE our parents and HONOR them, and love the others mentioned as well. Hence, merely the fact that the thing can't be literally true turns us towards the non-literal interpretation. Surely, our Lord is speaking of how our love for Him needs to exceed the love we have for others, so that for His sake was give up the others, if necessary.

    Now when we get into the books of Moses, the first five books, we have another example of a passage we must re-interpret:

    Lev 11:22-23
    22 "These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.

    23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
    NASU

    Folks, there are no four-footed winged creatures in our biosphere. They are all either two footed or six footed.

    Now this particular passage poses problems for our literal minded interpreters, because it is literally in error. Is there any hint that this is not to be interpreted literally? I say there is. Guess what the hint is.

    The very fact that literally taken the passage is an error is a hint that we are not to take it literally.

    The same thing occurs with the idea that cause of day and night is, actually, a sun that moves around the earth. That is the literal teaching of scripture:

    Josh 10:12-13
    12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
    And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."
    13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
    Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. NASU

    Literally, this passage declares it is the motion of the sun, not the earth, that was needed to stop. We all know the contrary to be the fact. Nevertheless, the literal words of scripture were historically used to impede science on this very point, until suddenly nobody bothered with them any more. Why? People came to accept the non-literal interpretation that the words can be understood as phenomenal rather than literal. Why did they do this? Because they became convinced the earth rotates and that is the cause of day and night. Nothing else would suffice to make them stop taking this passage literally.

    And so it is with the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2.

    Some of us have examined the evidence and seen it to be so persuasive that we simply cannot shrug it off and say it just isn't so. As a result of this new understanding - I refer to the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old and that all life is of common descent - we are forced to go back and read the Bible with that understanding, in exactly the same way we bring to the Bible our understanding it is the earth that moves rather than the Sun and that insects with wings have six legs rather than four and that we truly are able to love our parents as well as our Lord.

    To ask us to give up the understanding so carefully won by the brilliant men of science who have willingly shared that knowledge with us, along with the evidence for it, is as impossible as to ask us to start believing the sky is not blue. We have seen the evidence. But we find we are not required to give up our use of the Bible and the faith and hope we have in Christ. We find that the Bible truly lends itself to being interpreted in the light of these findings of science.
     
  3. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are right, Gup. Paul of Eugene is using the same tired stuff that they keep dragging out. I have spent hours answering similar posts in the past and you probably have, too. It doesn't matter. They have no desire to believe God or His Word and no desire for correct or even reasonable exegesis.

    Thank you for your post, though.
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of same tired stuff, Helen, you've never ever posted any response about the problem for your faster than light theory poised by the fact that it should require the rotation of galaxies to become so apparantly slow that it could not be detected, when in fact rotation of galaxies is easily detected at vast distances. Any progress along that line?
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just for reference, here is my summary of Paul's question from the last time someone brought it up.

    The full thread can be found at

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/39.html#000000

    and includes a couple of other things that need explaining, though my last one is not as well stated as I would like.

    -------

    But Paul, take a look around at all the abandoned threads and unanswered questions. I think you know by now that it is hard to pin YEers down on those elusive better explanations for the observations. There are a few currently that have wandered off into how the various phylogenies agree with one another. There was genetic data presented to support the bird / dinosaur links that has been ignored. No one wants to tackle the real ways in which novel genes are created on a couple of different threads. No one wants to explain the independent data that connects whales to land dwelling ancestors or that connects horses and rhinos through a common ancestor. No one seem to be able to explain why a decreasing amount of energy available to do work in the universe poses a problem for evolution. No one wants to explain why we have index fossils, that is why what we find is so easy to divide by stratiography. No one wants to explain the huge number of independent genetic phlyogenies that connect humans to the other apes. And so on and so on. They'd rather rather call us liars and fools and ignorant and to question our faith.
     
  6. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    What else have they got?

    What's most insulting is that as a layman they expect me to be persuaded by their tactics.
     
  7. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that Martin Luther said it best when he said, "Here I stand [on the word of God as written in the bible - my emphasis], I can do no other". When we take God at His word, we give glory to Him.
    But keep looking, and keep digging, and keep searching. The shovel, and the spade, and the microscope are great friends to the bible and what is written there. Nothing ever discovered has ever disproven anything in God's word, but digging and searching has proven God's word to have been correct all along.
     
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    JamesJ, how do you translate your post into, say, what do say or think about the fact that light traveling toward us from the nearest Galaxy must have traveled 3 million years in order to get here?
     
  9. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    God stretched out the heavens.

    And, the method used to determine the distances to stars from here is rather suspect, isn't it? Using the 186 million miles as the base of a triangle to find the distance to the star in question that is 3 million light years away.
     
  10. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, JJ! Yes, astronomers recognize the heavens have been and are being "stretched" . . . they call it the expansion of the universe. As for the distances to the stars, there are other methods. The light echo from a nova, for example, is light expanding at a known rate for a known distance and can be directly compared to how large the image is in the telescope for a direct calcuation of the distance. Here are a couple of light echo images for you:

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030402.html

    http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/images/captions/aat066.html

    Astronomers have spent thousands of man hours pouring over the data on stars that can act as standard candles. Cepheid Variables, for example, are found to link their variation time with their intrinsic brightness. By taking into account the known true brightness as compared to the apparant brightness the dimming due to distance can be determined. Finally, merely by knowing that the great galaxy in Andromeda is, in fact, a galaxy of stars, and seeing how much room it takes up in our sky, puts constraints on how close it can possibly be . . .

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991114.html

    certainly no closer than half a million light years away based on that factor alone. No, the methods used to determine the distances (and hence the light travel times implied) are not at all suspect, certainly not enough to cause one to believe the universe is merely 10,000 years or less in age after all. I don't mean to say there isn't any margin of error at all, merely that the margin of error is quite small compared to what is needed to rescue the young universe hypothesis.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Issues concerning the literalness of Genesis are not matters of doctrine. Many have attempted to make it so, but it is not. That is why I now refrain from debating such. Too many folks willing to tell you you're not saved, or that you don't believe the Bible, or that you're a liberal religionist or some such nonsense, if you don't agree with their view.
     
  12. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then it depends on WHAT you believe in, doesn't it?
    A plain reading of the bible says everything was created in six days. It also contains language that tells us that "in the beginning He created them male and female".
    I choose to believe God's word, but keep seeking for your answers as I know you will. I once believed as you did, but no longer do. God has had it recorded in the bible that we are not to lean to our own understanding. Therefore I choose to simply take God at His word and glorify Him.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God stretched out the heavens."

    Yes, so see, the Bible is consistent with the inflationary theory of the origin of the universe.

    "And, the method used to determine the distances to stars from here is rather suspect, isn't it? Using the 186 million miles as the base of a triangle to find the distance to the star in question that is 3 million light years away."

    I have never seen a case for the methods being suspect. Now as far as parallax using the earth's orbit as a base goes, if someone were trying to use it to measure distances out to 3 million light years then you would be right to be suspect. Using the measured angle and the length of the earth's orbit is only good to a distance on the order of hundreds of light years.

    But there are other methods.

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

    Many of these are variations on using brightness and the inverse square law. But what if the light has been dimmed you ask? If so, it will be obvious because part of the light will have been absorbed and the spectra cahnged.

    The distances to the stars are real.

    And if you look around some, you will see that there have been some very good cases presented from the text of the Bible itself on why the meaning was not necessarily intended as literal. Of course others deny these reason vehemently.
     
  14. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? First you say this, "Yes, so see, the Bible is consistent with the inflationary theory of the origin of the universe"

    Then you say, "...not necessarily intended as literal".

    What do you mean? How about if the bible said, "God inflated the universe"? Would the bible then be consistent with your usage of words?
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    There may have been a little bit of tongue in cheek there. Maybe we need a new graemlin. I am not quite sure that the various verses that mention the stretching of the heavens should be taken as being literal descriptions. They seem more poetic.

    In any case, I think you may be trying to invent a problem. Inflation shows us how the heavens have been stretched since the beginning of the universe. God says He stretched out the heavens. I don't see a problem here.

    That has nothing to do with whether or not we are to read the creation account in Genesis as literal or as something else. And whether or not we read that account as literal or not does not automatically preclude us from having a different opinion on other parts.

    Did you take a look at the ABC's of Distance link?
     
  16. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting you should choose to quote Martin Luther, since he so vehemently oppossed the teachings of that upstart astronomer Copernicus and insisted he was wrong to say the earth rotates as the cause of night and day. Martin thought the literal teachings of scripture should have been followed.

    Of course, as I pointed out above, everybody* has moved past that literal point of view, based merely on the known fact that it's not literally true.

    This is the way it went, historically. Are you aware of that history? Why do you feel history is not repeating itself this time?

    * of course there are a very few flat earthers remaining among us but they hardly count
     
  17. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Non-issue Paul. BTW... thanks for the dig.

    Got any more, or do you feel better now?
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, but are we doomed to repeat it or wise enough to learn from it?
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Biblical hermeneutics and the rules of Hebrew literature as well as contextual clues. Also, the application of these verses as literal by Jesus, the apostles, etc is further indication that a literal reading is the only appropriate one.

    You have to read the passage in Luke 14:26 in the context of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus is talking about separating yourself from all worldly considerations to be his disciple. He said that you have to be willing to give up your family – even your own life – to follow him.

    Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

    Moreover the word hate is the same word for hate used in Matthew 6:24:

    Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    We can see, then, that the verse is not promoting hate in the sense of there being no love – but hate in the sense of authority and loyalty.

    It’s good to see that you at least realize that “winged insects” is translated improperly, as the Hebrew word can mean animals, reptiles, or other creeping things. However, you should realize that there ARE in fact winged creatures that move about on all fours – such as the pterosaurs, which most scientists believe walked on all fours. Moreover, there are a host of flying lizards, flying squirrels, etc that probably qualify.

    All movement must be described in relation to something else—a reference frame—and from a descriptive point of view, all reference frames are equally valid. The Bible writers used the earth as a convenient reference frame, as do modern astronomers talking about ‘sunset’; speed limit signs also depend on the earth as a reference frame.

    Joshua’s command to the sun to stand still does not support geocentrism, i.e. the idea that the sun moves around the Earth. The Bible uses the language of appearance and observation.
    Today people do exactly the same thing. For example, scientists who prepare weather reports for TV announce the times of ‘sunrise and sunset’. In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping.
    Jos 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
    13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
    Notice the bold – in the sight of Israel. It gives us a descriptive point of view. Literally, it says in the sight of Israel, the sun stood still. The fact that the moon stayed is also an indication of frame of reference being from the point of view of a person on earth. Your assertions about geocentrism have always, and continue to lack any credibility.
    Well you and I certainly agree that you are using modern humanistic ideas to re-interpret the Bible. However, I would not recommend this:
    Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
    Moreover you are doing EXACTLY as the scripture warns no do:
    2Pe 3:5 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:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    You see, Genesis declares that we are created in the image of God. However, you are changing that image to look like a monkey, a bird, a four-footed beast or a creeping thing.

    In fact, if you believe the Big Bang is true you have EXACTLY the same starlight time travel problem. Science tells us that the universe is roughly the same temperature throughout. There has not been nearly enough time – even assuming 14 billion years – for radiation to go from one side of our universe to the other – yet it is all at equilibrium temperature. Humphrey’s starlight time model is just as plausible as inflation theory. In fact, many secular scientists are starting to agree with him that the universe has a center and an edge. It has even been quipped that the “big bang” is the only explosion in history to not have a center and an edge.

    Clearly, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH scientific data to support creation, otherwise the argument would have been over and done with 200 years ago. Yet creationism continues to be successful, and increase in success. With the event of the 400+ scientists signing the dissent to Darwinism we can see that ideas which more closely line up with a literal reading of scripture are making more sense to scientists than you guys think.

    You guys are going to be left “holding the bag” pretty soon – being both on the outside of Christian faith, and the outside of science. You have already admitted that evolution is not found in scripture. You have already conceded that millions of years is an idea that is exterior to scripture. You have already admitted that you are using man’s fallible, ever changing science to re-interpret the scripture. It’s time you stopped all that non-sense, and participated in some sound reason. That sound reason is belief in the Bible as it is written. Do not add anything. When it says Israel saw the sun stop, don’t try to construe that to mean that the Bible is trying to say the sun rotates around the earth. Realize that the Bible said exactly what it meant – that from Israel’s perspective (the perspective of a person standing on earth) the sun stood still in the sky. God doesn’t need to explain how he did this – we just need to know what the witnesses saw, and believe that the Bible is true – therefore the historical account of this event is true.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are making simple mistakes here that cloud your views.

    "In fact, if you believe the Big Bang is true you have EXACTLY the same starlight time travel problem. Science tells us that the universe is roughly the same temperature throughout. There has not been nearly enough time – even assuming 14 billion years – for radiation to go from one side of our universe to the other – yet it is all at equilibrium temperature."

    This is where inflation comes in. I think you have made this same claim in the past and have been given the same answer.

    In the early moment of the universe, it experienced and inflationary epic which caused the homogentiy that we see today. This explanation makes a number of predictions of things we should observe if it is the actual answer to your question. As we have been able recently to study the CMB in greater detail, these predictions have started to be verified.

    You pose a problem for which the answer has been settled for a while. Since you have brought up the horizon problem are you next going to bring up the flatness problem? I'll give you the same answer but phrased a bit differently to cover that specific issue.

    "It has even been quipped that the 'big bang' is the only explosion in history to not have a center and an edge."

    Everyone together now...

    THE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION. tHE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION.

    At least not what you think of as an explosion. There was no existing space that it began to fill. The Big Bang is the expansion of space-time itself.

    "Clearly, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH scientific data to support creation, otherwise the argument would have been over and done with 200 years ago."

    There is no data to support a young earth and the serious debate has been over for nearly that long. There are a few stragglers who have yet to accept this.

    But if you disagree, there are plenty of ongoing threads for you to prove your assertions. I have been asking you and others to do so for a very long time and I have yet to see anything but maybe you have been holding back something good.
     

Share This Page

Loading...