1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Have I changed my stance?

Discussion in 'Science' started by mareese, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Very well then - show me 5 atheists who believe in creation and I'll apologize for saying that you believe the same doctrine as atheists.

    Evening and morning do not require the sun, but only alternating light and dark periods. The sun is attributed to light and dark now because it has assumed the responsibilities for providing us with our light.

    If I said "the sun stopped moving in the sky" I would be describing what I was seeing from my own point of view. Whether the earth stopped spinning or whatever would not matter. The point of view is from a person standing on earth - as I assume Joshua was. It is indeed very literal. It's literally what Joshua saw as he stood on earth.

    Even so, Genesis 1 is not from man's perspective ... it's from God's perspective (as man was not created until the end of Genesis 1). It is from the Creator's perspective.

    Cosmic Microwave Background is measurable. The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.

    The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.

    Probably not, seeing as there was no physical evidence at the scopes trial but lets see their evolution experts had to say:

    Piltdown Man
    Neanderthal Man
    Java Man
    Embryonic Recapitulation
    Homo Erectus
    Nebraska Man
    Australopithecus
    Vestigal Organs

    They discussed "vestigial" organs, but organs once considered "useless" are now known to have functions. Did you know that the very textbook from which Scopes taught advocated eugenics and promoted racism? Indeed, it divided humanity into five races and ranked them in terms of superiority, concluding with “the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” This is the book Darwinists insist Scopes had a right to teach?

    Well we know that God is light. I was not implying that God travels around at the speed of light,but rather that relativity and the Bible have a commonality.

    This is perhaps the most worthless answer you have ever given. It demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of the argument.

    You were not there when the world was created. No one alive today (save Jesus) was there, and you won't accept Jesus' testimony in the matter. Your theories all hang entirely upon uniformitarian assumptions that cannot possibly be measured or proven no matter how many "scientists test it". In order to verify it, you would need an eyewitness account from the past - someone testing it in the past and recording the results. Moreover, you would have to rule out any abnormal influences on a system (such as ... oh ... say a world wide flood).

    But you have ignored the only eyewitness account that exists - the Bible.

    Indeed... and if I were joshua - even if I knew the earth revolved around the sun, and that the earth spun to make day and night... I would still DESCRIBE THE EVENT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE - stating that the sun stopped it's movment accross the sky.

    The same literal terms used by our meterologists to literally DESCRIBE an event from human perspective - regardless of the causality.

    Indeed... as they are a literal explaination describing what Joshua saw from his perspective. Because Joshua is not PERFORMING the action, there is no causality. He is only witnessing the action... therefore it is a literal DESCRIPTION of what he saw from his perspective. It's actually hyperliteral - just as a figure of speech like "watch the sunrise" would be - again its describing the scene literally as it's viewed.

    Evolution contradicts scripture. That is the truth. You cannot get around it or deny it.
     
  2. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is sad to see such a facility with words coupled with such misleading statements as we sometimes find on this board.

    Gup20 himself believes, along with quite a few atheists, that the earth revolves as the cause of day and night. Just because some atheistic opionions line up with the same opinion as Gup20 is not really, in fact, a slur on Gup20 in any way . . . yet he depends on you accepting that as a slur on his rhetorical opponents. Just how dumb, dear readers, does he think you all are, that he tries this gimmick?

    Here Gup20 is attempting to provide solid exegesis for his view that the Bible actually, in some way, implies it is NOT the movement of the sun across our sky that causes day and night, rather it is the rotation of the earth.

    So he cites the fact that there was a day and night before there was a sun.

    Somehow he thinks this has a bearing on his contention. There is no logical connection at all between the days and nights before the Sun was created and the idea that the earth rotates, none whatsover, but somehow, in his mind, there is some kind of connection between these ideas.

    This is what passes for "solid exegesis" in his mind - that is, anything that by some streatch of his imagination that will get to his foregone conclusion. All of you who read his post can see that for yourselves.

    Ah, a wonderful explanation why Joshua thought what he saw was literally true. Not a smidgeon of any worthy expository evidence that Joshua realized he was not recording quite literally.

    The books that left out evolution, the alternatives available, also had the same racial flaws perpetuated - the spirit of the age permeated them all.

    This is perhaps the most worthless answer you have ever given. It demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of the argument.
    </font>[/QUOTE]This shows your complete misunderstanding of the essense of the argument for evolution and the ancient age of the earth. Of COURSE we don't interview eyewitnesses from 4.5 billion years back, instead we EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE TODAY. This is NOT A CHARACTER FLAW in the scientists who do that. It is ALL THEY CAN DO, and IT TURNS OUT THE METHOD WORKS.

    Again, you are completely wrong about the method's usefulness. The measurements and proofs can be compared against each other for consistency. If many different ways of testing for an age of something come up with the same result . . . then this represents cross verification and is evidence that establishes the theory.

    Indeed... as they are a literal explaination describing what Joshua saw from his perspective. Because Joshua is not PERFORMING the action, there is no causality. He is only witnessing the action... therefore it is a literal DESCRIPTION of what he saw from his perspective. It's actually hyperliteral - just as a figure of speech like "watch the sunrise" would be - again its describing the scene literally as it's viewed.
    </font>[/QUOTE]And you just read into it your own modern understanding based on your knowledge of science in order to be able to say that, because you can't find that in the verse, the very thing you say nobody else should ever do.

    Evolution contradicts scripture. That is the truth. You cannot get around it or deny it. </font>[/QUOTE]It makes us feel a little less concerned about your demands we give up the science we know, since you continue to refuse to do it yourself with the science you know.

    Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers
     
  3. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That fact is not in clear opposition to scripture. At the very best the language in the Bible could go either way. At the very worst (for your point of view) Genesis 1 indicates support for a revolving earth. Evolution, however, is clearly contradictory to ANY exegesis of scripture. When the Bible isn't clear, I agree - lets look at other evidence, even that of a lost and dying world for answers. However, concerning creation and the origin of man the Bible is absolutely clear.

    No... that isn't what I said at all. What I am suggesting is that the Word describes Joshua's point of view and has no implications toward whether or not the earth rotates around the sun or vice versa - rather, that is what could be seen from Joshua's perspective.

    In contrast, we see in Genesis God's perspective. Since God is the one performing the act of creation we have an element of causality that we do not have in Joshua. Joshua is simply "along for the ride" reporting the sites and sounds of the journey. God, on the other hand is pushing the buttons and pulling the strings. When God tells us what is going on in Genesis 1 He is doing so from HIS perspective and therefore the desription carries with it causality. When the "sun stops in the sky" for Joshua, God is doing it, but Joshua is describing it. Therefore, Joshua's description is an observational one, rather than a causal one. It goes to the motive of the speech - whether the thing is being explained or described.

    Well since this is "in my mind" let me share it so that you might have understanding. If I shine a light from a fixed point onto a sphere... and I spin that sphere... the side of the sphere facing the light will have light, and the side facing opposite will be dark. Now if I mark a fixed point on the sphere and spin it again with a fixed light source shining on it, that point on the sphere will have alternating moments of light and dark. It will have "mornings" and "evenings" (albeit short) where the horizon slowly fills with light until the light source can be fully seen.

    The Bible isn't clear what the light was - it just says God made light. It is clear that God created the Sun on day 4, however, along with the other stars.

    But when in doubt, go to the Word and look at it:

    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.
    Jos 10:13 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.

    I have bolden the verse so you can see from whom's perspective we are talking about. Clearly, "in their sight" the sun would appear to not move accross the sky.

    Furthermore, there is a link here to Genesis 1. The verse in Joshua clearly mentions not only the Sun, but also the moon.

    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

    We see also the real causality. Joshua spoke to the Lord (aka he prayed) and God heard his prayer. The sun standing still is from Joshua's perspective - but notice Joshua was smart enough to admit he didn't know how the sun and moon worked - he simply echoed God's Word. God knew what he meant, and performed it. So GOD is the one DOING, and Joshua is the one SEEING what is done.

    And therein lies your answer. Evolution is not a science if you define science as something observable and repeatable. It is a faith. You have what actual scientists call 'contaminated samples'. You have to make crazy assumptions about your samples to match them to your evolutionary doctrine. There is no controled experiement performed... no pure results. It's a guessing game based consistent conditions for millions of years - which is rediculous. Conditions can change radically in an area over 100 years, let alone for billions or millions of years.

    First, you have to make an assumption that eveyrthing happened naturally without any supernatural interference - even though the Bible clearly describes creation as a supernatural event in which God was present and performing actual tasks. Second, you have to make the assumption that all the conditions were the same over millions and millions of years (aka no catastrophes or big quick changes). Third, you have to make the assumption that nothing contaminated the evidence.

    Once you have done all that - pinned all your hopes on all these assumptions, then you must take the evidence and - compare it to what you see today for an interpretation. So after all those assumptions, you make another - again assuming that what was before was as today. This is especially foolish when you can look at the fossils for plants, for example, and see them much larger in the past then they are able to get today, for example.

    The thing you don't understand is that when you come up with different tests that are all based on the same assumptions, and the test results are the same it really doesn't mean anything except that your test methods are consistent. If you make different assumptions, you get different results, so matching results is not indicative of correct interpretation, but rather reflective of the matching assumptions.
     
  4. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    Gup: Does a plain text interpretation of Scripture lead you to conclude that the sun circles the earth? Yes or no.
     
  5. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
  6. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The Word only indicates that there IS movement, but it does not directly address the nature of the movement. There are several implications (such as Genesis 1 implying a fixed light source) but no direct statements regarding the type and nature of the movement.
     
  7. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    Well let's rehash.

    We have a fixed earth:

    Oh, look here! We have movement!

    And then of course we see God commanding the sun to stand still.

    So there ya have it. I assume you must have been unaware of these verses and how they were interpreted for centuries upon centuries. You might want to look up the history sometime but for now answer this: Does a plain text interpretation of Scripture lead you to conclude that the sun circles the earth? Yes or no.
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Yet no where in the Bible does it literally say that the sun rotates around the earth. A proper exegesis of the scripture reveals that."

    Then let's hear you exegesis of the earth orbiting the sun.

    "Very well then - show me 5 atheists who believe in creation and I'll apologize for saying that you believe the same doctrine as atheists."

    That is a silly request. Hilter and I would agree that the sky is blue. WIll you now call me a Nazi?

    But... If the evidence really does point to a young earth, can you point me to any one who interprets the evidence as showing a young earth who is not biased by some religious text that they interpret in some manner? Any atheist young earthers out there?

    "Evening and morning do not require the sun, but only alternating light and dark periods."

    And there you go moving further from the literal, plain interpretation. This is hard to watch. Especiually after you advocated death during the creation week on the other thread. Apparently a lot of it, too, to make thick layers of fossil bearing limestone.

    So, when a full moon rises, o you also call that "morning" or does your equivocation have limits?

    It should be simple to explain to even a child that if something is proclaiming both the absence of the sun and the occurance of mornings and evenings, that it most likely is not meant to be taken literally. There might just be something else going on there. Child might also realize that if you tell it with the animals being made and them man and then turn right around and say that man was created and then the animals, that you might want to look into writing a little bit further and see if there is something else being communicated than just the literal words. In this case, that God is the creator of all and that man has been placed in dominion over the earth.

    "If I said "the sun stopped moving in the sky" I would be describing what I was seeing from my own point of view."

    Then it is a good thing that no such confusion was present and the writer specifically said that the sun was commanded to stand still.

    "Cosmic Microwave Background is measurable. The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.

    The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.
    "

    There is a little theory called inflation that you should check into. It explains why this is so. It also made some very detailed predicitons on just what sorts of patterns should be seen in the CMB. So far, the theory is very accurate.

    Just how do you explain the details of the patterns of the CMB?

    "Probably not, seeing as there was no physical evidence at the scopes trial but lets see their evolution experts had to say:"

    If there was no physical evidence presented at the Scopes trieal then what was your basis for claiming that all evidence presented at the scopes trial has been disproven? If it has not been presented, how can it have been presented and proven wrong? Odd claim you made there.

    "Piltdown Man"

    Proven a fraud by science.

    "Neanderthal Man[/i}"

    A seperate species of the genus Homo. What is your point?

    "Java Man"

    A Homo erectus. What is your point?

    "Embryonic Recapitulation"

    Too far of a stretch but ontogeny is an important sceince. Do you have a problem with the modern, correct version?

    "Homo Erectus"

    Another species of Homo. What is your point? Did you know that we now have H. georgicus which is transitional between H ergaster and H. erectus?

    "Australopithecus"

    An ancestor of Homo. What is your point?

    "Vestigal Organs

    They discussed "vestigial" organs, but organs once considered "useless" are now known to have functions.
    "

    Some, but not all. Why do you have the ability to wiggle your ears and why can you make your hair stand on end? These are vestigal functions.

    And you have never told us about the vestigal psuedogenes for a sense of smell in whales.

    "Well we know that God is light. I was not implying that God travels around at the speed of light,but rather that relativity and the Bible have a commonality."

    If this was not such a serious subject, this would be laughable.

    The scripture is trying to tell us something about God and you make up a connection to relativity. YEers continually miss the forest for the trees.

    "This is perhaps the most worthless answer you have ever given. It demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of the argument."

    So no observations can be made from a fossil? Can I tell if something was once alive? Can I tell what it was? Can I tell something about its lifestyle? Can I sometimes tell what it ate? Can I sometimes tell how it died? Can I look at its morphology and compare that with other fossils? Can other scientists not make the same kinds of observations and see if they agree.

    I think the problem is your argument has no teeth.

    "Second, you have to make the assumption that all the conditions were the same over millions and millions of years (aka no catastrophes or big quick changes)."

    What do you mean? Scientists do not assume the conditions have always been the same. Just that the physical laws of the universe have been the same.

    "Third, you have to make the assumption that nothing contaminated the evidence."

    Your assertion. Show the contamination.
     
  9. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There is none... as I have previously stated (which you seem to be unable to read) there is no clear exegesis that leads one to believe the earth revolved around the sun or the sun revolved around the earth. It states there was movement and that movement was circular. It doesn't say anything beyond that directly.

    Hitler was an evolutionist. Darwin's description of superior species of humans was the basis for Hitler's doctrines and a primary contributor to Nazism.

    You are smoking crack... I never advocated death during the creation week. I have been trying to tell you that there was no death before sin (FYI adam sinned AFTER he was created).

    Thank you for proving every point I have ever made. You don't get millions of years thinking from the Bible. YOu get that if you NEVER READ THE BIBLE. Why? Because you have to make assumptions about things that are clearly stated in scripture based on what you see today.

    On the other hand, if you have the Bible - which you know to be absolutely true - it can fill in a lot of the blanks where assumptions have to be made with hard imperical data. For example, there was a world wide flood.

    Evidence on it's own means nothing. It must be interpreted. Your interpretation is based on the assumptions you have going in.

    But, UTEOTW, you can rest securely in the fact that your faith in Genesis is identical to that of atheists.

    No, UTE. Unlike you I believe the Bible -

    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

    So as a believer in the Bible, and one who takes Genesis literally, I would say that the moon coming up would be the EVENING, not the morning.

    They accepted testimony rather than evidence. These items were the arguments used to convince the court that evolution was legitimate science. All were eventually disproven - as will all the current evidences that supposedly support evolution. In time the Bible will be shown to be true yet again... why? Because it IS true. Evolution is a false faith - a false doctrine.

    2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
     
  10. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure it does. What other possible reasonable LITERAL interpretation can be made from these verses:

    Josh 10:13
    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

    Ps 19:4-6
    Their line has gone out through all the earth,
    And their utterances to the end of the world.
    In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
    5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
    It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
    6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
    And its circuit to the other end of them;
    And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
    NASU

    Ps 104:19
    19 He made the moon for the seasons;
    The sun knows the place of its setting.
    NASU

    Eccl 1:5
    5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
    And hastening to its place it rises there again.
    NASU

    Judg 5:31
    31 "Thus let all Your enemies perish, O LORD;
    But let those who love Him be like the rising of the sun in its might."
    NASU
    Hitler was an evolutionist. Darwin's description of superior species of humans was the basis for Hitler's doctrines and a primary contributor to Nazism.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Even if what you say Hitler believed is true, that would have no relevance to the discussion. The issue is not even whether or not evolution beliefs drive men to do evil. It is only whether or not evolution is real.

    Of course, that is only true for the science you choose to disregard, and you choose to accept the non-biblical science when you yourself are convinced by it. As when you accept the fact that the earth's rotation, not the moving of the sun, is the cause of night and day.

    So tell me about the moon. Does the moon ever come up WITH the sun? That is, in the morning? Or does a literal teaching of scripture make that impossible?
     
  11. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Tsk tsk tsk, Paul. I showed you this - it's pretty dishonest to leave out the pertenant information. Lets backup a verse so we can see the context:

    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.

    Here were have a point of view from which to reference. This isn't from "God's view" being able to see the sun, moon and stars. It is from the point of view of persons standing on the earth... what they would see from their point of view.

    So the text reads literally from a person's perspective (not from God's perspective).

    Psalms is poetic (a psalm is a song). You should take great care not to read literal meanings into poetic verses. Clearly, the poetic verse has a literal meaning, but that literal meaning is not stated, but inferred. Any scientific theories based on poetic verses (such as Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Job) should be held to a bit more loosely than we would an exegesis of literal scripture (such as Genesis, Exodus, Matthew). The poetic should always expound on some literal text... not the other way around. IE - we don't define the literal from the poetic... we define the poetic from the literal.

    On the contrary... I think it's important to look at the spirit behind evolutionary thought as well as the scientific idea. It goes to motive and origin of the idea. In this case it's clear - to provide an explaination of the universe without God & contrary to the Bible. To PROVE THE BIBLE ISN'T TRUE.

    By reading the Bible alone, one could not come to a conclusion on this. This is not the case with creation, or Noah's Flood for example. We have clear literal scripture (in many places) confirming both.
     
  12. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    The Holy spirit speaks through this one. I'm convicted.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "There is none... as I have previously stated (which you seem to be unable to read) there is no clear exegesis that leads one to believe the earth revolved around the sun or the sun revolved around the earth."

    So all those folks who for all those centuries WERE able to exegete a stationary earth using the verses pointed out to you were gravely mistaken? How do you know this? They got pretty upset when the truth came out!

    This sounds very familar. I say that the Bible does not touch on evolution either. There is no exegesis to support evolution because a mention of it is not in there. Yet you keep asking. You really do sound like the folks who clung desparately to their geocentric view in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

    "Well since this is "in my mind" let me share it so that you might have understanding. If I shine a light from a fixed point onto a sphere... and I spin that sphere... the side of the sphere facing the light will have light, and the side facing opposite will be dark. Now if I mark a fixed point on the sphere and spin it again with a fixed light source shining on it, that point on the sphere will have alternating moments of light and dark. It will have "mornings" and "evenings" (albeit short) where the horizon slowly fills with light until the light source can be fully seen."

    My how far you are willing to go from the plain reading as you try and convince us that we should use the plain reading. Morning and evening are when the sun rises and sets. Period. Anything else is you equivocating. That's a fallacy you know.

    "You are smoking crack... I never advocated death during the creation week."

    Major personal attack there. And yes you did. In this post http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/29.html#000006 you claimed that a fossil bearing layer of limestone was laid down during the creation week. The fossils and the limestone together make that a double strike on your part.

    But you have never replied. I am beginning to thing that you do not read before posting. You merely look for keywords to search on. And that you never read after posting. You keep returning to things without having responded or even knowing what the response was.

    "Hitler was an evolutionist. Darwin's description of superior species of humans was the basis for Hitler's doctrines and a primary contributor to Nazism."

    YOu just do not pay attenetion. You tried this already. I find it dishonest to post something, not reply when the claim is shown to be false, and then to post the same claim again.

    "Thank you for proving every point I have ever made. "

    I'll take that as answer of No, you do not know anyone who accepts a young earth solely on the evidence.

    "Evidence on it's own means nothing. It must be interpreted."

    THEN JUST ONCE GIVE US THE BETTER INTERPRETATION!

    "They accepted testimony rather than evidence. These items were the arguments used to convince the court that evolution was legitimate science. All were eventually disproven - as will all the current evidences that supposedly support evolution. "

    So even though they were not presented in court, you still claim they were presented. Interesting logic there.

    Furthermore, we need additional information from you. About the only thing on your list that has been disproven is Piltdown. The rest are still healthy parts of science except that the embryo thing needed some major revisions. You claim on them all being shown false is, well, false.
     
  14. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Well quit smoking crack and the Lord will not need to convict you about it ;p

    They didn't exegete anything. They inferred the common belief as the meaning. There is a distinct difference. When a contradictory belief (to the common belief, not to an exegesis) arose, the mistake they made was holding to something that didn't come from exegetical analysis, but rather that which was inferred as it seemed to "jive" with the common beleif. These made the mistake of holding to an inferred belief as though it were exegetically sound. Creationists are keen not to make that mistake again.

    The Bible is neither unclear no ambiguous concerning creation or the flood. It is very clear and straightforward regarding the scale, scope, and chronology of these events. Evolution is in direct contradiction to that clear teaching.

    First of all... it is a quote. Secondly, never does anyone say that there was death during the creation week. Put your crack pipe down and think before you post.

    FYI - crack pipe is an expression meaning you are crazy and seeing things that are not there. I am not speaking literally folks... lighten up. Why UTE - do you smoke crack? Have you ever smoked crack?

    I read close enough to catch your grammatical mistakes anyway. ;)

    And no one accepts old earth based solely on the evidence either... both go into it interpretting the evidence based on their paradigm of assumptions about the history of the earth. If I assumed that the earth was billions of years old, I my interpretations would support that. If I assumed the earth were thousands of years old... my interpretations would support that. How do we know for sure? Well for starters, the BIble, which is ultimate truth, tells us definitively in the geneologies how many years from Adam to Jesus.

    I continually give you a better interpretation but you reject it categorically because it comes from the Bible... remember that book? It's that one you don't read or agree with.

    Amazingly it's the same logic that evolution uses now in every public classroom in the country. They have no physical evidence... nothing real that proves it, but they teach it as fact. It is this deception that creation science exposes.

    Your argument here is equivalent to saying "I know we have an eyewitness, but does that eyewitness have any video tape of the incident?" You are arguing that because they didn't enter any physical evidence that the testamony for that evidence never existed. This is a fallicy. They brought in "expert winesses" who argued using these 'evidences' (piltdown man, nebraska man, etc) which have all been refuted.

    http://www.ktti.com/sarrell/scientific_evidence.html

    Piltdown Man- Ranked by the History Channel as one of the top five hoaxes of all time, Piltdown Man was touted as a missing link between man and apes for 41 years. Discovered in 1912 it was not realized until 1953 that the fossil remains consisting of a human cranium and an orangutan's jaw had been deliberately joined together, stained to give the appearance of great age, and then broken and placed in a gravel pit near London. Cursory examinations in 1953 revealed that the teeth of the orangutan had been filed down to give a more human-like appearance. Fluorine analysis determined a recent age for the skull and jaw pieces. Although there are many suspects, the perpetrator's identity is still unknown. Piltdown Man was one of the prime evidences supporting evolution at the trial and was used in over 500 doctoral dissertations as proof of evolution being 'an established fact'.



    Neanderthal Man- Discovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley (ironically named after Joachem Neander, composer of the hymn "Praise to the Lord, The Almighty, The King of Creation!") this was the first fossil used to prove that humans descended from apes. Reconstructions showed a bow-legged, stoop-shouldered figure with a large head. He was supposedly an intermediate between apes walking with two legs and arms to humans using only two legs. Neanderthal Man had a larger brain than modern humans have by about 100 cc. This was a problem since brain size was thought to have steadily increased to today's size of about 1450 cc. So how could Neanderthal Man pre-date modern humans if he had a larger brain? More recent studies have shown that Neanderthal Man is fully human and that the earlier Neanderthal fossils' features are attributed to arthritis and rickets. Rickets is a bone disease caused by a lack of vitamin D which often results in the legs being abnormally curved and can also account for the flattened skullcap of some Neanderthals. Overall, Neanderthal Man's features are not that dissimilar to present day humans. Many European ethnic groups share some of Neanderthal's features; a skeleton of a knight buried in a suit of armor has a Neanderthal body type. Neanderthal man is now recognized as being fully human; many museums have changed their displays to reflect this latest analysis.



    Java Man- The fossil known as Java man was discovered in 1891 along the banks of Solo River by Eugene Dubois. It consists of a femur, skullcap, and three teeth that became the first fossil finds of the Homo erectus category. The skullcap was found first and the femur was discovered one year later and fifty feet away from the location of the skullcap. The skullcap has thick walls and large eyebrow ridges and in all other respects is simian. The femur is fully human. Therefore, Dubois felt that this creature had both ape and human features; i.e. a missing link. A great deal of contention surrounded Dubois's finds. His integrity is challenged due to the fact that he did not reveal that he had also found two human skulls at the same time as his Java Man. He hid them under his bed for 30 years! Why? Had he revealed all of his finds at once it would have made it difficult to claim that Java Man was a missing link instead of the remains of humans and apes that lived simultaneously in the same region. Many experts now doubt the initial evaluation and believe that the skullcap is from an extinct type of gibbon and the femur from a human that co-existed along the Solo River.

    Dubois felt strongly that his find was indeed an intermediate or transitional form possessing human and simian features. He stressed the ape like features so much that many think he changed his mind to agree with those anatomists who stated that Java Man was only an extinct gibbon. Used as a textbook example of human evolution, Java man is a major problem for evolutionists. Lubenow insightfully shows the paradox of Java Man,

    Here, then, is the problem faced by evolutionist paleoanthropology. If the Java skullcap and femur actually belong together, then it is difficult to maintain a species difference between Homo erectus (Java Man) and Homo sapiens. The distinction would be an artificial one, and it would compromise these fossils as evidence for human evolution. If, on the other hand, the skullcap belongs to Homo erectus, and the femur belongs to Homo sapiens, it shows that these two forms lived together as contemporaries. It likewise removes these fossils as evidence for human evolution, because fluorine analysis indicates that the fossils are both the same age.
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "They didn't exegete anything. They inferred the common belief as the meaning. There is a distinct difference. When a contradictory belief (to the common belief, not to an exegesis) arose, the mistake they made was holding to something that didn't come from exegetical analysis, but rather that which was inferred as it seemed to "jive" with the common beleif. These made the mistake of holding to an inferred belief as though it were exegetically sound. Creationists are keen not to make that mistake again."

    YOu really ought to read a biography of Galileo some time. They gave religious reasons for geocentrism and there reasons read very much like your logic for YE.

    "First of all... it is a quote. Secondly, never does anyone say that there was death during the creation week. Put your crack pipe down and think before you post. "

    You did not edit enough out of your own "post" to distort the meaning completely. You left in, accidentally I assume since most YEers a very practiced at selective quoting, the part where he says "The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth's oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week." BUt you were smart enough to excise the following part. "Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world.[/i]"

    All of these sedimentary layers have fossils. Therefore you advocate death during the creation week. It really is quite simple.

    "And no one accepts old earth based solely on the evidence either... both go into it interpretting the evidence based on their paradigm of assumptions about the history of the earth."

    You can find folks who accept an old earth with every range of personal beliefs from Baptist through all forms of Christianity through agnostic and atheism. Not so with YE. Only those with a predisposition to YE accept it.

    "I continually give you a better interpretation but you reject it categorically because it comes from the Bible."

    What I disagree with is the garbage from places like AIG that you spam us with.

    "Your argument here is equivalent to saying "I know we have an eyewitness, but does that eyewitness have any video tape of the incident?" You are arguing that because they didn't enter any physical evidence that the testamony for that evidence never existed. This is a fallicy[sic]."

    No, you said the things presented at the trial have been shown to be false. If no one ever gave testimony about these things... What is the fallacy?

    "Piltdown Man"

    I gave you that one, remember?

    "Neanderthal Man- Discovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley ..."

    So rickets gives you a low forhead and brow ridges? COuld you please support this with data? Rickets give you an occipital bun? Could you please support this?

    Rickets would actually give you a weaker skeleton. Neanderthals have a very robust skeleton. Not exactly a sickly bunch. Rickets does cuase curvature of the bone but in a different direction than the curvature found in Neanderthals.

    It is a false assertion to say that today they are considered fully human. Today they are considered to be a side branch which are not human. Today, genetic testing has shown that Neanderthals and modern humans have DNA which are far outside of each others ranges. They were not human.
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had computer problems before I could get to the last one.

    "Java Man- The fossil known as Java man was discovered in 1891 along the banks of Solo River by Eugene Dubois."

    You fail to mention that the human remains you have such a problem with were 65 miles away! Found "at the same time" at least dishonestly implies that they were found together. NOt true.

    Nor did he keep them secret. He had published three articles on them before he ever found the Java Man remains!

    Modern scientists also do not believe that the 50 foot separated remains beliong to the same individual or species.

    You also claim that the skullcap is apelike dispite the fact that it is much larger than non-human apes at 940 cc. That is ten times larger than a gibbons brain.

    Do your sources ever get their facts right? It is a shame that you continue to believe their lies.
     
  17. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tsk tsk tsk, Paul. I showed you this - it's pretty dishonest to leave out the pertinent information. Lets backup a verse so we can see the context:

    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.

    Here were have a point of view from which to reference. This isn't from "God's view" being able to see the sun, moon and stars. It is from the point of view of persons standing on the earth... what they would see from their point of view.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You've misunderstood the point of that verse. The point of that verse is that Joshua's plea was witnessed by the nation. It is beyond the ability of honest literal interpretation of these verses to read anything else into the words at all. Indeed, the very next verse is simply not at all anybodies words but instead it is the inspired writer's words, when he writes Josh 10:13
    So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
    Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.


    As far as the people of that day were concerned, it was an easy thing to tell if a thing were moving or if a thing were standing still, it is the earth that was always fixed and still, it was the sun that moved, and the whole idea that there even is any other frame of reference to think about never entered the heads of any of Adam's descendants until those upstart science guys like Copernicus and Galileo began to start thinking that the earth indeed rotates.

    But please, by all means, go right on defending your right to give up literal scripture here while insisting others not give it up there. Let everyone who hasn't already made up their minds see the utter inconsistency for themselves.

    That's funny you should say that because when the science was first coming out all the clerics sure weighed in with the contrary view. The Catholics banned the writings of Copernicus and forced Galileo to recant; Martin Luther quoted our Joshua verse particularly with the idea of persuading people the earth did NOT rotate; and you today don't go along with them for one reason only.

    The evidence is now so plainly against them that we are forced to realize those earlier scientists were right.

    What could have possibly spared Luther and the Pope and the rest from committing the intellectual blunder they were committing? Only one thing. A fair minded evaluation of the physical evidence, allowing for the possibility that they were wrong about their interpretation of the Bible.

    That is the one thing that today you will not do, and therefore you are doomed to repeat their history.
     
  18. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I don't know if they have fossils or not... but just so that we are clear, I don't hold to ANY theory that has human or animal death occuring prior to sin. I didn't read that meaning into the statements... but none the less that is NOT the intended meaning and I apologize for any inference that may have come. I overlooked it. I was under the impression that it was that the fossils were a result of catestrophic flood and sedimentation process (even that of re-organizing creation week rocks) during the flood.

    This isn't necessarily true. What is true is that you 'hear about' the former more often. For example, look at this:

    These things were mentioned in testamony... however no physical evidence was presented. (must like evolution science today ;) )

    They made a classic mistake. When presented with a drawing of two half circles side by side (but not connected) and asked what was missing they all said it was supposed to be a circle. In actually, it was two half circles side by side. It is a classic doupe or con fallicy. What they should have done is question the question - when they said what's missing they should have asked how they knew something was missing.

    Agassiz's Arguments Against Darwinism
    Paul J. Morris, "Louis Agassiz's Arguments against Darwinism in His Additions to the French Translation of the Essay on Classification," Journal of the History of Biology 30 (1997): 121-134.

    Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), the great Swiss-American fossil fish systematist, geologist, and, in Stephen Jay Gould's words, "America's leading biologist" of the mid-nineteenth century, never accepted Darwinian evolution. Many commentators have suggested that Agassiz's "species essentialism" motivated his resistance, yet Paul Morris (Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst) disagrees, arguing that "species were neither the core nor an important focus of Agassiz's arguments against Darwin."

    Rather, as spelled out in a little-known 1869 publication, Agassiz develops "three main arguments; (1) Darwinism is an a priori doctrine that selectively interprets facts, rather than being induced from them. (2) Variation is a universal characteristic of organisms but has distinct limits: it exists only in individual peculiarities; never do species-level characters vary, nor do those characters that distinguish genera, families, orders, classes, or branches. (3) The fossil record is, in several ways, not consistent with the expectations of progressive evolutionary change expounded by Haeckel" (p. 126). Agassiz's arguments, Morris judges, are "clearly not the statement of an ambivalent scientist unwilling to take a stand on the issue of Darwinian evolution," but instead "the statement of a naturalist who was certain that the evidence of nature firmly supported his own worldview" (p. 133). Thus, in contrast to the usual picture of Agassiz as a religiously-motivated reactionary, Morris suggests "it should be abundantly clear that Agassiz's opposition to Darwinism was based in a cogent worldview, and that the core of his opposition lay in a literal, empirical interpretation of the natural world, especially the fossil record. Agassiz's arguments are clearly not a dogmatic argument based in religion, but are firmly based in the data of portions of the natural world that the Darwinian of the late 1800s was ill able to explain" (p. 133).


    I would say that not everyone comes to the same conclusions. It is dependant on your belief system going in. This determines how you interpret the evidence you encounter.

    I would rather cling to something that might be wrong but makes sense with the Bible than openly contradict scripture... that's for sure.

    1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
    1Pe 3:17 For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

    I would much rather be criticized by the world and be on God's side than be accepted by the world and reject scripture.
     
  19. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I don't know if they have fossils or not... but just so that we are clear, I don't hold to ANY theory that has human or animal death occuring prior to sin."

    So, just to be clear, since your source claims that specific layers in the canyon were laid down during the creation week, and since these layers contain fossils, you redudiate your source as incorrect and will now search for a new explanation. Did I miss anything?

    "This isn't necessarily true."

    Which part is not true?

    I think that you CAN find old earthers in every walk of life. And I think that you gave me another example of how you cannot find anyone outside of the religious who claim a young earth.

    "I would much rather be criticized by the world and be on God's side than be accepted by the world and reject scripture."

    I would much rather we find the way to accept the old earth as revealed to us and avoid the division between believers, the loss of faith of some believers and the stumbling block to salvation that YE delivers.
     
  20. mareese

    mareese Guest

    UTEOTW, I have heard, and only online, of people who believe YE to be a stumbling block to creation. ALL of them claim to be Christians and evolutionists, and all of them are involved in the field of science or highly interested. That tells me that all of them have a stake in claiming YE as a stumbling block.

    What I've seen in the world from unbelievers is quite the opposite. Common ground is usually found in the belief of a god who created us and our earth. Nobody I have spoken to that has a viable interest in Christ has stated that "YE is a stumbling block". It seems to be that very often a decent conversation has ensued when I ask them what they believe concerning their presence on earth and if they believe in God. A common answer goes something like "I think we're here for a reason, that there's a god who made us. I don't think we came from monkeys or anything so I know there's a reason why we're here but I don't know what it is".
    That says to me that nature itself has spoken past the evolution most were raised with, and convicted people to a degree on why they are here and how that came about.
    Reality doesn't jive with what you're saying.
     
Loading...