Is Examination of Creation Helpful in YE/OE Debate

Discussion in 'Science' started by UTEOTW, Apr 4, 2005.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thread on the latest dinosaur discovery has been hopelessly taken off topic, as normal, and now has many separate topics wrapped in one thread. One posted has asked that we divide the separate topics into separate threads.

    One question posed has been the old question of whether it is possible to gain any useful knowledge from the creation it self.

    There is an ongoing, sometimes bitter, debate about whether the universe is really old or young and whether the account of the creation in Genesis is literal or non-literal as far as the steps of creation go. Many suggest that the debate can be settled by looking into the creation itself to see what signs are provided towards the processes used. Some suggest that God created the universe merely looking as if it is old.

    I, personally, think that it is useful to examine the creation. I believe God is honest and just and that the creation will reveal a true picture of His work.

    Some on the YE side also feel this way but they find the data to point to a young earth. Others will claim that they think the data points to a young earth but they hedge their bets by saying that anything that appears to be old was only made that way by God for reasons which we cannot understand and should not question. Yet others think that God created the universe looking old, again for reasons we cannot understand and should not question.

    I find it useful to know which of these categories a particular YE debater falls into, so I posed the question to a new participant, mareese. "You and I disagree about the proper interpretation of the creation account. I assert that it is possible to examine God's creation to see which of us is correct. Do you accept or reject this assertion and why?"

    I have yet to be able to determine which category our brother falls into by his answers.

    "I accept that assertion under the condition that we cannot accept the interpretation of an observation as fact if it disagrees with the written word."

    "I never stated that facts are irrelevant, only that facts must be seen as misinterpreted if they disagree with the Bible."

    "Starting with the premise that anything contradictory to what God says must be excluded is not the same as insisting that what I say cannot be excluded."

    "Once again, I have never stated that observations and facts cannot be taken into account. I have stated that when the interpretation of observation conflicts with the Bible we must rethink the interpretation of the observation."

    "I'd love to accomodate your request and anwer in a way that you will understand, but I've already reduced my reply to about as low as is can go and still be a whole sentence. It is very unethical for you to state that this particular question has not been answered. I have consistently stated that creation goes hand in hand with scripture and that neither can be ignored. I have stated that yes, there are signs that can be used as validation for the age of the earth, and I have also stated that IF those signs disagree with scripture we need to re-evaluate our interpretation of those signs."

    I maintain that these answers indicate that mareese is only willing to consider data that agrees with his interpretation of scripture. He maintains that this is not so.

    It has left me confused as to whether he accpets the premise that details from the creation itself can be used to decide the correct answer. IMHO, he is making the common mistake of assuming that disagreeing with his interpretation is the same as disagreeing with God. These are two separate things. Furthermore, I believe that he is using this mistake to then say that any facts which do not agree with his interpretation are by definition either wrong or misinterpreted.

    What I would like from this poster specifically is to either say that we can examine the details of the creation and decide on either an old earth or a young earth OR that we cannot do this because anything that does not point to a young earth is wrong, end of story. So far, he seems to want to hedge his bets by accepting the premise on one hand and throwing out anything that does not agree with his view on the other. I, personally, take that as an answer of "No" to the original question.

    But, I would also like to submit this question to the larger group. It would be useful to know what other think of the premise.

    I would be particularly interested in those who are young earth if they would state what they make of the evidence that seems to point to an old earth. Are the observations themselves incorrect? Are the interpretations of the observations wrong? If so do you have a better interpretation? Are the observations correct but God made the universe to look that way from the beginning? If so, why? Or do you have a different answer? I would hate to limit the choices unjustly and make a false dilemma.
     
  2. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    What does "old" look like?

    One can feed "new" coins to a goat and dig up "ancient" coins from his dung heap.

    Mt. St. Helen has shown in "our time" that trees can be petrified "quickly", whatever that means, and stratification of the geology can occur in a very short "timeframe", what ever that means.

    To disqualify the verity of any part of the Book of Genesis, or any other Bible Book is to cast doubt on the verity of God's Word. That is not allowed. That is how Satan got to Adam and Eve.

    "Let God be found true--and every man a liar."--a timely scripture.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have an answer to the question? Do you think that the creation itself will support the correct interpretation of the creation account? What do you make to the evidence that contradicts your interpretation.

    "What does "old" look like?"

    You know very well what I mean. For example, in the case of evolution, the observations that point to evolution are things such as the known transitional series, the twin nested heirarchy, the shared pseudogenes, the shared retroviral inserts, past biogeography, present biogeography, anatomical and molecular vestiges, anatomical and molecular parahomology, atavisms, ontogeny, and so on.

    To give another example, the cosmic microwave background has in its details great support for inflationary cosmology.

    "Mt. St. Helen has shown in "our time" that trees can be petrified "quickly", whatever that means, and stratification of the geology can occur in a very short "timeframe", what ever that means."

    Here is a thread where you, too, can ignore questions that ask someone to detail where in the Mt. St. Helens eruption you get anything that looks like what are claimed to be the results of slow processes.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/29.html?
     
  4. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Who observed creation besides God?

    Why do we not believe His revelation?

    The digging of bones and subjecting them to a "chronograph" which has a systematic error, the order of magnitude of which is not readily apparent, is not even worthy to be called "speculation".

    I am having difficulty figuring out the question on the table. Is it: Does God's account of the creation of the universe explain what surely must be an old earth? If that be the question, the answer is still: Absolutely--He did it, and revealed who, what, when, where, why and how it was done. If we have difficulty with time it is our problem--not God's.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER WE BELIEVE GOD!!!

    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE BELIEVE THE INTERPRETATION OF YOU, A FALLIBLE HUMAN.


    Either of us could have the wrong interpretation. We are both fallible. We are both capable of being incorrect in things. We differ in that interpretation. The question is whether the creation itself records an accurate history of the creation. Do you have an answer to that question? Is that in simple enough terms?

    "The digging of bones and subjecting them to a "chronograph" which has a systematic error, the order of magnitude of which is not readily apparent, is not even worthy to be called "speculation"."

    Do you have any reason why the dating of bones should be called into question? Do you propose any methods by which the dates could be incorrect by a meaningful degree? This sounds like the silly, unsubstantiated question you raised a few days ago about how can we know if dinos really laid eggs. I notice you have not answered my response.

    Besides, look at my examples above. Only the item the "known transitional series" depends on this objection of yours. The others are things about existing life that we observe today. Surely you have a view on these things?
     
  6. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It is not a yes or no answer no matter how many times you ask it. My reply remains the same. We need to use both evidences, physical and scriptural.
    It is blatantly obvious that when it comes to evidence for an old earth I will always say that there has been a misunderstanding or mistake in the way we interpreted the evidence.
    Nobody has put together a convincing argument for a wrong interpretation of six literal Genesis days.
    In fact I find it rather confusing that in these following verses save two, evolutionists believe they all mean six literal days.

    Ex 16:26 - Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.

    Ex 20:9 -Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

    Ex 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    Ex 23:12 - Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

    Ex 24:16 - And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

    Ex 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

    Ex 31:17 - It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

    Ex 34:21 - Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

    Ex 35:2 - Show ContextSix days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

    This is a key issue in the creation/evolution differences. Almost all else WILL be a false dilemma until you can present reasonable and convincing evidence for your interpretation of the Genesis account.
    Scripture is the basis of everything in our lives. Evolution has repeatedly attempted to dismiss it, and now you as a Christian evolutionist seem more than willing to believe that it plays a minimal role in science, if at all. That is a grave error.
     
  7. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Answer: Yes.

    Romans 1:20, "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."

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It is not a yes or no answer no matter how many times you ask it."

    It is a yes or no answer no many how many times you avoid answering it. Either you do or you don't. It is quite simple actually.

    "We need to use both evidences, physical and scriptural."

    When have I ever said that we do not? YOu are the one making this statement and then turnig immediately around and dismissing one of the two categories because it does not support you.

    "Nobody has put together a convincing argument for a wrong interpretation of six literal Genesis days."

    Maybe not to your standards, but it is obvious that there is strong and significant difference of opinion there or else we would not be here discussing it. Maybe you need to read a few threads. I don't expect them to convince you but they do show that OEers do support their case. I'll just give you a place to start in each.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2833.html#000012
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/47/2.html#000024

    "In fact I find it rather confusing that in these following verses save two, evolutionists believe they all mean six literal days."

    You can take literal practices from non-literal text. You do take the Lord's Supper on occasion, do you not? I doubt you believe in transmutation of the bread into the actual body of Christ.
     
  9. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Really what is being said here is "why do we need creation - we seem to be doing ok with evolution".

    The 'reason', UTE, is because the Bible says God created in 7 days. The Bible does not say that God sparked life... and then that life grew into organisms... and those organisms changed into other plants and animals, and eventually after billions of years of death and struggle, evolved into man. If that is what the Bible said, then creationists would have no problem with evolution.

    But - as you yourself have admitted - the Bible and evolution are incompatible. The 'reason' we need creation science is because it adheres to the Bible. Because if Genesis can be dismissed as fairy tale, so can Jesus. Evolution has QUITE effectively undermined belief in the Bible.

    However, evolution is simply a fascinating conjecture which contradicts God's Word. It requires just as much faith in the unseen and unknown as does believing the Bible. Why? Because there is no observational evidence (the foundation of real science) that supports evolution. Evolution is nothing more than secular humanism's revisionist history. An "evolutionist" is nothing more than an anti-christian story teller.
     
  10. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Let me be the first to second the above. That is a very succinct way of comparing two diametrically opposed world views.

    Thank-you

    Bro. James
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Because there is no observational evidence (the foundation of real science) that supports evolution."

    Untrue.

    The twin nested heirarchy. Is this not an observation?

    The known transitional series. Is this not an observation?

    Molecular and anatomical parahomology. Is this not an observation?

    Shared psuedogenes. Is this not an observation?

    Shared retroviral inserts. Is this not an observation?

    Molecular and anatomical vestiges. Is this not an observation?

    Present biogeography. Is this not an observation?

    Past biogeography. Is this not an observation?

    Atavisms. Is this not an observation?

    Do I need go on?
     
  12. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    The devine inspiration of Genesis allowed creation to be summarized in six catagories, described as days. They are not catagories that we would arrive at today using scientific methodology - they were catagories based on land, sea, and air. They were expressed this way as an way that was acceptable to the ancients who would have overwhelmingly rejected the literal truth, being unable to assimilate it at their level of scientific ignornace.

    They remain timeless truths that express the power and creative activity of God. They are not scientific guides as to the age and order of creation of the earth.
     
  13. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Did ALL dinosaurs lay eggs? --was the question. To be able to answer that question in the affirmative, one has to assume that all types of dinosaurs have been discovered--an assumption which is necessarily false. Are there not reptiles which give birth to live young? Some snakes do this. Then there is that duckbilled platypus which seems to cross a lot of well defined zoological lines.

    Speaking of digging--how did all of the deposits of hydrocarbons--"Texas Tea" come to be miles below the surface of the geosphere? Curiously enough, it is the one substance which controls the world. Could this have been by happenstance?
    The burden of proof lies whith those who think it happened by chance.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a typical example of a YE response. All the evidence shown thus far is that dinosaurs laid eggs.

    Dinosaur eggs have been found but never a pregnant dinosaur. Dinosaurs have been found in proximity to their eggs or to the broken shells.

    All of the known living species of dinosaurs, from hummingbirds to eagles to penguins, lay eggs.

    Dinosaurs belong to a group of reptiles know as archosaurs. All known archosaurs lay eggs including the living examples of crocodiles, alligators and other closely related members of that order.

    The only known examples of reptiles that give live birth are from a distantly related group called lepidosaurs. There are not any examples from closely related reptile groups.

    Every shred of evidence tells us that dinosaurs lay eggs. Yet in YE logic, since we do not have every example, maybe some did not. This is not an assertion that he can support. It is not an assertion that has any basis in fact. It is purely and totally made up. Yet that is what counts as a response to YEers. I guess after being brainwashed by good folks such as AIG that there is no need to let a good fact get in your way this kind of behavior is predictable.

    "Are there not reptiles which give birth to live young? Some snakes do this."

    Yes, and as pointed out, they are at the far end of the spectrum from the dinosaurs.

    I guess since echidna are mammals and they lay eggs that I cannot be sure that ALL primates give live birth! That is a very close analogy to what you are suggesting.

    "Then there is that duckbilled platypus which seems to cross a lot of well defined zoological lines."

    You should not have brought that one up. It hurts your case very badly.

    The platypus could very well be considered a living transitional between the mammals and the reptiles. Now you must understand what I mean here. I DO NOT think that the platypus is the ancestor of other mammals. However, the platypus shows a mix of traits consistent with what would be expected to be seen at some stage in the transistion from reptiles to the other mammals you see today. The explanation is that the line that lead to the platypus split off very early in the evolution of the mammals. This line still has reptilian features such as the leathery egg used for reproduction, poor thermoregulation and the lack of a lactal nipple. So while it is not directly ancestral, it preserves traits from an early stage of the transition. This is similar to the thoughts on Archaeopteryx. WHile it is not directly ancestral to birds, it is not far from the line that did lead directly to birds and preserves many features of the transition.

    "Speaking of digging--how did all of the deposits of hydrocarbons--"Texas Tea" come to be miles below the surface of the geosphere? Curiously enough, it is the one substance which controls the world. Could this have been by happenstance?"

    Well if you want to provide an explanation other than the standard geological explanation of where oil comes from, be my guest. You may have a hard time coming up with enough organic matter on the earth at a single point in time to make all of the various forms of fossils fuels during one calamity. You may also find that you have a hard time converting that raw organic material into the various fossil fuels that we have in a short period of time. You may also find that the details of the geology in which the fossil fuels are found are not consistent with them being produced in one large calamity.

    "The burden of proof lies whith those who think it happened by chance."

    Too bad that YEers are unable to demonstrate problems with that data.
     
  15. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Problems with the data?

    No, only when questionable data is presented as scientific fact using unnecessary inferences to form unwarranted conclusions. Why build a "science" with data outside the "bell-curve"? Or, as many seem to have done: drawn the curve using scanty, perhaps spurious, data as endpoints, with little if any data points in between--except time. Time: the big smoke screen of evolution. "Given enough time, anything might happen--if the pieces do not fit, give the equation more time--just make sure there are no witnesses.

    There is one faithful and true witness: The Word of God--who could have been created us in anyway we may conceive or not conceive. We seem to forget: He wrote the Book--God does not make mistakes--man makes mistakes. The first one is a man who thinks he can define God and/or His nature. We are finite--He is infinite. Man likes his gods only "partly" infinite--so he can define God in terms of man's quest for deity--secular humanism is not a new notion-- it goes back to the Garden of Eden and the First Family--not headed by "Lucy".

    We have trouble with the Omni-God.

    Check out the Book of Revelation, Chps. 21, and 22.

    Eternity is a science word. Where will we spend eternity? Are we sure? Probably not digging for "dead men's bones".


    Selah,

    Bro. James

    [ April 10, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "No, only when questionable data is presented as scientific fact using unnecessary inferences to form unwarranted conclusions. "

    Just where is the "unnecessary inferences" in concluding that dinosaurs laid eggs?

    You are the one drawing an "unwarranted conclusions" by speculating, completely without evidence, that perhaps dinosaur gave birth to live young.

    Even when presented with the evidence that would allow one to draw the conclusion that dinosaurs were and are born from eggs, you sinply made the same assertion again. You did not even bother to give anything that might possibly be wrong with the data presented. Yours was the whole YE stategy in a nut shull. You ignore all the data, make assertions you cannot support, and then repeat the process no what what is presented to you.

    And so it is with all the data. Look at the various threads here. YEers do not even make a serious attempt to argue the facts. I am convinced that this is because they know that the facts are against them. They will certainly assert the facts are with them but best of luch in trying to get any of them to support their assertions. There is no support to be found.
     
  17. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    MARANATHA!!

    I think that if, when we get to eternity, we find that God was just "joshing" us about His claims of creation, He will tell us that He actually created it all with one--

    "let there be--"

    --in less than one micro-nano-second!

    Think maybe?? :confused: [​IMG]
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    You keep asserting that your interpretations about the creation are equal to God's. They are not.

    God is not wrong. You, however, most likely are.
     
  19. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    You are obviously having a problem with your eyes.

    Nothing is mentioned re: mine or God's interpretations.

    Please go to the "WHALES" thread for an explanation that, hopefully, you can comprehend.

    I'm tired of your accusing me & others of equating our opinions to God's. You have had a habit of similar accusations in many of your past posts, and I'm fed up with you accusing rather than countering

    That is A BALD FACED LIE, pure & simple, as ALL we've done is state that we prefer to believe God rather than you re: certain matters of science.
     
  20. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    One large calamity--is not my position--

    By Divine purpose and design: the world that then was turned "inside out"--subduction and uplifting of plates, inundated with three sources of water, flash floods, tidal waves and tilted 23 and1/2 degrees(seasons and ice caps) such that water covered everything--including the peaks. In the process judgement was meted to the human kind--only eight souls were saved, along with a representative biology of the world.
    (canine pair, feline pair etc.)
    All according to divine plan and execution.

    Evolution does not fit here either.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     

Share This Page

Loading...