-
Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation
Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?
Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4
http://www.icr.org/article/9937
-
Oh please, tell me you don't believe in this young earth garbage?
-
Oh please, tell me you don't believe in this young earth garbage?
Radiocarbon (AKA Carbon 14) dating has its limits. There are Potassium Argon, and Uranium/Lead among other methods, all with a general age range in which they are most accurate.
Carbon 14 dating can't prove an 'old earth' under ideal circumstances, all assumptions of isotope ratios having been the same back when taken as a given. It is a limitation of the method. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)
-
Pathetic.
I am constantly amazed by the blasphemy of people whose tiny little imaginations cannot fathom that God did actually create the world in the wondrous ways we keep discovering.
It takes significantly longer than 50,000 years to form vast reserves of oil, to lay down hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock, to mineralize fossils, to ....
If you believe that God created the world in less than 50,000 years, then you are necessarily committed to the belief that God falsified all of these things to make them appear to be much older than they actually are, which means that you necessarily believe that God is a liar.
So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.
Take your pick.
-
I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:
When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.
He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)
"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"
His answer? "Get out of my office."
Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.
Sigh.
-
Radiocarbon (AKA Carbon 14) dating has its limits. There are Potassium Argon, and Uranium/Lead among other methods, all with a general age range in which they are most accurate.
Carbon 14 dating can't prove an 'old earth' under ideal circumstances, all assumptions of isotope ratios having been the same back when taken as a given. It is a limitation of the method. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)
Thank you. You beat me to it. ICR has always played fast and loose with the truth to make its point. There are many forms of Radiometric Dating and in most cases, several are used in a test. Deceivers like ICR like to play on the public's lack of knowledge that there is just one 'carbon dating' because they hear that in movies and TV shows.
ICR claims to stand for 'Biblical Truth' but they seem almost to be purposefully deceiving a lot of people on both science and the Bible. At least, I hope it isn't purposeful and just willful ignorance.
-
Pathetic.
I am constantly amazed by the blasphemy of people whose tiny little imaginations cannot fathom that God did actually create the world in the wondrous ways we keep discovering.
No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.
So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.
Take your pick.
You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.
The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.
-
Radiocarbondating.com where really senior people meet.
-
No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.
You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.
The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.
Carbon dating is justanother measurement. Sediment layers of soil just like tree rings tell us how old the Earth is and it aint young.
@roamer_1
-
I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:
When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.
He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)
"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"
His answer? "Get out of my office."
Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.
Sigh.
That's a good point.
The truth is what it is no matter how much work we have to put into figuring it out. To a casual observer stuck in the great plains thousands of years ago the earth would appear to be flat without careful study to prove otherwise. There are plenty of counter intuitive things in this world.
I always figured God created old trees and animals, and it doesn't seem Adam was created as a baby. I guess it never really bothered me if God also made old rocks and stars. If He is God and can create everything He can create a trail of light photons emanating from the stars.
-
So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.
Take your pick.
God exists outside of time. He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it. That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.
Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you. I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.
YMMV
-
Carbon dating is justanother measurement. Sediment layers of soil just like tree rings tell us how old the Earth is and it aint young.
According to whom?
The problem with theories (and yours is a theory), is that no matter how elegant and self-evident it might seem, a single point of errata causes the whole of it to collapse.
Science, in it's hubris, ignores it's own errata.
I suggest you look there.
@mirraflake
-
God exists outside of time. He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it. That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.
Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you. I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.
YMMV
There is an old quote attributed often to C.S. Lewis.
The Bible teaches us why God created the universe.
Science shows us how.
-
God exists outside of time. He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it. That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.
Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you. I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.
YMMV
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
-
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
How old was Adam when he was created. Was that also the work of a liar?
You can't hold God responsible for all the misconceptions about the nature of creation throughout history. At one time scientist thought the elements were earth water, air, and fire. Mankind still has much to learn.
-
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
You are in essence saying that God has to conform to your viewpoint or He is a liar. I personally don't think it works that way.
Edit to add: Oops. This was a discussion on the nature of radiocarbon dating, not the nature of God. I apologize for side-tracking into a theology discussion, which I know the owner does not encourage.
-
How old was Adam when he was created. Was that also the work of a liar?
You can't hold God responsible for all the misconceptions about the nature of creation throughout history. At one time scientist thought the elements were earth water, air, and fire. Mankind still has much to learn.
@Idaho_Cowboy
Cowboy,
There is a world of difference between making a fully grown man and making a fully grown man complete with baby pictures from a childhood he never had.
When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.
-
@Idaho_Cowboy
Cowboy,
There is a world of difference between making a fully grown man and making a fully grown man complete with baby pictures from a childhood he never had.
When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.
That's your interpretation. Could be right. All we really know is that there are a lot of light photons out there and last I checked the first thing God made was light.
-
When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.
No, we think we are seeing....
-
No, we think we are seeing....
See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Bolobaby, out.
-
See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Bolobaby, out.
The evidence is not overwhelming... As I said before, quit looking at the theories, and look to the errata. That is what scientists are supposed to do - That has not been the case for decades.
-
Good article. (Ah, but it will be a lightning rod for TBR guys who are not well-informed about the topic.)
I knew Dr. Henry Morris personally. He was a brilliant and scrupulously honest scientist, but he got trashed over and over and over by less objective scientists.
-
Good article. (Ah, but it will be a lightning rod for TBR guys who are not well-informed about the topic.)
I knew Dr. Henry Morris personally. He was a brilliant and scrupulously honest scientist, but he got trashed over and over and over by less objective scientists.
Dr. Morris has done a great job on the subject; I love his study Bible. Kent Hovind did excellent work on creationism as well before he got railroaded. If you haven't seen his tapes they are well worth the time.
-
God exists outside of time. He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it. That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.
So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.
You don't have to be an atheist to dispute the young earth stuff.
-
See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Bolobaby, out.
@bolobaby @roamer_1
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.
It takes significantly more belief inthe unprovable and unknown than it takes to believe in a creator.
-
@bolobaby @roamer_1
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.
So all science is bad? Astrophysics should just quit?
-
So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.
Mortal men, inspired by the Spirit of the living God. Moses took dictation.
-
So all science is bad? Astrophysics should just quit?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Boy that was a giant leap into the unknown there.
A true believer in science would have argued that the origins of the universe can be extrapolated through observations or something like that. NOT jumped into emotional strawman.
-
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.
It takes significantly more belief in the unprovable and unknown than it takes to believe in a creator.
That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.
-
So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.
You don't have to be an atheist to dispute the young earth stuff.
I think that God inspired the mortal men who put pen to paper, but I'm not sure I'm following you with respect to how that pertains to the current discussion.
In any case, I agree with you that you don't have to be an atheist to believe in a millennia-old earth. I personally find more than one theory to be equally plausible and easy to reconcile with my faith in the Creator.
-
That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.
There you go. In the end, it's all theory -- not settled -- until or unless someone can reproduce the creation of the world.
I'll wait here.
-
That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.
Hubbles Ultra Deep Field image is a great example. They focused the Hubble on one tiny point for about 11 days. A point that is equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky.
The resulting image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. To think that we can capture light from such a tiny infinitesimal sample of the sky and time and then conclude anything definitively is folly. Can we make guess? Yes Is it really freekin interesting? yes Could any one of a quadrillion factors make any one of those guesses wrong? yes
-
There you go. In the end, it's all theory -- not settled -- until or unless someone can reproduce the creation of the world.
I'll wait here.
:thumbsup2:
-
Hubbles Ultra Deep Field image is a great example. They focused the Hubble on one tiny point for about 11 days. A point that is equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky.
The resulting image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. To think that we can capture light from such a tiny infinitesimal sample of the sky and time and then conclude anything definitively is folly. Can we make guess? Yes Is it really freekin interesting? yes Could any one of a quadrillion factors make any one of those guesses wrong? yes
Oh, but a feller don't even have to go that far. Just the idea that they can measure things right here is folly.
Declaring the oceans are rising by a quarter inch a year, or some such... There are literally a million factors involved, but they say it like it's gospel truth. We cannot accurately measure ocean volume, nor perfectly calculate how much sediment is getting washed down to make the bottom come up, nor even determine the resting level of the surface, not to mention land subsidence, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The lion's share of it is mere conjecture.
-
This isn't new information, is it?
Radiocarbon dating has always been limited, and using it to prove the age of the earth a game that's played to fool the naïve.
Now I'm outta here before anyone calls me an idiot flat-earther, or something similar.....
-
You are in essence saying that God has to conform to your viewpoint or He is a liar. I personally don't think it works that way.
Edit to add: Oops. This was a discussion on the nature of radiocarbon dating, not the nature of God. I apologize for side-tracking into a theology discussion, which I know the owner does not encourage.
I do think it is appropriate to add that the inorganic radiometric dating methods are also scientifically dubious. Furthermore, the starlight distances mean nothing in a relativistic universe if it was stretched out by a Creator. If we get fooled by our smugness, it's not our Creator's fault. (That's all I have to say in the theological side of things on this science thread.)
-
I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:
When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.
He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)
"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"
His answer? "Get out of my office."
Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.
Sigh.
Good argument.
With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.
-
Good argument.
With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.
yeah... maybe not.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
-
yeah... maybe not.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?
-
Oh, but a feller don't even have to go that far. Just the idea that they can measure things right here is folly.
Declaring the oceans are rising by a quarter inch a year, or some such... There are literally a million factors involved, but they say it like it's gospel truth. We cannot accurately measure ocean volume, nor perfectly calculate how much sediment is getting washed down to make the bottom come up, nor even determine the resting level of the surface, not to mention land subsidence, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The lion's share of it is mere conjecture.
Yet we rely on measurement each and every day. We get into an automobile with an engine machined to carefully measured sizes, expecting it to run smoothly to our destination, and brakes measured to perform correctly.
We expect our drinking water and food to be free of contaminants, and it is tested with measurement equipment, and expert people.
We use observation, science, and various criteria to order our lives. We trust them. We sent people to the moon and back, based on science.
But are you saying when it comes to the curiosity about earth's origins and nature, forget about science?
If we are to some day witness a replacement for a human limb, I look to scientists, not Benny Hinn.
I don't say it that way to insult. But those rooms full of people to watch Benny Hinn, insult my intelligence.
-
Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?
It is not my claim that ANY science is settled.
-
Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?
@Sanguine
Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.
You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?
-
Good argument.
With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.
@Sanguine
"To the best of our knowledge" meaning a sample size that is a million of a millionth that is being extrapolated out to the universe.
-
Yet we rely on measurement each and every day. We get into an automobile with an engine machined to carefully measured sizes, expecting it to run smoothly to our destination, and brakes measured to perform correctly.
There is no flight of fancy in machining.
We expect our drinking water and food to be free of contaminants, and it is tested with measurement equipment, and expert people.
I have no faith in city water whatsoever. Nor city food. In fact, I think it's killing a whole lot of folks and contributing to illness.
We use observation, science, and various criteria to order our lives. We trust them. We sent people to the moon and back, based on science.
No, YOU trust them. I do not. I think a good share of them are idiots.
But are you saying when it comes to the curiosity about earth's origins and nature, forget about science?
No, I am saying that science belongs in data and repeatable experimentation, not religion - Which it now, most certainly is.
If we are to some day witness a replacement for a human limb, I look to scientists, not Benny Hinn.
I don't say it that way to insult. But those rooms full of people to watch Benny Hinn, insult my intelligence.
Funny you should say that, because one of the true healings I have witnessed with my own two eyes was a short, withered limb grow and fill out... So much for Benny Hinn, eh?
-
Funny you should say that, because one of the true healings I have witnessed with my own two eyes was a short, withered limb grow and fill out... So much for Benny Hinn, eh?
I have never seen any amputated body part ever grow back but have seen or read about limb, face and even penis transplants performed by our wonderful medical staff and scientist.
You people who take the Bible literally how do you explain this?
You say God designed us and is all knowing and perfect yet there is aparantely flaws in his design.
Why do we have body parts that if removed do not affect our bodies function. i.e. tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, one kidney, hair removal, wisdom teeth, tail bone I am sure there is plenty more.
Why do men have nipples? if God knows us even before we are born if we are a man or a woman why have nipples on men?
A person can believe in God yet also believe in old earth, evolution and other facts. As others have mentioned the Bible was translated numerous time sand written for a scientifically ignorant people of the time.
@roamer_1
-
@Sanguine
"To the best of our knowledge" meaning a sample size that is a million of a millionth that is being extrapolated out to the universe.
Yes, and? We can only do what we can do, and we are small, insignificant sparrows compared to our Maker and His Creation.
-
It is not my claim that ANY science is settled.
Exactly, but you were using that argument so it was a little confusing.
-
@Sanguine
Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.
You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?
Science is used by us limited humans to measure and describe God's creation. It's beautiful.
-
@Sanguine
Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.
You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?
I have been following the debate for 40 years, and it seems to me that old earth atheists and theistic evolutionists will discredit science when it doesn't support an old earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.
(Even if I didn't care about the question of Biblical authority, I think I would side with the young earth scientists. Quite a few non-Christian scientists have switched from the evolutionary position to the young earth position after seriously examining the young earth evidence--which turns out to be a shockingly huge body of evidence that the mainstream scientists refuse to allow in their journals precisely because it doesn't fit their presuppositions. [The whole mess reminds me of the way the C02 alarmists have tried to silence better scientists.])
-
I have never seen any amputated body part ever grow back but have seen or read about limb, face and even penis transplants performed by our wonderful medical staff and scientist.
False signs and wonders.
You people who take the Bible literally how do you explain this?
You say God designed us and is all knowing and perfect yet there is aparantely flaws in his design.
We are not seeing the original design.
Why do we have body parts that if removed do not affect our bodies function. i.e. tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, one kidney, hair removal, wisdom teeth, tail bone I am sure there is plenty more.
Actually, both tonsils and appendix now do have a purpose, according to your guys... So what else are they ignorant of that they will change their collective minds about in the future?
Why do men have nipples? if God knows us even before we are born if we are a man or a woman why have nipples on men?
Injection mold points? :shrug: Beats me. Why is that a 'flaw'?
A person can believe in God yet also believe in old earth, evolution and other facts. As others have mentioned the Bible was translated numerous time sand written for a scientifically ignorant people of the time.
No, really, they can't. The thing in your way is the prophecy. To abuse the Bible in the sense that one would have to, destroys the very proofs he offers as to his existence and sovereignty.
@mirraflake
-
Mortal men, inspired by the Spirit of the living God. Moses took dictation.
And others say the same for Muhammad. Who's correct?
-
God exists outside of time. He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it. That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.
Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you. I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.
YMMV
Well said. Just as with the pre & post trib controversy, Calvanism vs Arminianism, etc, arguing about this is so much time wasted. The only issue that matters is belief in Essential Christian Doctrine.
-
Exactly, but you were using that argument so it was a little confusing.
Sorry for having been confusing - My point is that they say one thing and then another... Like butter used to be bad for you, so you are supposed to eat margarine... Now margarine causes cancer and butter is healthy.
Rightly might put your head in a whirl.
If you paid em any mind.
-
We are not seeing the original design.
So you believe in evolution then?
@roamer_1
-
I have been following the debate for 40 years, and it seems to me that old earth atheists and theistic evolutionists will discredit science when it doesn't support an old earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.
(Even if I didn't care about the question of Biblical authority, I think I would side with the young earth scientists. Quite a few non-Christian scientists have switched from the evolutionary position to the young earth position after seriously examining the young earth evidence--which turns out to be a shockingly huge body of evidence that the mainstream scientists refuse to allow in their journals precisely because it doesn't fit their presuppositions. [The whole mess reminds me of the way the C02 alarmists have tried to silence better scientists.])
The young Earth fallacy founders on very, very basic science, something as fundamental as the basic laws of thermodynamics. For the Earth to have reached its present state of solidity after collapsing out of a cloud of interstellar dust orbiting the Sun would have taken at least 20 million years if the only source of heat was from Earths gravitational collapse (add in heat from internal radioactivity and it takes even longer). Lord Kelvin, amongst others, worked this out in the 1800s.
That means that for any young Earth hypothesis to be correct, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics have to be radically wrong. However, since those laws are more than adequately proven every time you start your cars engine, or brew a cup of coffee, it necessarily stands to reason that any young Earth hypothesis that requires the Earth to be younger than 20 million years is simply false.
That, or else you have to believe that God made a false world and intentionally made it seem like what it is not.
Your pick. You can have a young Earth, or a God who is righteous and truthful; you cannot have both.
-
And others say the same for Muhammad. Who's correct?
And others for Apollo, and Baal,. and etc.
How does one prove a God?
Yahweh has specifically laid out the proofs to his claim. ONLY Yahweh.
1. If you can't see his hand in his creation, you're an idiot.
2. He has sent agents with signs accompanying.
3. (and most importantly) He has told us from the beginning, what will happen in the end. ONLY HE has a sovereign will capable of enforcing his predictions.
Yahweh's agents cannot nullify prophecy that has come before... ONLY Yahweh. Every other oracle, what was before can be modified.
The proof is in the Prophecy.
-
Good argument.
With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.
And so are God's laws. They don't shift in order to accommodate anyone or anything.
-
So you believe in evolution then?
@mirraflake
As in one kind becoming another? LOL!
Of course not!
-
Well said. Just as with the pre & post trib controversy, Calvanism vs Arminianism, etc, arguing about this is so much time wasted. The only issue that matters is belief in Essential Christian Doctrine.
Yep.
-
The young Earth fallacy founders on very, very basic science, something as fundamental as the basic laws of thermodynamics. For the Earth to have reached its present state of solidity after collapsing out of a cloud of interstellar dust orbiting the Sun would have taken at least 20 million years if the only source of heat was from Earths gravitational collapse (add in heat from internal radioactivity and it takes even longer). Lord Kelvin, amongst others, worked this out in the 1800s.
That means that for any young Earth hypothesis to be correct, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics have to be radically wrong. However, since those laws are more than adequately proven every time you start your cars engine, or brew a cup of coffee, it necessarily stands to reason that any young Earth hypothesis that requires the Earth to be younger than 20 million years is simply false.
That, or else you have to believe that God made a false world and intentionally made it seem like what it is not.
Your pick. You can have a young Earth, or a God who is righteous and truthful; you cannot have both.
Your argument is so conspicuously specious that I feel that I must gently but publicly tease you. :nono:
(I'll bet that there are quite a few lurkers who will immediately notice your fallacy.)
-
And others for Apollo, and Baal,. and etc.
How does one prove a God?
Yahweh has specifically laid out the proofs to his claim. ONLY Yahweh.
1. If you can't see his hand in his creation, you're an idiot.
2. He has sent agents with signs accompanying.
3. (and most importantly) He has told us from the beginning, what will happen in the end. ONLY HE has a sovereign will capable of enforcing his predictions.
Yahweh's agents cannot nullify prophecy that has come before... ONLY Yahweh. Every other oracle, what was before can be modified.
The proof is in the Prophecy.
So if I cannot see what is not self-evident, then I'm an idiot?
-
That means that for any young Earth hypothesis to be correct, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics have to be radically wrong.
OR the presupposition that Earth in fact collapsed out of an interstellar cloud of dust is not true.
-
So if I cannot see what is not self-evident, then I'm an idiot?
Not at all. No more than a Christian is inherently more righteous in his or her behavior than is a non Christian.
God speaks, whether or not we choose to hear depends more upon whats in our hearts than in our brains.
-
So if I cannot see what is not self-evident, then I'm an idiot?
No, If you cannot see what is in fact self evident, you are an idiot...
or rather, No, If ONE cannot see what is in fact self evident, ONE is an idiot...
I do not mean the 'you' in a personal sense.
-
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
One of the most arrogant statements I have ever read.
The guy presumes he can judge God who created him.
A surprise awaits.
-
The funny thing is, not a single reply on this entire thread addresses the point of the original post, which is that
"no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C"
yet
Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.
And they posit that no good explanation has come to light for this.
Of course, as usual, they don't cite the scientific literature...only their own.
-
No, If you cannot see what is in fact self evident, you are an idiot...
or rather, No, If ONE cannot see what is in fact self evident, ONE is an idiot...
I do not mean the 'you' in a personal sense.
Calling others "idiots" is not the best persuasion technique.
You dismissed my arguments about reliance on scientific measurements, for instance drinking water.
My 92 year old mother, degree in chemistry with honors, my 90 year old MIL, and I have all used "city" water.
Long healthy lives, good sanitation due to science, not in spite of it.
Therefore my scientific observation, measurement if you will, is that city water is fine. We at experts to keep it fine. Fluoride and all.
Construction is to start pretty soon on a major desalinization plant in my town. Science from Israel is behind it. Repeating a blueprint from another one built previously, down the coast.
Israel, science good. Makes the desert flower, and produce food for mankind. Use science, don't dismiss it.
-
Calling others "idiots" is not the best persuasion technique.
I wasn't calling anyone anything. I was paraphrasing the Bible.
You dismissed my arguments about reliance on scientific measurements, for instance drinking water.
My 92 year old mother, degree in chemistry with honors, my 90 year old MIL, and I have all used "city" water.
Long healthy lives, good sanitation due to science, not in spite of it.
meh. I can point to hillbillies likewise, who have never drank anything but creek water. Ingesting chlorine and fluoride all the time cannot be good for you. It certainly was not good for me. And since I now get my water from an artesian spring, my health has improved tremendously. In fact, I can't even tell you the last time I ingested treated water. Creek water? Spring water? All the time.
Therefore my scientific observation, measurement if you will, is that city water is fine. We at experts to keep it fine. Fluoride and all.
You can keep it.
Construction is to start pretty soon on a major desalinization plant in my town. Science from Israel is behind it. Repeating a blueprint from another one built previously, down the coast.
Israel, science good. Makes the desert flower, and produce food for mankind. Use science, don't dismiss it.
I don;t dismiss science, as I said up-thread. Neither do I blindly follow 'experts'
-
One of the most arrogant statements I have ever read.
The guy presumes he can judge God who created him.
A surprise awaits.
Oh, I'm not judging God. I take the view that God created the universe in such a way that it has a rational progression from a single starting point and that it is amenable to human understanding without resort to deus ex machina tricks. That is, I think God is scrupulously honest and truthful.
The basic laws of thermodynamics make a young Earth impossible, and thus since God gave us thermodynamics, the young Earth hypothesis is false.
-
OR the presupposition that Earth in fact collapsed out of an interstellar cloud of dust is not true.
True. But then you have to follow through on, and accept, all of the consequences that logically entails. If you do so, you end up at the same point: a God who intentionally created a false world. And a Solar system that defies the fundamental laws of physics God himself created.
-
The basic laws of thermodynamics make a young Earth impossible, and thus since God gave us thermodynamics, the young Earth hypothesis is false.
And evolution defies the laws of entropy.
Now what?
-
The funny thing is, not a single reply on this entire thread addresses the point of the original post, which is that
yet
And they posit that no good explanation has come to light for this.
Of course, as usual, they don't cite the scientific literature...only their own.
Which, taken as true, presents an interesting question for continued scientific research, but definitely does not invalidate the basic concept of using radioactive decay as one means of measuring age, and most definitely cannot carry the weight the author wishes to put on it: evidence for a young Earth hypothesis, because fundamental principles of physics make all young Earth hypotheses impossible. Principles of physics that are too fundamental to be gainsaid for the sake of a young Earth hypothesis because your car wouldn't work if these principles were sufficiently wrong to justify a young Earth hypothesis.
-
And evolution defies the laws of entropy.
Now what?
How so?
A local increase in order is not inconsistent with a global increase in disorder. If that were not true, then no increase in order, no matter how small or trivial, would be possible; refining iron ore into pure iron would be impossible.
-
How so?
To quote JH Rush:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.
A local increase in order is not inconsistent with a global increase in disorder. If that were not true, then no increase in order, no matter how small or trivial, would be possible; refining iron ore into pure iron would be impossible.
But it isn't local. Evolution supposedly turned a clunky lizard into the very refined system that is a bird today. Outside of the predictive engineering necessary to get from that particular point 'a' to point 'b' (in itself a violation of any conceivable probability), the process is necessarily promoting improvement, refinement rather than entropy.
To wit: across the board, life is more refined now than it was then (according to science).
Your iron, as it were, refining itself into steel.
-
Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.
And they posit that no good explanation has come to light for this.
Of course, as usual, they don't cite the scientific literature...only their own.
They also cannot explain soft tissues, including intact DNA, found over and over in dinosaur fossils. (These things were originally found by accident a few years ago, because no one had ever bothered to look for things that they KNEW could not survive for more than a few thousand years at most--certainly not for 65 millions years. Now when they go back to the museums to re-check the fossil bones, they invariably find soft tissues that they say should not be there.)
-
I believe "science" has only been investigating "evolution" for a short time--maybe 200 years or less.
Given a few more hundreds of years, and "science" will have a much fuller understanding and explanation.
None of the "scientific" investigation is intended in my view, to diminish the role of or existence of a "God."
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. God is simply so big, to have had us mystified for a long, long time. Hence many explanations have emerged from the minds of men.
-
They also cannot explain soft tissues, including intact DNA, found over and over in dinosaur fossils. (These things were originally found by accident a few years ago, because no one had ever bothered to look for things that they KNEW could not survive for more than a few thousand years at most--certainly not for 65 millions years. Now when they go back to the museums to re-check the fossil bones, they invariably find soft tissues that they say should not be there.)
@the_doc
That really ought to be the end of it. The only reason for an old earth is to allow for evolution.
But give them a couple years and they'll come up with some incredibly complex reason what flesh can survive such a very long entombment.
And they'll cling to it with faith, despite back-bending complexity, because anything but God. Anything but the Flood.
Watch and see.
-
Oh, I'm not judging God.
Really? better go back and read what you posted. For your ease, here it is in its entirety
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
You are determining on your own that God needs some type of absolution, and that he created a falsehood.
Your scientific background, or at least what I presume is your scientific background, is clouding your senses.
There are indeed some absolute truths about God, including He does not make mistakes, even in creating a being that makes mistakes like you.
-
And evolution defies the laws of entropy.
Uh, no it doesn't.
Does God hand-craft every snowflake against the laws of nature? Or is it possible, within the laws of nature, to create complexity out of disorder?
(A: The latter. Creation "scientists" are lying charlatans if they claim the laws of entropy/thermodynamics prevent evolution.)
-
That, or else you have to believe that God made a false world and intentionally made it seem like what it is not.
Your pick. You can have a young Earth, or a God who is righteous and truthful; you cannot have both.
This is why I can't have those beliefs -- I refuse to worship Loki.
-
Uh, no it doesn't.
Does God hand-craft every snowflake against the laws of nature? Or is it possible, within the laws of nature, to create complexity out of disorder?
(A: The latter. Creation "scientists" are lying charlatans if they claim the laws of entropy/thermodynamics prevent evolution.)
Is it your supposition that snow flakes today are more complicated than in the past?
-
Really? better go back and read what you posted. For your ease, here it is in its entiretyYou are determining on your own that God needs some type of absolution, and that he created a falsehood.
Your scientific background, or at least what I presume is your scientific background, is clouding your senses.
There are indeed some absolute truths about God, including He does not make mistakes, even in creating a being that makes mistakes like you.
No, I didn't. I judged those who make the claim that God created a young Earth and found their position wanting because accepting it necessarily entails the conclusion that God is a liar if the young Earth hypothesis is correct.
Since God cannot - by definition if you will - be a liar, then it necessarily follows that the young Earth hypothesis is false.
QED
-
Is it your supposition that snow flakes today are more complicated than in the past?
It doesn't have to be. Is it your supposition that not a single snowflake today can possess as much order as did any snowflake ever in the past?
-
This is why I can't have those beliefs -- I refuse to worship Loki.
What beliefs are those?
-
No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.
You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.
The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.
I put science in its proper perspective (I think).
Science is our attempt to understand the wonders Our Creator has made. Now we do indeed see through a glass darkly, and are limited by our own cognitive abilities to comprehend the changes on a planet assumed to be ever moving at its present speed, with the assumption that the rules have not changed. An Almighty God who can stop the sun in the heavens can certainly override all of our observed beliefs about how things work, and there is no guarantee those constants we have observed in the past few thousand years (in some cases, a few tens of years) are indeed ever constant. Only one thing is constant, that being the Dominion over all of creation YHWH has.
I understand the flaws in our perception, and that at best it provides a working model we can play with to put events in sequence and perspective, and enough room on the chart to squeeze in some details, but I do not see it as an absolute. It never will be, because at absolute best, our knowledge is limited.
I am a scientist, a geologist, and that gives me a depth of appreciation those who are not so conversant in the convulsions and events that have occurred on Earth may lack, but all the philosophies of men are nothing in the Light of the Almighty, who knows all because He made it.
-
Radiocarbondating.com where really senior people meet.
Yeah, but they have that 'glow' about them....
-
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
Now we get into relativity.
For The Almighty, moving at the speed of light (or faster, because light hadn't been made yet) six days pass...on the waters, on Earth, trundling through the cosmos, and for the cosmos itself, it moves more slowly. He can indeed create that in six days which seems so much longer in our time reference.
-
Nope. That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time. If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do.
There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.
You say He falsified something. I would say our perceptions may be in error first. I dealt with the relativity question above. His six days might seem different here. It is a human assumption, in fact a fundamental axiom that all the processes we currently have observed have been and always will be constrained by the apparent constraints of time and other interactions that we observe and have observed in a very short time span.
We are limited in our perception.
The two different balls of different mass may have hit the ground at the same time on Earth, dropped from a tower in Pisa, but if you released them at the same time in space, the big one would get there first.
Why? Because it's slightly greater mass would cause a slightly greater gravitational attraction, which would cause a slightly greater acceleration, which would decrease its transit time relative to the smaller mass.
Even our axioms fail outside the realm of our limited perceptions, and we don't even know how to measure all the fundamental forces we perceive yet, or we'd have a far better understanding of time and gravity.
In short, our best understanding of our surroundings is still not good enough.
-
You say He falsified something. I would say our perceptions may be in error first. I dealt with the relativity question above. His six days might seem different here. It is a human assumption, in fact a fundamental axiom that all the processes we currently have observed have been and always will be constrained by the apparent constraints of time and other interactions that we observe and have observed in a very short time span.
We are limited in our perception.
Perfect! That is exactly what I was trying to say, but you are so much more eloquent.
:beer:
-
It doesn't have to be. Is it your supposition that not a single snowflake today can possess as much order as did any snowflake ever in the past?
Doesn't matter. I don't suppose crystalline structures to be ordered.
-
I am a scientist, a geologist, and that gives me a depth of appreciation those who are not so conversant in the convulsions and events that have occurred on Earth may lack, but all the philosophies of men are nothing in the Light of the Almighty, who knows all because He made it.
I can heartily agree with all that.
-
Doesn't matter. I don't suppose crystalline structures to be ordered.
Actually, although they seem to expand like fractals, the lattice structure is ordered.
In general, it is determined by the atoms/molecules involved, the size of the ions and relative charges. So it is with all crystals, especially minerals. That's why the angles between the corresponding faces on any two crystals of the same substance are the same, and those angle measurements were the beginnings of mineralogy. The structure of the earth is ordered, rather precisely, on a molecular level. Water is crystalline when frozen, and though the patterns of snowflakes are different because of their growth the lattice (the framework they can be aligned to) is the same.
-
Mortal men, inspired by the Spirit of the living God. Moses took dictation.
Lots of men claim to see/meet God. Cue Neitzsche's quote about a stroll through a lunatic asylum.
Bible is IMO a mixture of truth/fiction, tall tales, and folk legends. Even Jefferson thought the Bible was silly (which is why he tried to rewrite it).
-
Actually, although they seem to expand like fractals, the lattice structure is ordered.
In general, it is determined by the atoms/molecules involved, the size of the ions and relative charges. So it is with all crystals, especially minerals. That's why the angles between the corresponding faces on any two crystals of the same substance are the same, and those angle measurements were the beginnings of mineralogy. The structure of the earth is ordered, rather precisely, on a molecular level. Water is crystalline when frozen, and though the patterns of snowflakes are different because of their growth the lattice (the framework they can be aligned to) is the same.
I don't understand it with that depth, but looking at frost grow on the window, the process struck me as chaotic within the limits of it's mechanical means. It never painted the window the same way twice (design), nor did it seem to care how it started or where it went upon the glass, with the exception that it tended to start on the colder edge, and wind up covering the same relative space.
Frost is some cool stuff.
-
Lots of men claim to see/meet God. Cue Neitzsche's quote about a stroll through a lunatic asylum.
Bible is IMO a mixture of truth/fiction, tall tales, and folk legends. Even Jefferson thought the Bible was silly (which is why he tried to rewrite it).
Well thanks for your opinion, but as I said on another thread, you're going to have a hard time explaining the types of encryption contained within the text... both within it and subliminally. Those types of encryption are deliberate, precise, and well beyond the ability of man to construct. That Book is the most amazing construction I have ever seen.
And as a student of the prophecy... You'd better hold on to your hat.
-
I don't understand it with that depth, but looking at frost grow on the window, the process struck me as chaotic within the limits of it's mechanical means. It never painted the window the same way twice (design), nor did it seem to care how it started or where it went upon the glass, with the exception that it tended to start on the colder edge, and wind up covering the same relative space.
Frost is some cool stuff.
Yes, it is. The growth of the frost is what follows fractals. The actual crustal lattice is different, No matter what form grows, the molecular structure, the spacing between the atoms and molecules remains the same in the lattice, whether or not all of that framework gets filled in. Think of it like legos. You can make any number of things, but the blocks still hook up the same way. More of His genius, imho.
Fractals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal)
-
See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Bolobaby, out.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/51/84/a7/5184a722bccf87c472b5bca7c7b2c2cf.gif)
-
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
God created Earth and the Universe.
They are millions of years old and the species that populate the Earth have (during those millions of years) appeared, evolved and dissappeared for various reasons and at random intervals.
Why is all that so difficult to accept?
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/51/84/a7/5184a722bccf87c472b5bca7c7b2c2cf.gif)
Unfortunately, what passes for science nowadays starts with fundamental assumptions that may not be true, and all too often include the conclusions.
-
God created Earth and the Universe.
They are millions of years old and the species that populate the Earth have (during those millions of years) appeared, evolved and dissappeared for various reasons and at random intervals.
Why is all that so difficult to accept?
It goes flatly against what God has said. It breaks critical structures in the Bible. And it goes against the prophets and the Messiah.
-
God created Earth and the Universe.
They are millions of years old and the species that populate the Earth have (during those millions of years) appeared, evolved and dissappeared for various reasons and at random intervals.
Why is all that so difficult to accept?
I have little trouble accepting that God created the Earth and all on it. How long it took could be a simple matter of relativity, where time passes far slower in one frame than it does in another. If God is moving FTL, which he must, if He is everywhere, then time on the Earth passed far more quickly relative to 'God time' and his six days could have been millions of years here.
-
It goes flatly against what God has said. It breaks critical structures in the Bible. And it goes against the prophets and the Messiah.
Thanks for that response. It leads me to my next point, one that I make with both atheists and creationists.
My neighbor enjoys watching SpongeBob Squarepants cartoons. It's a children's show but he truly loves the show.
Whenever I pop in on him and he's watching the show he explains the episode in great detail, laughing his ass off and commenting on it.
I think that the whole thing is silly, but it doesn't bother me in any way because I know that SpongeBob is not real.
So then, why do atheists and creationists both get offended by the knowledge that others believe in something that they claim does not exist or isn't true?
-
So then, why do atheists and creationists both get offended by the knowledge that others believe in something that they claim does not exist or isn't true?
I can't speak for others, and certainly not atheists.
And my testimony - why I KNOW there is a living and active God - I doubt you want to hear it.
It's the Book. Not what it says (though that is the important part), but it's construction. How the text is designed, it's continuity across authors and millennia... the encryption, as I mentioned before... the complex referential system... The distributed nature of the message within it... the brilliant intertwining of the word and the prophecy... All of these textual constructs assembled into what is often beautiful prose. No force in this world wrote that tome.
-
I can't speak for others, and certainly not atheists.
And my testimony - why I KNOW there is a living and active God - I doubt you want to hear it.
It's the Book. Not what it says (though that is the important part), but it's construction. How the text is designed, it's continuity across authors and millennia... the encryption, as I mentioned before... the complex referential system... The distributed nature of the message within it... the brilliant intertwining of the word and the prophecy... All of these textual constructs assembled into what is often beautiful prose. No force in this world wrote that tome.
God created Earth and the Universe.
What part of that (in my original statement) fails to get the point across that I believe in Creation?
-
Thanks for that response. It leads me to my next point, one that I make with both atheists and creationists.
My neighbor enjoys watching SpongeBob Squarepants cartoons. It's a children's show but he truly loves the show.
Whenever I pop in on him and he's watching the show he explains the episode in great detail, laughing his ass off and commenting on it.
I think that the whole thing is silly, but it doesn't bother me in any way because I know that SpongeBob is not real.
So then, why do atheists and creationists both get offended by the knowledge that others believe in something that they claim does not exist or isn't true?
And if your neighbor and all else who believed Spongebob to be true started agitating for laws and rules based on what Spongebob said, you would be just as sanguine?
-
Is it your supposition that snow flakes today are more complicated than in the past?
Yes, considering they start out as chaotic water vapor and droplets.
-
What beliefs are those?
Young Earth.
@Oceander
-
Young Earth.
@Oceander
:thumbsup:
-
And if your neighbor and all else who believed Spongebob to be true started agitating for laws and rules based on what Spongebob said, you would be just as sanguine?
I would add to that, "teaching in the schools that SpongeBob is real".
-
God created Earth and the Universe.
What part of that (in my original statement) fails to get the point across that I believe in Creation?
LOL! At one point, my reply was considerably more wordy than it turned out, and in my editing, I cut out the paragraph that contained my actual answer to you. Sorry about that. Howabout this:
I don't mind that folks see things differently, with the exception of general order and adherence to the Judeo-Christian Ethic - To be a nation, a people, we must reasonably agree upon what is right and wrong. In the US, and I would argue, largely the West, that sense is (or was) defined upon that ethic.
If someone rises to speak against that general ethical norm, I am bound to rise in opposition, not so much in the value of preaching for my God, but more in defense of that common sense of law. And I will be zealous.
As to whether folks believe differently wrt the topic at hand, namely old earth/young earth, evolution, and especially Christians supporting a long view of Creation, I must rise to defend the Bible directly, for the aforementioned reasons regarding the great damage such theories do to the message and particularly to the proof contained within the Scriptures.
Whether done in malice, ignorance, or appeasement, the raw fact is that these positions are diametrically opposed to the Word of God, do great damage to his message, and I must rise in objection. It isn't a matter of interpretation. It says what it says. It MUST say what it says.
Is that better?
-
LOL! At one point, my reply was considerably more wordy than it turned out, and in my editing, I cut out the paragraph that contained my actual answer to you. Sorry about that. Howabout this:
I don't mind that folks see things differently, with the exception of general order and adherence to the Judeo-Christian Ethic - To be a nation, a people, we must reasonably agree upon what is right and wrong. In the US, and I would argue, largely the West, that sense is (or was) defined upon that ethic.
If someone rises to speak against that general ethical norm, I am bound to rise in opposition, not so much in the value of preaching for my God, but more in defense of that common sense of law. And I will be zealous.
As to whether folks believe differently wrt the topic at hand, namely old earth/young earth, evolution, and especially Christians supporting a long view of Creation, I must rise to defend the Bible directly, for the aforementioned reasons regarding the great damage such theories do to the message and particularly to the proof contained within the Scriptures.
Whether done in malice, ignorance, or appeasement, the raw fact is that these positions are diametrically opposed to the Word of God, do great damage to his message, and I must rise in objection. It isn't a matter of interpretation. It says what it says. It MUST say what it says.
Is that better?
If the text in the Bible can only be read to support a young Earth hypothesis, then the Bible is in error to that extent. The Bible was writ by human hands, based on human understanding of what the authors perceived to be the Word of God. The Universe IS the Word of God, writ directly and without mediation by His hand. If the two conflict then the former must fail. The Word of God, in the form of the laws of thermodynamics, says the Earth cannot be "young" (I.e., less than at least 20 million years, as such are measured now). Therefore, if the Bible only supports the hypothesis that the Earth is less than 20 million years old, then there is necessarily a flaw in what human hands originally wrote, and to that extent the Bible is false. It cannot be otherwise: The act of human transcription cannot change the meaning of the Word of God so transcribed.
-
If the text in the Bible can only be read to support a young Earth hypothesis, then the Bible is in error to that extent.
No, it is not.
The Bible was writ by human hands, based on human understanding of what the authors perceived to be the Word of God.
An incorrect assumption. Perhaps your science was written by human hands, based upon human understanding.
The Universe IS the Word of God, writ directly and without mediation by His hand. If the two conflict then the former must fail.
Impossible.
The Word of God, in the form of the laws of thermodynamics, says the Earth cannot be "young" (I.e., less than at least 20 million years, as such are measured now).
The law of thermodynamics was written by men, not by God.
Therefore, if the Bible only supports the hypothesis that the Earth is less than 20 million years old, then there is necessarily a flaw in what human hands originally wrote, and to that extent the Bible is false. It cannot be otherwise:
My bets are upon the Word of God being true, and the science of men being in error... As God has predicted will be the case. It is written. The prophets predict your position.
It is man whose views are flawed, whose understanding is incomplete.
The Word of YHWH will stand. Study his proofs and you will see. Why do you suppose no less than Isaac Newton would devote most of his lifetime to that study? Because he saw the math. Look into what he has to say... Which he said in fear of his life, and entrusted to no man complete until he had passed.
The act of human transcription cannot change the meaning of the Word of God so transcribed.
There is no error in transcription, transmission, or interpretation.
the text we have is true. Especially so wrt Torah (Pentateuch, first five books).
the proofs are impeccable. The math extraordinary.
-
@the_doc
But give them a couple years and they'll come up with some incredibly complex reason what flesh can survive such a very long entombment.
@the_doc @roamer_1
Actually, we already have the answers, and they're quite simple. Here you go: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
-
Actually, we already have the answers [...]
ROTFLMAO!!! Of course you do/
@Suppressed
@the_doc
-
ROTFLMAO!!! Of course you do/
@Suppressed
@the_doc
It really is interesting science.
-
@the_doc @roamer_1
Actually, we already have the answers, and they're quite simple. Here you go: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
Wow! wordpress. :whistle:
Couldn't even get Wikipedia for help?
-
Wow! wordpress. :whistle:
Couldn't even get Wikipedia for help?
Ad hominem is all you have? No rebuttal on content?
Typical.
-
Ad hominem is all you have? No rebuttal on content?
Typical.
Wait what?
I didn't attack you. Sheesh. *****rollingeyes*****
Let's just say I'm wondering if there are more scholarly sources on the matter. Some guy in the check out line at Walmart once told me it was Aliens so it must be true.
-
It really is interesting science.
I suppose, if one starts from the premise that something, anything, can survive for MILLIONS of years. I think the reason people get sucked into this crap is because 'millions of years' is so beyond any real grasp, that it is immediately taken for granted - as it is beyond any real calculation.
'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t'... and I smell bullshit.
My favorite part was the whole idea that the carcass laid out and was mummified before being subjected to silting in by highly mineralized water. That made me laugh, right out loud. Folks are so very divorced from their environment that they can't even see how very hilarious that is.
@Sanguine
@Suppressed
-
Wait what?
I didn't attack you. Sheesh. *****rollingeyes*****
Huh? Point out where I said you did!
Let's just say I'm wondering if there are more scholarly sources on the matter. Some guy in the check out line at Walmart once told me it was Aliens so it must be true.
The piece was loaded with scholarly citations. Your ad hominem attack against the source is ridiculous, especially since you obviously haven't read it or the references it cites.
-
I suppose, if one starts from the premise that something, anything, can survive for MILLIONS of years. I think the reason people get sucked into this crap is because 'millions of years' is so beyond any real grasp, that it is immediately taken for granted - as it is beyond any real calculation.
It's more believable than the idea of a "good" god who plays head games with his creation, giving heaping amounts of evidence for old age while it's all a fake.
'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t'... and I smell bullshit.
Take a shower and stop rolling around with ICR, perhaps. ^-^
My favorite part was the whole idea that the carcass laid out and was mummified before being subjected to silting in by highly mineralized water. That made me laugh, right out loud. Folks are so very divorced from their environment that they can't even see how very hilarious that is.
I've spent enough time in the outdoors to know that's feasible. I've seen many desiccated carcasses in areas that receive sediment loads at other times.
What I find ridiculous, not hilarious, is the idea that a "good" god would plant evidence like this, obviously to fool us.
@roamer_1 @Sanguine
-
It's more believable than the idea of a "good" god who plays head games with his creation, giving heaping amounts of evidence for old age while it's all a fake.
I don't suggest your evidence is fake, I suggest it is utterly misinterpreted.
And no, it isn't easier to believe. Far, far harder, imho.
**EDIT: That isn't to say that evidence hasn't been faked repeatedly, which it most certainly has.
I've spent enough time in the outdoors to know that's feasible. I've seen many desiccated carcasses in areas that receive sediment loads at other times.
In a desert, sure. not in taiga forest, which the t-rex supposedly inhabited. Nothing is left. The nature of the landscape dictates it.
What I find ridiculous, not hilarious, is the idea that a "good" god would plant evidence like this, obviously to fool us.
Not my position.
-
Not my position.
What is your position?
Since there's overwhelming evidence for an old earth, why do we see that if the earth isn't old?
-
What is your position?
Like I said. your data is misinterpreted, relying on extrapolations that literally cannot be proven.
Since there's overwhelming evidence for an old earth, why do we see that if the earth isn't old?
Because you want to. FAITH.
-
I suppose, if one starts from the premise that something, anything, can survive for MILLIONS of years. I think the reason people get sucked into this crap is because 'millions of years' is so beyond any real grasp, that it is immediately taken for granted - as it is beyond any real calculation.
'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t'... and I smell bullshit.
My favorite part was the whole idea that the carcass laid out and was mummified before being subjected to silting in by highly mineralized water. That made me laugh, right out loud. Folks are so very divorced from their environment that they can't even see how very hilarious that is.
@Sanguine
@Suppressed
Not to be a pain, folks, but did the first amoeba ever die?
I think we need to stop and recognize that "With God, all things are possible. " (MATT 19:26)
Science is our attempt to explain what is.
Often that attempt is inadequate due to perception, measurement, missing data, or plain lack of understanding. We do not understand some of the fundamental forces in nature, much less the details of creation.
A year of paleontology did convince me of a couple of things: there are a lot of hypothetical ancestral forms which allegedly predate fully developed and significantly different organisms ("missing links"), and when rocks are dated by their preserved fauna, there is an element of circular reasoning which can creep in.
Not only are faunal assemblages found in specific and different depositional environments which are possibly contemporaneous (as are the rocks they are preserved in), but apparent successions can result, when in fact, those are just different critters living in different niches at the same time and changing climate moves the areal boundaries of those niches (and those faunal assemblages) around. Thus in one spot, we can find apparent faunal successions in different rock layers and correlate those with the same rock type and fauna elsewhere, and have identified not necessarily an age as is so often accepted, but the preserved remains of critters which lived in a specific environment.
While stratigraphy is a good working framework for finding oil, coal, and other resources, and even establishing relative ages (and depositional/living environments), it may fall well short in telling all of the tale.
As a scientist, I know our interpretations are necessarily flawed. Our data has its peculiar problems, and our interpretation is open to being incorrect. That doesn't stop trying to sort it all out from being fun, and even useful, but as the great and golden truth, it falls short.
I will stick with the revealed Truth in Scripture.
-
In the grand scheme of things we know very little and much of what we think we know now will eventually be proven incorrect.
-
In the grand scheme of things we know very little and much of what we think we know now will eventually be proven incorrect.
It has been that way so far, either incorrect or incomplete. That doesn't stop us from trying to figure things out, and it's fun (and occasionally profitable), but a guy has to keep in perspective. Phrases like "we believe", "data we have indicate", are relevant hedges against reality.
As Einstein said, "As the diameter of a circle of light increases, so does the circumference of the darkness around it."
Or, simply put, the more I learn, the less I know. Every answer just leads to more questions.
If we don't approach science, even now, with that sort of humility, we're going to all look like idiots some day.
-
Not to be a pain, folks, but did the first amoeba ever die?
I think we need to stop and recognize that "With God, all things are possible. " (MATT 19:26)
Science is our attempt to explain what is.
It used to be... It has a different agenda now...
Often that attempt is inadequate due to perception, measurement, missing data, or plain lack of understanding. We do not understand some of the fundamental forces in nature, much less the details of creation.
more than that - Science at one time was not about the evidence, but rather the errata - One single piece of errata collapses even the most elegant of theories. Or, at least, it used to...
As a scientist, I know our interpretations are necessarily flawed. Our data has its peculiar problems, and our interpretation is open to being incorrect. That doesn't stop trying to sort it all out from being fun, and even useful, but as the great and golden truth, it falls short.
I will stick with the revealed Truth in Scripture.
Bravo.
As for me, when science gets over itself, and quits trying to prove that a 4bit self-replicating, self-healing programming code, not to mention it's mechanical interpreter and builder (which necessarily must be present whole cloth), came together by chance, in a bucket of rock soup, THEN I might be willing to take another look.
A premise, by the way, which defies the law of entropy, and is several exponential orders beyond the probability limit which defines the scientifically absurd... But who's counting?
-
In the grand scheme of things we know very little and much of what we think we know now will eventually be proven incorrect.
And some things we do know, and know quite well. Basic thermodynamics is one of those things. Young Earth theories all catastrophically violate God's own laws of thermodynamics.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to pretend otherwise, so be it; but then, that's not really any different from the cultists who believe human beings are causing the climate to change: just as much a religion standing athwart rational enquiry.
Such is life.
-
And some things we do know, and know quite well. Basic thermodynamics is one of those things. Young Earth theories all catastrophically violate God's own laws of thermodynamics.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to pretend otherwise, so be it; but then, that's not really any different from the cultists who believe human beings are causing the climate to change: just as much a religion standing athwart rational enquiry.
Such is life.
All our scientific Laws are based on human observation and the assumption that the same interactions we observe today proceed in exactly the same fashion, at the same speed, with the same energy releases or consumption as they always have and always will. That principle of Uniformitarianism is the fundamental weakness in many of our theories.
That tells us it is not possible to halt the motion of celestial bodies, yet that is documented in the Bible, along with six days of Creation.
Uniformitarianism and our observations provide us with a workable framework, in that 2+2 can reasonably be anticipated to equal 4, at least in the situations we work in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will not be proven inadequate to explain all situations in the distant future or the past.
Certainly the creation of a universe, a solar system, a planet is something we have not documented scientifically. We are just reaching the point where we are beginning to understand gravity, not just as a force, but a propagated energy form. We have much left to discover, and that may mandate revisiting the working assumptions of today in the future in light of new discoveries, and may well elicit an entirely new understanding of how things can and did work from a scientific viewpoint.
That does not include relativistic differences in time frames, either.
In the end, it is a matter of what you want to believe.
-
All our scientific Laws are based on human observation and the assumption that the same interactions we observe today proceed in exactly the same fashion, at the same speed, with the same energy releases or consumption as they always have and always will. That principle of Uniformitarianism is the fundamental weakness in many of our theories.
That tells us it is not possible to halt the motion of celestial bodies, yet that is documented in the Bible, along with six days of Creation.
Uniformitarianism and our observations provide us with a workable framework, in that 2+2 can reasonably be anticipated to equal 4, at least in the situations we work in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will not be proven inadequate to explain all situations in the distant future or the past.
Certainly the creation of a universe, a solar system, a planet is something we have not documented scientifically. We are just reaching the point where we are beginning to understand gravity, not just as a force, but a propagated energy form. We have much left to discover, and that may mandate revisiting the working assumptions of today in the future in light of new discoveries, and may well elicit an entirely new understanding of how things can and did work from a scientific viewpoint.
That does not include relativistic differences in time frames, either.
In the end, it is a matter of what you want to believe.
Logic still plays some small role. One need not get into that chestnut to nonetheless point out that a young Earth hypothesis necessarily requires that God have created a false Earth. If God created the Universe in six days, as a day is measured now, why did He go to such lengths to make everything appear as if it had taken aeons and aeons? Why deceive? What end is gained?
If the Bible can only be read to mean that it only took six days, or only took 50,000 years, then the Bible is in error. It was written by human hands and has been repeatedly transcribed and translated, and those who wrote it did not have the observational tools available to us, so the existence of an error of this sort is wholly understandable.
If you can't deal with that, if you prefer the dried ink of a dead sinner's hand to the living Word of God writ in existence itself, so be it. Just don't be too surprised that so few people are willing to take you seriously.
-
Logic still plays some small role. One need not get into that chestnut to nonetheless point out that a young Earth hypothesis necessarily requires that God have created a false Earth. If God created the Universe in six days, as a day is measured now, why did He go to such lengths to make everything appear as if it had taken aeons and aeons? Why deceive? What end is gained?
If the Bible can only be read to mean that it only took six days, or only took 50,000 years, then the Bible is in error. It was written by human hands and has been repeatedly transcribed and translated, and those who wrote it did not have the observational tools available to us, so the existence of an error of this sort is wholly understandable.
If you can't deal with that, if you prefer the dried ink of a dead sinner's hand to the living Word of God writ in existence itself, so be it. Just don't be too surprised that so few people are willing to take you seriously.
@Oceander
You keep building an argument that God is a liar and the Bible is fake. Could it just be that you don't understand? Perhaps the universe isn't defined by your perception of it?
The Bible has been translated by many hands, that is true. However the original texts are available so instead of the many hands creating man made mistakes they simply verify what is already known. All the attempts to spread doubt and fear are really pretty telling. If you were so certain of your version of science why are you so threatened by the Word of God?
-
And some things we do know, and know quite well. Basic thermodynamics is one of those things. Young Earth theories all catastrophically violate God's own laws of thermodynamics.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to pretend otherwise, so be it; but then, that's not really any different from the cultists who believe human beings are causing the climate to change: just as much a religion standing athwart rational enquiry.
Such is life.
A very arrogant assessment, thinking one knows more than one does. That is the pretense.
One needs humility in comprehending the immensity of what the Creator has given us and understanding that what humans have derived to explain this creation is insufficient.
-
@Oceander
You keep building an argument that God is a liar and the Bible is fake. Could it just be that you don't understand? Perhaps the universe isn't defined by your perception of it?
The Bible has been translated by many hands, that is true. However the original texts are available so instead of the many hands creating man made mistakes they simply verify what is already known. All the attempts to spread doubt and fear are really pretty telling. If you were so certain of your version of science why are you so threatened by the Word of God?
I'm not threatened by the Word of God - I embrace it - I just prefer what God actually wrote: the physical creation itself to the words of other human beings, no matter how well-intentioned or how divinely inspired they claim to have been.
Why are you so afraid of God's creation that you feel so compelled to hide from it behind the dried ink of long-dead human beings?
-
A very arrogant assessment, thinking one knows more than one does. That is the pretense.
One needs humility in comprehending the immensity of what the Creator has given us and understanding that what humans have derived to explain this creation is insufficient.
And for this we sneer at the Creation itself and hide behind the dried ink of long dead human beings?
-
I'm not threatened by the Word of God - I embrace it - I just prefer what God actually wrote: the physical creation itself to the words of other human beings, no matter how well-intentioned or how divinely inspired they claim to have been.
Why are you so afraid of God's creation that you feel so compelled to hide from it behind the dried ink of long-dead human beings?
FUD will get you no where.
Gods creation is wondrous. Far more wondrous than I can comprehend. I have accepted that and am comfortable with my Faith. I have felt God; seen Gods hand in my life and in those around me. The infallible Word of God says he created the universe is 6 days. I don't understand how and thats ok. I don't understand how the dinosaurs fit in, and thats ok too.
It takes far more faith to think I can define with certainty something that happened 'millions' of years ago based off a small piece of mineralized bone then to accept the God that has touched my heart.
-
And for this we sneer at the Creation itself and hide behind the dried ink of long dead human beings?
@Oceander
So its dried ink that you have an issue with? Or perhaps long dead humans?
So if the ink is wet and the humans are alive then you are ok with accepting their word? Does that mean you believe in the living version of our Constitution as well? That old pesky Bill of Rights has ink thats really dry and was written by long dead humans.
FUD
-
FUD will get you no where.
Gods creation is wondrous. Far more wondrous than I can comprehend. I have accepted that and am comfortable with my Faith. I have felt God; seen Gods hand in my life and in those around me. The infallible Word of God says he created the universe is 6 days. I don't understand how and thats ok. I don't understand how the dinosaurs fit in, and thats ok too.
It takes far more faith to think I can define with certainty something that happened 'millions' of years ago based off a small piece of mineralized bone then to accept the God that has touched my heart.
I completely agree with you except for the bolded part. The Bible also says that His days are not our days. It is not given to us to know how long it took Him - except through observation and measurement we can make some suppositions.
-
I completely agree with you except for the bolded part. The Bible also says that His days are not our days. It is not given to us to know how long it took Him - except through observation and measurement we can make some suppositions.
@Sanguine
I think we're saying the same thing. Whether the "6 days' is 6 of our current 24 hour days is unimportant. Its attempting to put our rules on the Creator. God created everything and folks want to quibble over the measurement of how long it took. IMO thats an effort to reduce the Creator.
-
@Sanguine
I think we're saying the same thing. Whether the "6 days' is 6 of our current 24 hour days is unimportant. Its attempting to put our rules on the Creator. God created everything and folks want to quibble over the measurement of how long it took. IMO thats an effort to reduce the Creator.
Oh, I see. But, no, I don't see it as an effort to reduce - merely the very human quality to try to understand and describe. Science merely reveals the infinity of the Creator.
-
A year of paleontology did convince me of a couple of things: there are a lot of hypothetical ancestral forms which allegedly predate fully developed and significantly different organisms ("missing links"), and when rocks are dated by their preserved fauna, there is an element of circular reasoning which can creep in.
Agreed.
Not only are faunal assemblages found in specific and different depositional environments which are possibly contemporaneous (as are the rocks they are preserved in), but apparent successions can result, when in fact, those are just different critters living in different niches at the same time and changing climate moves the areal boundaries of those niches (and those faunal assemblages) around. Thus in one spot, we can find apparent faunal successions in different rock layers and correlate those with the same rock type and fauna elsewhere, and have identified not necessarily an age as is so often accepted, but the preserved remains of critters which lived in a specific environment.
On the other hand, we have sequences that are described sufficiently in areal extent that we can see very clearly a larger picture. And we see regressive -- and transgressive -- sequences. Where do we get transgressive sequences with receding floodwaters? And how do we get colloidal sediment to settle out so quickly? How do we get these faunal assemblages changing so rapidly in a sequence, when depositional characteristics wouldn't account for it?
While stratigraphy is a good working framework for finding oil, coal, and other resources, and even establishing relative ages (and depositional/living environments), it may fall well short in telling all of the tale.
Agreed that we don't know all of the tale, but that doesn't mean we don't know parts of it.
As a scientist, I know our interpretations are necessarily flawed. Our data has its peculiar problems, and our interpretation is open to being incorrect. That doesn't stop trying to sort it all out from being fun, and even useful, but as the great and golden truth, it falls short.
QFT
-
Oh, I see. But, no, I don't see it as an effort to reduce - merely the very human quality to try to understand and describe. Science merely reveals the infinity of the Creator.
@Sanguine
I can see that. I guess I refer to the tendency that when people don't accept the 6 days and instead of assuming their understanding is incomplete they assume the Word of God is wrong. Nothing inherently wrong with science though, until it becomes a tower of Babel.
-
@Sanguine
I can see that. I guess I refer to the tendency that when people don't accept the 6 days and instead of assuming their understanding is incomplete they assume the Word of God is wrong. Nothing inherently wrong with science though, until it becomes a tower of Babel.
Yes, the Tower of Babel story was about what we could call today "reaching a consensus".
-
@Oceander
So its dried ink that you have an issue with? Or perhaps long dead humans?
So if the ink is wet and the humans are alive then you are ok with accepting their word? Does that mean you believe in the living version of our Constitution as well? That old pesky Bill of Rights has ink thats really dry and was written by long dead humans.
FUD
:bigsilly:
Now that's a straw man argument!!!
Whenever human words, claiming to be the Word of God, and whether new or old, conflict with the actual Word of God, which is the Universe itself, then I prefer the Universe over the babbling of human beings, no matter how long ago that babbling took place.
God's Word, the Universe itself, says in an almost infinite number of ways, that the Universe was not formed in six days, as humans measure them, or in 50,000 years, as humans measure them, because the basic laws of physics that must be true if gasoline engines run, comets leave tails, and even cups of coffee boil and cool, all as they do every day.
So that leaves only two alternatives: (1) the Universe, and the Earth, took a lot longer to form than any young Earth hypothesis can allow, or (2) God intentionally made a Universe and an Earth in such a way that His actual acts cannot be observed and instead observation, no matter how painstaking, leads to false conclusions about how God made the Universe and Earth.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I find the second alternative abhorrent because it requires that God be a liar, who created a false world for the purpose of tricking and cheating us.
Which leaves only the first alternative: God created the Universe and the Earth on a time scale that is consistent with observations, and therefore the young Earth hypothesis is false.
I don't believe God lies to his creations - us - and intentionally made the world so as to mislead us. And if that means acknowledging flaws in the Bible, so be it. I side with God first.
-
Huh? Point out where I said you did!
The piece was loaded with scholarly citations. Your ad hominem attack against the source is ridiculous, especially since you obviously haven't read it or the references it cites.
So it's adhominem to call WordPress, WordPress? Okay you win, sorry I forgot my trigger warning on that post.
-
:bigsilly:
Now that's a straw man argument!!!
Whenever human words, claiming to be the Word of God, and whether new or old, conflict with the actual Word of God, which is the Universe itself, then I prefer the Universe over the babbling of human beings, no matter how long ago that babbling took place.
God's Word, the Universe itself, says in an almost infinite number of ways, that the Universe was not formed in six days, as humans measure them, or in 50,000 years, as humans measure them, because the basic laws of physics that must be true if gasoline engines run, comets leave tails, and even cups of coffee boil and cool, all as they do every day.
So that leaves only two alternatives: (1) the Universe, and the Earth, took a lot longer to form than any young Earth hypothesis can allow, or (2) God intentionally made a Universe and an Earth in such a way that His actual acts cannot be observed and instead observation, no matter how painstaking, leads to false conclusions about how God made the Universe and Earth.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I find the second alternative abhorrent because it requires that God be a liar, who created a false world for the purpose of tricking and cheating us.
Which leaves only the first alternative: God created the Universe and the Earth on a time scale that is consistent with observations, and therefore the young Earth hypothesis is false.
I don't believe God lies to his creations - us - and intentionally made the world so as to mislead us. And if that means acknowledging flaws in the Bible, so be it. I side with God first.
@Oceander
Strawman? Hardly, you said you disbelieved the Word of God (aka the Bible) because it had dry ink and was "written" by people long dead. So using that criteria the Constitution must be junk too. How about the works of Plato? Socrates? Capernicus? Madam Curie? Einstein? Planck? Carl Sagan has a video so you must really think he's cool.
I think what you mean to say is that you will only believe what you see yourself. Scientific observation or even plain old casual observation is not the Word of God. To use such a descriptor is a construct of your own.
But put all that aside; prove to me that a comets tail behaves in each of the solar systems in each of those 10,000 galaxies (or even one) in the Hubble Deep Space image. Make sure you don't use any soon to dry ink or writings from dead people to do so. Wait you can't because you cannot personally observe said phenomena. All you can really do is point to a comets behavior in our solar system and extrapolate that out to mean all comets work the same way. Now that takes a lotta faith.
Heck you don't even know those galaxies are real. All you know is the Hubble collected photons which made it look like a bunch of galaxies. For all we know we're in a giant set like that stupid Jim Carey movie Truman Show . Someday we'll board a space ship and run into the wall at Warp 12.
-
Strawman? Hardly, you said you disbelieved the Word of God (aka the Bible) because it had dry ink and was "written" by people long dead. So using that criteria the Constitution must be junk too. How about the works of Plato? Socrates? Capernicus? Madam Curie? Einstein? Planck? Carl Sagan has a video so you must really think he's cool.
I think what you mean to say is that you will only believe what you see yourself. Scientific observation or even plain old casual observation is not the Word of God. To use such a descriptor is a construct of your own.
But put all that aside; prove to me that a comets tail behaves in each of the solar systems in each of those 10,000 galaxies (or even one) in the Hubble Deep Space image. Make sure you don't use any soon to dry ink or writings from dead people to do so. Wait you can't because you cannot personally observe said phenomena. All you can really do is point to a comets behavior in our solar system and extrapolate that out to mean all comets work the same way. Now that takes a lotta faith.
Heck you don't even know those galaxies are real. All you know is the Hubble collected photons which made it look like a bunch of galaxies. For all we know we're in a giant set like that stupid Jim Carey movie Truman Show . Someday we'll board a space ship and run into the wall at Warp 12.
Would that you would respond to what I wrote and not what you wished I'd written.
I never said the Bible was nothing but junk just because it's so much dried ink. I said when it comes to a conflict between the Universe as it presents itself and statements in ancient texts about what the authors thought the Universe is, I tend to favor what the Universe has to say for itself over what a bunch of ancient humans had to say about it. And that's the case even if one has to be careful about how one evaluates ones observations of the Universe.
And as far as that goes, it doesn't take a lot of nuanced tea-leaf reading observation of the Universe to realize that the laws of thermodynamics as laid down by God when he spoke the Word make a young Earth hypothesis impossible.
And if you want to go down the rabbit hole of omphalos and navel-gazing, and say I can't prove that anything I see is anything other than my own imagination, all I need point out is that your criticism applies with equal force to you, and makes your belief in God as false as you claim it makes my belief in observation. Quite honestly, I've never really seen the utility of the navel-gazing argument because it cannot prove anything and accepting it simply begs the question of why you continue to have imaginary arguments with imaginary antagonists.
The Universe is as it is, and internal consistency, particularly to the extent one posits it about Gods actions, seems to be a priori necessary because otherwise you are left with caprice and arbitrariness, which seem to be more the purview of the Devil than of God.
Insisting that every jot and tittle in the Bible must be literally true or else the entire thing is false strikes me as another one of Emerson's foolish hobgoblins.
-
You just dont like getting called on your words.
Either the Bible is the infallible Word of God or its a collection of neat stories. For if each individual can proclaim a particular piece to be wrong then the entire book is not divinely inspired or infallible.
Your (or mine) lack of understanding of Gods Word does not make it incorrect.
You have chosen to worship your own view of the Universe and not Gods. I'd urge you to reconsider.
-
So it's adhominem to call WordPress, WordPress? Okay you win, sorry I forgot my trigger warning on that post.
Yes, I again note no substantive rebuttal.
-
Yes, I again note no substantive rebuttal.
Linking a blog is not a substantive argument.
-
Linking a blog is not a substantive argument.
:silly:
Would it help if I copy/pasted it? Or is the well-sourced argument suddenly wrong because it was once on a blog?
-
So that leaves only two alternatives: (1) the Universe, and the Earth, took a lot longer to form than any young Earth hypothesis can allow, or (2) God intentionally made a Universe and an Earth in such a way that His actual acts cannot be observed and instead observation, no matter how painstaking, leads to false conclusions about how God made the Universe and Earth.
Or [3] Scientific observation is inaccurate, misinterpreted, or politically skewed. ALL of which have been proven to occur in the past. What happens to all of your calculations if time is subject to the standard rate of decay? What if light, likewise? How could you measure it if true?
-
You just dont like getting called on your words.
Either the Bible is the infallible Word of God or its a collection of neat stories. For if each individual can proclaim a particular piece to be wrong then the entire book is not divinely inspired or infallible.
Your (or mine) lack of understanding of Gods Word does not make it incorrect.
You have chosen to worship your own view of the Universe and not Gods. I'd urge you to reconsider.
I love getting called on my words. Why else am I still posting?
And I disagree with the binary view of the Bible. Whether the six days in Genesis is literally true, using days measured as we measure them now, or is metaphorical, has little bearing on the Truth of Jesus' words.
-
:silly:
Would it help if I copy/pasted it? Or is the well-sourced argument suddenly wrong because it was once on a blog?
I can't recall a single college professor that let me quote blogs as a source when I was a student. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I can't recall a single college professor that let me quote blogs as a source when I was a student. *****rollingeyes*****
Me, either, but blogs didn't exist then.
But I could cite well-sourced expositions. And that's not even a blog, per se, but a well-sourced paper.
-
And I disagree with the binary view of the Bible. Whether the six days in Genesis is literally true, using days measured as we measure them now, or is metaphorical, has little bearing on the Truth of Jesus' words.
If you believe Jesus, then you must necessarily believe in the Flood, right?
-
Here's some non-blogs:
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million... Proxy Highlight
Feb 3, 2017 ... It might be the oldest soft tissue sample ever found. ... and protein remains preserved in the ribs of a dinosaur from 195 million years ago.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained - Live Science
www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html Proxy Highlight
Nov 26, 2013 ... A T. rex found with soft tissue preserved in her bones was an 'iron lady,' ... The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a ... They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue.
Protein preserved in 195-million-year-old dinosaur bone - The San ...
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sd-me-d... Proxy Highlight
Jan 31, 2017 ... Evidence of protein inside a 195-million-year-old fossil dinosaur bone — potentially extending the record for soft tissue preservation by 100 ...
Soft tissue preserved in 80-million-year-old dino fossil | EARTH ...
https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/soft-tissue-pre... Proxy Highlight
Soft tissue preserved in 80-million-year-old dino fossil ... collagen, a type of protein, from the femur of an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur.
How a 195-million-year-old dinosaur bone could still have soft tissue ...
www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0131/How-a-195-million... Proxy Highlight
Jan 31, 2017 ... Researchers may have found preserved organic protein in a fossilized dinosaur bone unearthed in China. Why that's a big deal.
Dinosaur surprise: Scientists find collagen inside a 195-million-year ...
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-dinosaur-scientists-col... Proxy Highlight
Feb 10, 2017 ... Dinosaur paleontology has long been the domain of bones and teeth - but ... collagen preserved in a 195-million-year-old rib from a long-necked ... ... could only last about 4 million years or so; only hard tissues like bone and ...
Dino rib yields evidence of oldest soft tissue remains - Phys.org
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidenc... Proxy Highlight
Jan 31, 2017 ... Dino rib yields evidence of oldest soft tissue remains ... A thin section of the rib of the 195 million year old dinosaur ... Such information is mostly missing from preserved hard skeletons, which form the bulk of the fossil record.
Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocke... Proxy Highlight
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon ... who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn't possibly survive millions of years. ... That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world.
Dinosaur surprise: Scientists find collagen inside a 195-million-year ...
www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-dinosaur... Proxy Highlight
Feb 2, 2017 ... A piece of the 195-million-year-old Lufengosaurus rib, where bits of ... hard tissues like bone and teeth could be preserved over longer geologic ...
Scientists retrieve 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein in 'milestone ...
www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-8... Proxy Highlight
Jan 31, 2017 ... Transversely cut piece of 195-million-year-old Lufengosaurus rib ... may have preserved protein fragments in this 195-million-year-old dinosaur rib, ... Collagen is the main protein in connective tissue and is abundant in bone.
-
I love getting called on my words. Why else am I still posting?
And I disagree with the binary view of the Bible. Whether the six days in Genesis is literally true, using days measured as we measure them now, or is metaphorical, has little bearing on the Truth of Jesus' words.
Did the Sun care if "Scientists" thought the sun revolved around the earth back in Galileo's time?
-
If you believe Jesus, then you must necessarily believe in the Flood, right?
As a literal event? No. Again, simple physics - God's own Word - says the Ark was not physically possible.
-
Did the Sun care if "Scientists" thought the sun revolved around the earth back in Galileo's time?
Eh? Did the Sun intentionally set things up so the only logical observation was that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Did the Sun falsify itself?
-
As a literal event? No. Again, simple physics - God's own Word - says the Ark was not physically possible.
So if you don't believe the very words of Yeshua, who specifically endorsed the Flood, what else that he said can be so readily dismissed? If one goes down the road of allegory, there is nothing to be believed at all.
-
Did the Sun care if "Scientists" thought the sun revolved around the earth back in Galileo's time?
Well, there were somehow "days" before the sun was created.
-
Well, there were somehow "days" before the sun was created.
The heavenly bodies mark the days, nights, and seasons. They do not determine them
-
As a literal event? No. Again, simple physics - God's own Word - says the Ark was not physically possible.
(http://i.imgur.com/XM564JG.jpg)
-
So if you don't believe the very words of Yeshua, who specifically endorsed the Flood, what else that he said can be so readily dismissed? If one goes down the road of allegory, there is nothing to be believed at all.
Nonsense. It just means one has to do a harder job of ferreting out the truth; of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Of course, if you want to go down the hyper-literal path, then you're committed to two separate Genesis events, because the Bible contains two versions of it. Or several different Jesuses because there are variations in the stories told by the various apostles.
And then there are the so-called apocrypha; stories and books that, for one reason or another some long ago group of humans decided - in committee - did not belong to the set of Church-approved writings. Is what's done, done, and none of us is entitled to exercise our own judgment to decide if those books and stories should have been thrown out? In which case your version of the Bible is simply what some other human being, or committee of human beings, told you it would be. If not, then how are those books to be evaluated? What if they recite as fact things that have the sense of fact based on books of the Bible as well as other non-religious texts and archeological evidence? Who decides?
-
Matthew 13:10-17King James Version (KJV)
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
-
Thank you
-
Nonsense. It just means one has to do a harder job of ferreting out the truth; of separating the wheat from the chaff.
I would say it's quite the other way. It is easy to allegorize.
Of course, if you want to go down the hyper-literal path, then you're committed to two separate Genesis events, because the Bible contains two versions of it.
No it doesn't.
Or several different Jesuses because there are variations in the stories told by the various apostles.
Again, not true.
And then there are the so-called apocrypha; stories and books that, for one reason or another some long ago group of humans decided - in committee - did not belong to the set of Church-approved writings. Is what's done, done, and none of us is entitled to exercise our own judgment to decide if those books and stories should have been thrown out? In which case your version of the Bible is simply what some other human being, or committee of human beings, told you it would be.
Again, not true. Well, true, but incidental. I do not follow cannon exactly. I embrace apocryphal and even some books considered psuedepigraphal... I am certainly free to determine which books are pertinent. Note, however, that I do hold Torah first, as being wholly defensible, and adopt much the same as the protestant canon as inviolate - The Protestant canon is agreed upon by each and every Christian denomination and discipline as being valid and unshakably the received Word, and I am no different in that.
If not, then how are those books to be evaluated?
Foremost by internal reference. Secondly by continuity (adherence to Torah and the prophets), and not to be missed, encryption, as I have said before. Every single one of the books of the approved canon contain encryption well beyond the ability of anyone to detect fully without computers. There is no way that scribes hid or maintained such things, which they could not even see...
Much of the disagreement among Biblical scholars is naught but the deuterocanonical period - and the influence of Greeks during that time. There is no dispute wrt the Tanakh, as contained in the Masoretic Text, with the exception of additions derived during the Greek period... And there is no contention wrt the Brit Hadasha (NT) whatsoever, albeit that there are several families of text... Which are of little significant difference.
Your argument here is one you will lose. There isn't another body of text on the planet that has been given such scrutiny, nor another that has been subject to such depredations, only to survive. It's very existence is a miracle in it's own right. And thirty five thousand exemplars prove it's veracity - Not another ancient script comes anywhere near.
What the text IS is largely agreed upon. It's what it SAYS that everyone fights about. To wit:
Everyone agrees upon the Protestant Canon, to include the Jews wrt the OT (book order being different).
The Catholics and Orthodox add the Deuterocanonical texts, what Protestants call the Apocrypha (7 of the 14 to be more or less precise).
The only outlier beyond that is the Ethiopian Copts, who embrace two of the Pseudepigraphal texts (Enoch and Jasher I believe).
Considering the massive opposition between denominations, that's a pretty good outcome, since each denomination has studied canon separately, and have, amid their oppositions, come to the much the same conclusions.
What if they recite as fact things that have the sense of fact based on books of the Bible as well as other non-religious texts and archeological evidence? Who decides?
But they do not have continuity with the Bible. Or their providence is in question. That is why they are not accepted. EVERYONE decided. The lion's share of the books you refer to are the gnostic texts - easily dismissed. And the extended psuedepigrapha, also easily and profoundly dismissed. Only a very few deserve a second look.
If there is one particularly that you are referring to, please let me know, as I am fairly well versed in it all.
-
Logic still plays some small role. One need not get into that chestnut to nonetheless point out that a young Earth hypothesis necessarily requires that God have created a false Earth. If God created the Universe in six days, as a day is measured now, why did He go to such lengths to make everything appear as if it had taken aeons and aeons? Why deceive? What end is gained?
If the Bible can only be read to mean that it only took six days, or only took 50,000 years, then the Bible is in error. It was written by human hands and has been repeatedly transcribed and translated, and those who wrote it did not have the observational tools available to us, so the existence of an error of this sort is wholly understandable.
If you can't deal with that, if you prefer the dried ink of a dead sinner's hand to the living Word of God writ in existence itself, so be it. Just don't be too surprised that so few people are willing to take you seriously.
Lighten up.
If God is everywhere, that really raises some questions about His relationship to space/time. Even Heisenberg put a particle in a general area of space, not all of space itself.
For The Almighty to be all places at once, needless to say, He moves at some multiple of C, as we have measured it and relative to our planet.
The Time dilation effect is pretty much verified and accepted by we mere mortals, and all we need to do to account for the perceived disparity is to apply it.
Since Genesis is the inspired word of The Creator, the book is written from His viewpoint and time reference. Six days in His time reference could well be (hundreds or thousands of) millions of years on planet Earth, even given our meager understanding of fundamental forces such as gravity, and space/time.
We have already postulated the social difficulties of traveling near C (relativistic velocities) for the crew of such a ship, who might have one in every port, but who would return to either find them vastly more aged or long gone, who might meet their own great great great grand children as elderly people. If we can apply this to the ideas of human existence, why can't we apply such a fundamental concept to creation itself?
I have no trouble reconciling the two because I see science as our attempt to understand what He id and how He did it, not to question IF He did it. If we won't even apply our neophyte science to that, our understanding will indeed be flawed.
If that causes me to not be taken seriously, discard everything past Newton and start over.
BTW, regardless of what you think of my thoughts on this subject, I have found a lot of oil and I'm not done yet. It is those who took me seriously who benefited in the short term, the 'big boys' didn't buy in until the concepts had been proven.
-
The heavenly bodies mark the days, nights, and seasons. They do not determine them
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
-
"There isn't another body of text on the planet that has been given such scrutiny, nor another that has been subject to such depredations, only to survive."
Yet, after millennia of such scrutiny survived by the traditional interpretation of biblical texts, about 100 years ago man decided to reinterpret The Bible in a way that it had never before been interpreted.
Biblical literalism (and its proponents) is just one of the many heresies elevated by men since the birth of Pauline Christianity.
When one chooses to labor over the words in the Scriptures, one tends to lose sight of the meanings of the lessons.
Biblical literalism one/or inerrancy are unsustainable positions to take due to the many inconsistencies and contradictions found in the book.
-
Yet, after millennia of such scrutiny survived by the traditional interpretation of biblical texts, about 100 years ago man decided to reinterpret The Bible in a way that it had never before been interpreted.
Biblical literalism (and its proponents) is just one of the many heresies elevated by men since the birth of Pauline Christianity.
NONSENSE. Strict literalism is the norm. it was gnosticism that brought forth allegory... And allegory is always used as license to twist the scriptures... In the Bible, this is called wickedness - Wicked, the twisting of wicks - twisting the Scriptures to suit one's desires. It inevitably ends in libertinism, as can be plainly seen in the denominations that practice allegorical interpretation. They are the most liberal-leaning denominations, as their permissive interpretation inevitably leads them there. It is the fundamentalist churches that remain close to orthodoxy.
And btw, thanks. I have not been called 'Pauline' in a very long time (and my Pauline brethren, I am sure, would certainly disagree. ROTFLMAO).
When one chooses to labor over the words in the Scriptures, one tends to lose sight of the meanings of the lessons.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)
Your statement is diametrically opposed to what the Bible says. I can haul out at least twenty more where that came from. We are to study in order to rightly divide the Word. Oddly enough, I can't think of a single verse that says 'Don't spend too much time thinking about this stuff'... Go figger.
Biblical literalism one/or inerrancy are unsustainable positions to take due to the many inconsistencies and contradictions found in the book.
There are not contradictions. The Hebrews will tell you - What seems to be a contradiction is a reason to dig deeper. You'll always find a truth... And that is true.
But you are welcome to school me. I have looong been subjected to the lists from websites that will fuel your posts.
-
@mystery-ak These threads 8888crybaby **nononono* :nono:
-
@mystery-ak These threads 8888crybaby **nononono* :nono:
Nothing's wrong with this thread.
-
I'm not threatened by the Word of God - I embrace it - I just prefer what God actually wrote: the physical creation itself to the words of other human beings, no matter how well-intentioned or how divinely inspired they claim to have been.
Why are you so afraid of God's creation that you feel so compelled to hide from it behind the dried ink of long-dead human beings?
All the posts you have done on this thread can be summed up simply as:
"I am smart enough to see what God has done and can understand it well enough to know the Bible is in error."
That is the arrogance, and a rejection that the bible is in fact the actual Word of God.
-
Yet, after millennia of such scrutiny survived by the traditional interpretation of biblical texts, about 100 years ago man decided to reinterpret The Bible in a way that it had never before been interpreted.
Biblical literalism (and its proponents) is just one of the many heresies elevated by men since the birth of Pauline Christianity.
When one chooses to labor over the words in the Scriptures, one tends to lose sight of the meanings of the lessons.
Biblical literalism one/or inerrancy are unsustainable positions to take due to the many inconsistencies and contradictions found in the book.
I know we don't have a religion forum so I don't want to take this too far in that direction, but it's not as if the Bible doesn't tell us many many times to pay attention to the words.
John 14:23-24 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."
-
Not to be a pain, folks, but did the first amoeba ever die?
Yes.
Just recently.
November 25th, 2016 to be exact.
-
Yes.
Just recently.
November 25th, 2016 to be exact.
Did you see the body? Are you sure it didn't just split?
-
Did you see the body? Are you sure it didn't just split?
That was the banana.
(https://m.popkey.co/987552/NGLb3.gif)
Headed for the coast.
-
That was the banana.
(https://m.popkey.co/987552/NGLb3.gif)
Headed for the coast.
Peeled out and left?
-
Peeled out and left?
Ahead of the BLM lynch mob.......
-
NONSENSE. Strict literalism is the norm.
As someone once famously said, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but to your own facts;
Biblical literalism is supported by @28% of Christians. Far from the norm.
Your statement is diametrically opposed to what the Bible says. I can haul out at least twenty more where that came from. We are to study in order to rightly divide the Word. Oddly enough, I can't think of a single verse that says 'Don't spend too much time thinking about this stuff'... Go figger.
The Christian Bible (New Testament) has always been thought of as a collection of divinely inspired (not dictated) texts and/or scriptures. During the oral tradition period Jews told stories about God and God's relationship with people for centuries before anything was written down in what eventually became the Old Testament and while names and messages may have remained intact, details probably did not.
The concept of sola scriptura is a man-made construct of the Protestant Reformulation which decentralized the Christ as the central figure in Christianity, replacing it with The Bible as the center of the belief system; there is no place in the Bible that establishes the concept of sola scriptura. Protestants can only try to defend the concept by interpreting and deciphering texts in the Bible to support their argument, but that alone defeats the sola scriptura/literalism heresy. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible must clearly say that it must be taken literally without need for interpretation.
You will of course be able to quote several passages in the Bible from which you will ask that a conclusion be reached which supports sola scriptura but the moment that you ask that a conclusion be reached or that a passage be interpreted in a way that reaches your predisposed conclusion, you've just proven the fatal flaw of literalism.
There are not contradictions. The Hebrews will tell you - What seems to be a contradiction is a reason to dig deeper. You'll always find a truth... And that is true.
There are contradictions, and what you've suggested that should be done about them destroys the concept of literalism.
But you are welcome to school me. I have looong been subjected to the lists from websites that will fuel your posts.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18
I use no websites, and need no fuel.
"Therefore speak I to them in parables." - Matthew 13:13
-
As someone once famously said, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but to your own facts;
Biblical literalism is supported by @28% of Christians. Far from the norm.
And your premise is that 'might makes right'? Always a poor defense. However, I will agree by way of a tangent - I can easily agree that 70% of the church has become worldly.
The Christian Bible (New Testament) has always been thought of as a collection of divinely inspired (not dictated) texts and/or scriptures.
Study the heptadic structures encrypted into the NT, and you'll have a good idea just how inspired they are. No man wrote that. A man may have been pushing the pencil around, but those constructs plainly show whose content is being written down.
During the oral tradition period Jews told stories about God and God's relationship with people for centuries before anything was written down in what eventually became the Old Testament and while names and messages may have remained intact, details probably did not.
Standard academic propaganda. The Jews know dang well that Moses WROTE Torah down, just as the Scriptures say. It is the 'Wisdom of the Elders', the Jewish tradition, that supposedly comes word-of-mouth... The very tradition that Yeshua pointedly discounted as a prominent part of his ministry.
The concept of sola scriptura is a man-made construct of the Protestant Reformulation which decentralized the Christ as the central figure in Christianity, replacing it with The Bible as the center of the belief system;
Entirely incorrect.
there is no place in the Bible that establishes the concept of sola scriptura. Protestants can only try to defend the concept by interpreting and deciphering texts in the Bible to support their argument, but that alone defeats the sola scriptura/literalism heresy. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible must clearly say that it must be taken literally without need for interpretation.
The entire structure of the Bible demands literalism.
Torah requires precise and literal exactitude, without which it's very structure collapses. If YHWH didn't mean every word of it, if we are free to pick and choose, then the law is nothing, and we have no need of a savior - The whole thing is rendered moot.
The prophets likewise require literal exactitude - Again, if we are free to twist the prophets, then there is no value in their foretelling, and the primary proof that YHWH is GOD, which has been left to all generations, is struck down.
Yeshua requires literal precision as we are to keep his words, and that necessarily underwrites the literal precision of Torah and the Prophets. You will not understand Yeshua without a literal knowledge of Torah. The savior requires the law, and the law requires the savior. With incremental precision, or both are made null.
The entirety of the Book is a series of interlocking, interwoven contracts. Literally every page. What legal document is not taken on it's face? What governance allows allegory into contractual law?
And underneath it all, interwoven throughout, is an undercurrent of prophecy that is the signature and imprimatur of YHWH.
One cannot even begin to understand the fulfillment found in Yeshua without first understanding the prophecy contained in Torah - In the Jubilee, in the Feasts, in the prophetic construct of the Temple and the Tabernacle (two different lessons), and etc. The very law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is prophetic in every word. Amazing.
Likewise the narrative. If one misses the prophetic content in the patriarchal inheritance, one will miss the function of a full third of the prophecy itself. If one is unaware of the prophetic inheritance of Ephraim, as an example, one will never understand the mechanisms within the NT wrt the prodigal son, and the 'fullness of the Gentiles'.
These are but meager examples. For one to fully propound upon the intricacies and complex interactions contained within the Book, it would take a lifetime (in my case, it certainly has).
To suggest anything but sola-scriptura in the face of those intricacies is nothing short of ludicrous.
That isn't to say there is no interpretation, as it declares itself (rightly dividing). But that interpretation is best found in a literal take. To do otherwise, I have always found, abuses something elsewhere in the text. That's the very beauty of it. One cannot take any of it without taking all of it. By the letter. Such an amazing construction. It is simply a marvel.
You will of course be able to quote several passages in the Bible from which you will ask that a conclusion be reached which supports sola scriptura but the moment that you ask that a conclusion be reached or that a passage be interpreted in a way that reaches your predisposed conclusion, you've just proven the fatal flaw of literalism.
I think I have already properly answered this bit above, with the exception that, if one thinks my conclusions were predisposed, one would be left wondering at the road I have taken from staunch Reformed to Messianic Christianity. My path could not be considered 'predisposed' in the least. In fact, quite the other way around. Anything but predisposed.
There are contradictions, and what you've suggested that should be done about them destroys the concept of literalism.
Not at all. I will take one common misconception as an example: 'He will be called a Nazerene' is a commonly cited 'contradiction' - Critics will tell you that no such prophecy exists. But it does. a simple abuse of the Hebrew hides it, and an ignorance of husbandry where olive trees are concerned obfuscates it, But it's there, and in a profoundly literal and extraordinary sense.
Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” (KJV)
Such wonderful fruit is to be found with the meat of the thing. How anyone an be satisfied by the milk is entirely beyond me.
But, I have stretched the standards of the forum far enough - I ascertain that you and I have embarked upon an interfaith argument which is frowned upon here. I will welcome you to continue by pm, and list your contradictions, which I will take the time to answer, each by each, as I have done so many times before... Who knows, you might just give me something novel to chew upon.
Would that I could answer right here in front of everyone - I can, and do desire to - But unless given license directly by admin, I think we have ventured too far.
Good day.
-
Time crystals: A new state of matter that outlasts the universe - Science/Technology - TBR (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,261295.0.html)
Interesting article cross-referenced due to "bending the cast-iron laws of thermodynamics".
-
Would a Biblical literalist please explain John 4:14 without using textual interpretation please.
Straight up.
-
Time crystals: A new state of matter that outlasts the universe - Science/Technology - TBR (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,261295.0.html)
Interesting article cross-referenced due to "bending the cast-iron laws of thermodynamics".
Except that they don't violate the laws of thermodynamics.
-
Would a Biblical literalist please explain John 4:14 without using textual interpretation please.
Straight up.
@Luis Gonzalez
From Bible Gateway * By this living water is meant the Spirit. Under this comparison the blessing of the Messiah had been promised in the Old Testament. The graces of the Spirit, and his comforts, satisfy the thirsting soul, that knows its own nature and necessity. What Jesus spake figuratively, she took literally. Christ shows that the water of Jacob's well yielded a very short satisfaction. Of whatever waters of comfort we drink, we shall thirst again. But whoever partakes of the Spirit of grace, and the comforts of the gospel, shall never want that which will abundantly satisfy his soul.
-
@Luis Gonzalez
From Bible Gateway * By this living water is meant the Spirit. Under this comparison the blessing of the Messiah had been promised in the Old Testament. The graces of the Spirit, and his comforts, satisfy the thirsting soul, that knows its own nature and necessity. What Jesus spake figuratively, she took literally. Christ shows that the water of Jacob's well yielded a very short satisfaction. Of whatever waters of comfort we drink, we shall thirst again. But whoever partakes of the Spirit of grace, and the comforts of the gospel, shall never want that which will abundantly satisfy his soul.
IOW, don't take it literally.
-
Would a Biblical literalist please explain John 4:14 without using textual interpretation please.
Straight up.
To select a single verse out a longer story, and exclude the follow up is to be intentionally deceiving. The woman tried to take it literally in the following verse and the explanation followed. Why try to exclude that?