Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-16-2014 7:23 AM
87 online now:
Modulous (AdminModulous), Omnivorous, PaulK (3 members, 84 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat, Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,053 Year: 21,894/28,606 Month: 981/1,410 Week: 183/524 Day: 8/87 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   YEC without the bible, possible?
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 91 of 133 (511156)
06-07-2009 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by dwise1
06-05-2009 3:32 AM


Re: OK, guy ...
Hello dwise1,
Sorry for bare link, beginners mistake. I really had no intention of debating the specific evidences in the link. I joined specifically to answer Meldinoor's post, and have a frank discussion with him about my personal position on the matter. I only posted that link due to a repeated call for evidence, to get people off my back so to speak, so I could concentrate on the philosophical debate we were having. In hindsight it was probably a mistake, but so was the pestering me for evidence in the context of our discussion. I barely have enough time to answer Meldinoor, let alone everyone else. So don't expect much comment from me in coyote's new thread. I have read the first 30 entries though, and you have given me alot to research.

I would like to engage because not doing so may appear as if I was somehow lying as you stated. But goading me into battle in this way is a very low act. If I have time, perhapps I will engage. But if I do not, you cannot imply anything at all, as you have done so, from my silence.

Also in hindsight, the question could allow for a debate examining the specific evidence for YEC without Bible. However, to some extent I was letting Meldinoor controll the direction our discussion took. Also as it turned out Meldinoor was a christian, and this further influenced our direction. We may yet still get to specific evidence for YEC, but as I have stated in my last post to Meldinoor, I would like to examine the Biblical evidence for YEC, if he will allow.

Edited by Minority Report, : Additional comments


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 3:32 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 06-07-2009 9:21 PM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 99 by dwise1, posted 06-08-2009 12:59 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 92 of 133 (511160)
06-07-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Meldinoor
06-03-2009 1:46 AM


Is Genesis metaphoric?
Hello Meldinoor,
Getting back to some earlier posts.

Meldinoor writes:

But from our perspective, God has created the ground (or the planet) through physical processes (the planet's formation is not described in Genesis, probably because the writers didn't know what a planet was, or that they lived on one), and the planet has been given the ability (requirements) to produce life in all its diversity. I'd say not having the ground "bring forth" would have made a better case for a young earth.

Perhapps. But I tried to think of what other words that could be used to describe how 'God commanding & stuff happenning', could be better explained explained in english. I then realised however that most books are not written from the perspective of the reader, but the author. It is the job of the author to describe events from their perspective, and of the reader to attempt to understand what this perspective is. From the authors perspective, what does 'Let the land produce...' mean?

As you stated:

Meldinoor writes:

The Earth bringing forth and God creating is used interchangeably in the passage, possibly implying that from God's point of view, the two really mean the same thing.

You have already answered the question.

Meldinoor writes:

"The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam" Adam means man, or human presumably (I may be wrong). This makes me wonder if even Adam was a metaphor for the human race.

If you just examine the name 'Adam' in isolation, it could mean 'human race'. However if you read passages such as Luke 3:23-38, which traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam. This indicates that Adam was a real man whom Jesus & everyone elso descended from.

Meldinoor writes:

Tree of life, and tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are amazing plants. I know of no plants in the world that have the ability to convey knowledge. I wonder if the trees might have been metaphors for something else.

But Adam & Eve ate a piece of fruit from it, this does suggests that the tree of knowledge at least was a real tree.

Meldinoor writes:

The tree of life = The desire for immortality perhaps? Something people have always sought and something that we will be awarded with in heaven where the tree of life stands.

This was indeed a special tree. This and other verses indicate that Adam & eve were originally created to live forever. But sin changed all that, and God prevented them from living forever separated from Him. Whether Adam & Eve died due to the curse of death directly from God, or from being prevented from eating the fruit of the tree of life, it is unclear. However if you believe God created the universe, then you should not doubt His ability to indefinately maintain the life of Adam & Eve, through their eating of fruit from a special tree.

Meldinoor writes:

The tree of knowledge may have represented our desire to become our own judges of morality. But this is just my own speculation.

The tree may not have conveyed any knowledge at all, but was simply a test of obedience. The moment Adam took a bite, he knew he had doubted & disobeyed God, and had thus 'knowledge' of evil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Meldinoor, posted 06-03-2009 1:46 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2009 9:29 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 110 by Meldinoor, posted 06-10-2009 3:13 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10798
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 93 of 133 (511167)
06-07-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Minority Report
06-07-2009 1:25 AM


I have a question. Why do you expect unbelievers to defend Christianity ?

The idea that Christians must take the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 as literal truth, literally authored by God, is an argument AGAINST Christianity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Minority Report, posted 06-07-2009 1:25 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5142
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 94 of 133 (511177)
06-07-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Minority Report
06-07-2009 6:17 AM


Re: Is Genesis metaphoric?
This and other verses indicate that Adam & eve were originally created to live forever.

Off topic, I suppose, but Genesis 3:22 disagrees with you:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Minority Report, posted 06-07-2009 6:17 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Minority Report, posted 06-07-2009 7:59 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 95 of 133 (511187)
06-07-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Meldinoor
06-03-2009 1:14 AM


Re: OEC without science?
I thank you for your marvelous patience. I have collected our several exchanges following. I have replied to various sub-sections with a conclusion at the bottom

BobAliceEve writes:

Message 47
You did not ask me either but I would like to expand the question:
Would old earth or young earth be the perceived duration by:
- Adam and Eve post exit from the Garden of Eden
- Noah at the flood
- Moses while receiving Genesis by revelation

- Jesus at the end of the Old Testament time
- (in addition to the people of Middle Ages in Message 46)
The even better question is always, would these people tell you that Adam and Eve were created by God? The age of the earth does not matter if the Creation happened.

Meldinoor writes:


Four of the five people mentioned were mere mortals. There is no way to answer this question, and neither do we have reason to believe that they knew any better than we do (except Jesus, who may have been omniscient). In the hypothetical situation where YEC is correct, Adam and Eve may have known, but since evidence suggests that Adam and Eve evolved, I'd venture a guess that they wouldn't have known the subtleties of their own creation.

Possibly, there is a way to answer the question. Item 5 below may hold a clue?

Meldinoor writes:


I admit these are challenging questions. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I'm certainly not God, so I will only offer my rather limited guesses at your questions. I'm not sure how they pertain to this thread, but I have a feeling that you'll be able to connect it in some way. So here goes:

BobAliceEve writes:


1) How did God select Adam and Eve to place in the garden?

Melendor writes:


Ask God. Maybe Adam and Eve were the first humans to be given souls (although, if they lived 6000yrs ago, I think that's unlikely). The garden may have been metaphorical, as may Adam and Eve.

“Ask God.” is a wonderful answer. Of course people can’t both “live 6000 years ago” and “be metaphorical”. Since there had to be first humans (which we both equate with having souls) are you willing to let Adam and Eve stand in for them independent of your concern about the 6000 years? Are you willing to let the 6000 years be, for now, metaphorical and the people be the real part of the Bible account.

BobAliceEve writes:


2) What, generally or precisely, is the soul you mentioned earlier?

Meldinoor writes:


The soul is whatever part of you that carries on to the afterlife. Since emotion, memory, personality etc can be explained through physical processes, I'm not sure what that leaves. Some sort of consciousness presumably. If you know anyone who's had a near-death experience, they can probably guess better than I can.

Beasts too are conscious (see your answer to 4).

BobAliceEve writes:


3) What do you understand to be the purpose for God's starting the human family?

Meldinoor writes:


To set an example for how God wanted families to be, presumably.

I think your answer is right on point.

BobAliceEve writes:


4) Are we humans aware of our soul?

Meldinoor writes:


Are you? I don't go around thinking about my soul all the time. Humans are self-aware, but so are chimps, dolphins and elephants, so I don't think that has anything to do with it. I don't even know what a soul is, except that it must be some sort of spiritual component to a person's being. I'll leave it at that.

Yes, I am aware of my soul and I do think of my accountability daily. And it seems that you are correct in saying it is some sort of spiritual component to a person’s being (from 4 above). It seems to be the part of us that goes to the afterlife (from 2). The part that is accountable to God Message 45 and Message 49 (keep in mind the question about immortal beings).

BobAliceEve writes:


5) Can God communicate with us?

Meldinoor writes:


He does in the Bible many times. He even takes on human form in the New Testament. A lot of people claim to communicate with God on a personal level. I believe God communicates with me, through the world, through His book, and even at a personal level at times.
I have faith in the messages the Bible conveys. I don't treat it as a science book, certainly not the first chapters of Genesis, which to me, reads like allegory. As long as you take this approach you don't need to struggle to fit observational evidence with the Bible.

Allegory is good. God’s communicating with us is good. Deciding what parts of the Biblical account are allegory and what parts are real (His communicating with us) is difficult for an outsider who has not had your (and my) experience of personal communication with God. We know what we know.

Meldinoor writes:


I'm curious to see where you're going with these questions.

Conclusion:

Moses was able to record the account of the Creation some 800 years after it happened by communication from God. Moses knew what he knew. So if the creation account is allegory then why would Moses bother to provide the detail of Eve not being created at the same time that Adam was created (Gen 2:18-22)?

If Adam and Eve were not immortal then why would God warn them about death. If they were not intended to be be eventually restored to immortality why would God separate them from the tree of life (the antidote to the fall, see Gen 2:22-24) so they could not "live forever" as each "put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life" which they could have eventually done if they had stayed in the garden?

All the people listed are aware of their relationship with and accountability to God. Due to the structure of the creation account they also knew that they were created and that they were created immortal. Adam and Eve knew it, Moses knew it, Jesus knew it. Noah knew. I know it.

It is my thinking that all animals with souls can too if it is important to them and if they "Ask God". Suddenly, the age of the Earth is only a distraction to the true message of living together forever as families. What are your thoughts?

Again, I express my appreciation for your patience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Meldinoor, posted 06-03-2009 1:14 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Meldinoor, posted 06-10-2009 3:29 AM BobAliceEve has responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 96 of 133 (511198)
06-07-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coragyps
06-07-2009 9:29 AM


Re: Is Genesis metaphoric?
Hello Coragyps,
I was arguing against Genesis being metaphorical, and therefore that the Bible really does imply YEC, so it is still on topic mostly. But I have asked Meldinoor if we need to open new thread to discuss this aspect in more detail.

Perhapps I should have said 'Adam & Eve were originally intended to live forever.' I was including the tree of life with Adam & Eve's creation, so in that context they were created to live forever. Genesis 3:22 does indicate that they could not live forever independant from God and/or the tree of life, which is what I had already indicated in the post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2009 9:29 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2009 8:43 PM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4698
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 97 of 133 (511199)
06-07-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Minority Report
06-07-2009 7:59 PM


Re: Is Genesis metaphoric or off topic?
I was arguing against Genesis being metaphorical, and therefore that the Bible really does imply YEC, so it is still on topic mostly. But I have asked Meldinoor if we need to open new thread to discuss this aspect in more detail.

Perhapps I should have said 'Adam & Eve were originally intended to live forever.' I was including the tree of life with Adam & Eve's creation, so in that context they were created to live forever. Genesis 3:22 does indicate that they could not live forever independant from God and/or the tree of life, which is what I had already indicated in the post.


It would seem that the details of one's religious belief would be off topic.

The topic could probably be summarized as "does scientific evidence point to a young earth--without reference to the bible."

The answer can only be "No." Belief in a young earth is a religious belief not supported by scientific evidence, in spite of the distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies that creation "scientists" come up with to try and force science to support their belief.

We have the 101 evidences for a young earth on another thread. Those "evidences" are not faring too well.

To stay on topic, perhaps you could address how one would come to believe in a young earth without the bible or other religious belief? Information concerning scientists in non-Christian countries, and of other faiths, who suddenly--without converting to Christianity--come up with evidence for a young earth would be appropriate to present here.

Any such evidence that you know of?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Minority Report, posted 06-07-2009 7:59 PM Minority Report has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4529
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 98 of 133 (511201)
06-07-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minority Report
06-07-2009 1:45 AM


Re: OK, guy ...
only posted that link due to a repeated call for evidence, to get people off my back so to speak,

It ain't evidence.

I am still waiting on numerous requests for evidence on your numerous assertions. As I expected. You have none.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minority Report, posted 06-07-2009 1:45 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2134
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 99 of 133 (511206)
06-08-2009 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minority Report
06-07-2009 1:45 AM


Re: OK, guy ...
Let's try to get you back on track here. You claimed to have studied books that presented you with evidence which decided to for YEC. We repeatedly requested that evidence -- ie, the evidence that made you decide for YEC. In response to those requests, you gave us that gawd-awful list of "101 Evidences" (here's a hint: no normal person would ever use the term "evidences"; only a creationist would, because that is fundamentalist apologetics terminology). By doing so, you were telling us that that list was the evidence that you were referring to.

If that was indeed the evidence you were referring to, then they were lying to you; you had been deceived into accepting YEC beliefs.

But if that was not the evidence that you were referring to, then you have lied to us. Why would you do such a thing?

So which was it?

Ever read the Bible? I'm sure that you've been preached to about what the Bible is supposed to say, but have you ever actually read it?

quote:
1 Thessalonians 5:21:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Have you proven those YEC claims? Hmm? Let me tell you that we have. For decades we have. They're a load of crap. Is that what you are basing your faith on? A load of crap? Building your foundations on sand is infinitely better than building them upon a load of crap. Just ask former YEC Glenn R. Morton (a YEC until he had to face the rock-hard geological evidence for himself, whereupon his YEC training drove him to the verge of atheism), who pointed out that the coprolites we find (fossilized feces) are dessicated (id, dried out, not washed completely away as a flood would have done).

You say that there was evidence presented to you that convinced you of the truth of YEC? You need to present that particular evidence. And be ready to discuss it. If for no other reason than for you to abide by the biblical injunction to test it. Of course, of you think nothing of what the Bible tells you that you must do ... .

PS
Here's a friendly hint for ye, laddie. The young-earth claims of that calculated deception, "creation science", are the absolutely weakest part of that deception and the easiest to refute.

Here's a quote for you. When Glenn R. Morton, not quite yet deconverted from being a YEC (his down-fall was that, as a field geologist for a petroleum company, he had to work on a day-to-day basis with the actual rock-hard geological evidence: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm and http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm -- other "Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle" are to be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm, he made a presentation of the actual geological evidence at the 1986 International Conference on Creation, whereupon the contingency from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) immeditely challenged him. John Morris of the ICR identified himself as a petroleum geologist and Morris chopped him off at the ankles with two questions:
1. What petroleum company did you work for?
Well, uh, I taught petroleum geology for one semester.
2. How old is the world?
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."

Well, guess what? The earth is indeed more than 10,000 years old. Therefore, by your own camp's criteria, Scripture has not meaning. Which also, according to the fundamentalist rhetorics that we have heard over and over again over the decades, means that God does not exist. Thank you very much. You have done what no atheist has ever been able to do. You have proven that God does not exist. You have devised a set of tests for the existence of God that, because they are all contrary-to-fact, are all absolutely guaranteed to fail.

Thank you for having proven that God does not exist. Countless future generations of humanity will be forever in your debt.

Of course, if your intent were to not disprove the existence of God, then perhaps you would need to rethink what you are doing.

Nu? (if you don't know any Jiddisch or Russian, then be a Mensch for once in your life and learn something already!)

Edited by dwise1, : PS

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minority Report, posted 06-07-2009 1:45 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 06-08-2009 10:36 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6288
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 100 of 133 (511220)
06-08-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by dwise1
06-08-2009 12:59 AM


29+ Evidences
In response to those requests, you gave us that gawd-awful list of "101 Evidences" (here's a hint: no normal person would ever use the term "evidences"; only a creationist would, because that is fundamentalist apologetics terminology).

Actually:

quote:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87

Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: June 19, 2007]


Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by dwise1, posted 06-08-2009 12:59 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 258 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 101 of 133 (511230)
06-08-2009 1:06 PM


Just to come back on topic, can we conclude that for every people that have reacted so far, the bible is needed to arrive at YEC? If we all agree on that (it's the impression that this discussion gave me), then we can move to other topics? (in other threads)
Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 1:39 PM Son has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Capt Stormfield, posted 06-08-2009 4:34 PM Son has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4529
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 102 of 133 (511235)
06-08-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Son
06-08-2009 1:06 PM


Just to come back on topic, can we conclude that for every people that have reacted so far, the bible is needed to arrive at YEC? If we all agree on that (it's the impression that this discussion gave me), then we can move to other topics? (in other threads)

I agree. By virtue of the definition of what YEC is, and what YEcers believe there can be no YEC without the bible.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Son, posted 06-08-2009 1:06 PM Son has not yet responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 170
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 103 of 133 (511254)
06-08-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Son
06-08-2009 1:06 PM


Just to come back on topic, can we conclude that for every people that have reacted so far, the bible is needed to arrive at YEC? If we all agree on that (it's the impression that this discussion gave me), then we can move to other topics?

Only within the context of our culture. I suspect that if one were to quiz a selection of aboriginal peoples around the world, one would probably hear a variety of creation stories that were related to a time frame understandable to them - ie. possibly thousands of years as opposed to billions.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Son, posted 06-08-2009 1:06 PM Son has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 5:04 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4529
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 104 of 133 (511257)
06-08-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Capt Stormfield
06-08-2009 4:34 PM


I agree but that is not the Young Earth Creationism we are talking about. YEC is a specific fundamentalist christian construct. YECers would dismiss the aboriginal stories as myth and folklore. Only their biblical story can be the true story in their eyes.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Capt Stormfield, posted 06-08-2009 4:34 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Cat Sci, posted 06-08-2009 5:14 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 5:35 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9402
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 105 of 133 (511260)
06-08-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Theodoric
06-08-2009 5:04 PM



I agree but that is not the Young Earth Creationism we are talking about. YEC is a specific fundamentalist christian construct. YECers would dismiss the aboriginal stories as myth and folklore. Only their biblical story can be the true story in their eyes.

:confused:

From the OP:

quote:
I notice that 99% of supporters of a young earth (most evangelical Christians) believe what they do based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Most conversations I've had on the topic with Creo's seem to keep coming back to the first chapters of Genesis.

But what happens if we pull the rug out from under their feet? Suppose the bible was never written (or any religious document dealing with creation) and only observable evidence was available to us. Would there be sufficient reason for anyone to argue a young earth?

Now I realize this is a question about a hypothetical situation, but I'm addressing it mainly to young-earthers out there. Assuming you didn't have the bible, how convinced would you be of a young earth? Would you still seek evidence for it? Would you still oppose evolution?



This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 5:04 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014