Message 91 of 133 (511156) 06-07-2009 1:45 AM

Reply to: Message 89 by dwise1 06-05-2009 3:32 AM

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

Message 92 of 133 (511160) 06-07-2009 6:17 AM

Reply to: Message 69 by Meldinoor 06-03-2009 1:46 AM

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:

You have already answered the question.

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.

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

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.

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.

Message 93 of 133 (511167) 06-07-2009 7:52 AM

Reply to: Message 90 by Minority Report 06-07-2009 1:25 AM

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.

Message 94 of 133 (511177) 06-07-2009 9:29 AM

Reply to: Message 92 by Minority Report 06-07-2009 6:17 AM

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

Message 95 of 133 (511187) 06-07-2009 2:39 PM

Reply to: Message 68 by Meldinoor 06-03-2009 1:14 AM

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

“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.

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

I think your answer is right on point.

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).

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.

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.

Message 96 of 133 (511198) 06-07-2009 7:59 PM

Reply to: Message 94 by Coragyps 06-07-2009 9:29 AM

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.

Message 97 of 133 (511199) 06-07-2009 8:43 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by Minority Report 06-07-2009 7:59 PM

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?

Message 98 of 133 (511201) 06-07-2009 9:21 PM

Reply to: Message 91 by Minority Report 06-07-2009 1:45 AM

It ain't evidence.

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

Message 99 of 133 (511206) 06-08-2009 12:59 AM

Reply to: Message 91 by Minority Report 06-07-2009 1:45 AM

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.

Message 100 of 133 (511220) 06-08-2009 10:36 AM

Reply to: Message 99 by dwise1 06-08-2009 12:59 AM

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.

Message 102 of 133 (511235) 06-08-2009 1:39 PM

Reply to: Message 101 by Son 06-08-2009 1:06 PM

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

Message 103 of 133 (511254) 06-08-2009 4:34 PM

Reply to: Message 101 by Son 06-08-2009 1:06 PM

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.

Message 105 of 133 (511260) 06-08-2009 5:14 PM

Reply to: Message 104 by Theodoric 06-08-2009 5:04 PM

: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?

---