YE-creation: science , pompous dogma or faith message?

And, of course, there are some missing books and internal inconsistencies. The Bible is not inerrant because it was compiled and translated by fallible people. [QUOTE][B]The Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted to be accurate, truthful, and an authority.[/QUOTE][/B]The accuracy of the Bible is inversely proportional to the number
of times it has been edited and translated. The authority of the Bible is, at least partially, proportional to how much spiritual
authority you place in the Roman Emperor Constantine, a man who
was not even baptised when he oversaw the assembly of the Bible. [QUOTE][B]No Where is there any hint that Genesis is not written history.[/QUOTE][/B]Nor is there any geologic evidence that it is historically correct.
There is also historical evidence that the Flood as depicted in Genesis pre-dates the Pentateuch. It is apparently a Sumerian story and the Sumerian version of Noah is present in the Epic of Gilgamesh. [QUOTE][B]It written as history, qouted as history, Jesus believed it was history...[/QUOTE][/B](1) Who are you to put words in the mouth of Jesus?(2) The way it is written and quoted is no different from the parables of Jesus [QUOTE][B]Then, I'll start asking you about verses[/QUOTE][/B]You mean, you will start using parables. The root of this problem is that you think that the Bible is inerrant. Then you go around trying to use the Bible to prove itself inerrant. That is circular reasoning.Also, whoever said Peter had perfect knowledge? He had authority but not omniscience. The other disciples were not omniscient either and there are inconsistencies in their versions of the Saviours' life.You noted that you have not studied Biblical history deeply. I seriously encourage you to do so. I think you have a right to know certain things about the Bible, and about mainline Christianity.Do you believe that the Second Coming may be soon?[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-17-2002]

Most of 'The Word' was written a long time after 'the beginning', therefore your use of this passage to support an inerrant Bible is
in error.

[QUOTE][B]Jesus comparing his judgement and the flood:
Matthew 24:36-39;[/QUOTE][/B]Parable #1:"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.Parable #2:"37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;"Same thing. A parable, nothing more.That it was used to make a comparison is made obvious here: [QUOTE][B]That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. [/QUOTE][/B]The parable continues: [QUOTE][B]Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]A clear difference.[/QUOTE][/B]What is that difference? [QUOTE][B]Right now, I'm content with just listening to experts in the field.[/QUOTE][/B]Which experts are those? [QUOTE][B]I don't know if the second coming is soon.[/QUOTE][/B]Fair enough. But you did realize that there must be an apostasy first, correct?Next line of questioning: I'm sure you probably give to churches and religious organizations. Where are the Levites to accept the offerings?[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-17-2002]

[QUOTE][B]If Noah wasn't real, why is there a geneology in Luke tracing him to Christ?[/QUOTE][/B]There are several possibilities: (1) Noah wasn't real and Mary's family had a tradition that they were descended from him. (2) Noah was real but the flood story around him did not actually happen (3)
Noah was the survivor of a local flood that grew with the retelling (4) later editors felt it necessary to give give Mary a particular heritage (5) the link to Noah simply is a literary method of expressing the link to Noah and the events that supposedly happened as a type of Christ. This makes the most since because a Flood really did not accomplish anything - God simply accepts that man is always evil but the immersion in water is a *symbol* of redemption through Christ. It accomplished no physical ends. [QUOTE][B]The second as referring to "the days of Noah." [/QUOTE][/B]For me it might as well be referring to the sower or the fig leaves. [QUOTE][B]Christ said no man knows the hour. I'm not really worried about it, and honestly, the hype sickens me.[/QUOTE][/B]The point I was trying to make is that for the end to be near, Christianity must have fallen into apostasy: therefore, the Bible must be wrong. Dare I mention apostasies that have occured between now and the beginning?As for the Levites, they are, time and again, mentioned in the OT as the priesthood that deals with offerings. They alone have the authority to act on behalf of God in accepting tithes, sin offerings, etc. Nehemiah 10:37 is a clear example but Numbers is stuffed full of the same. Without the Priesthood of Aaron there is, apparently, no one to take an offering and, apparently, no clear Church of Christ upon the Earth.Another problem is the authority to baptise. Christ journeyed into the wilderness and endured hardships to come upon John the Baptist for his baptism from the only person with the authority to perform the ordinance. His authority came directly from God, from birth. From whence does modern day priesthood "authority" come from, Bible colleges? We live sinful lives and Christ did not. How much more important for our redemptions is the ordinance of baptism by immersion? The way I see it, mainline Christians have two pressing concerns that need to be settled immediately: *how* to baptise and *who* can baptise.

[QUOTE][B]John the Baptist was fulfilling a prophecy.[/QUOTE][/B]That may be, but which prophecy was it and when was it given? You do realize that John the Baptists' upbringing was extraordinary, after all, he had the Spirit from birth. He also did not only baptise Jesus, he baptised many. Clearly he was the one with authority to do so. Check Mark 11 28-33. There is something else to be learned here. John did not obtain the Priesthood as a career decision, he was chosen and called of God.The issue of authority in Christianity goes much deeper than this.To preach, you must have divine authority (and that doesn't come from a Bible college, see Matthew 7:29, 21:23, and Mark 1:22)After the end of Jesus' mortal ministry, the apostles were delegated the authority (Priesthood) to act in his name: Luke 9:1-2; Matthew 16:18-20, 18:18). This Priesthood moves by the laying on of hands:
1 Timothy 4:13-15 [QUOTE][B]Just because he was to baptise Christ, doesn't mean some sort of special authority is required to baptise the rest of us.[/QUOTE][/B]Why is that? You should realize that a driving purpose of
Jesus' baptism was to set an example for us (Mark 10:38-40)
Now, if the very Son of God walked across miles of wilderness to
be baptised, how much more important for you that you be correctly
baptised? [QUOTE][B]And besides, baptisement is just a recognition that you are born again and repentant.[/QUOTE][/B]According to Matthew 3:16, when Jesus emerged the very heavens were opened to him and the Spirit descended in the form of a dove. He was repentant? For what sin? [QUOTE][B]I get every indication from the Bible that God is concerned with your heart.[/QUOTE][/B]If that were so, baptism for Jesus would be unnecessary, as God would certainly know His heart even more than yours or mine (neither of which is hidden from God). If it was just about what your heart felt why would there be any baptism at all? [QUOTE][B]A sprinkle or an immersion isn't going to send us to hell. [/QUOTE][/B]If a sprinkle were adequate then Jesus would have no need to walk all the way into the Jordan, would he? The Spirit would have descended when his ankles touched the water, not when he emerged.

[QUOTE][B]The website confirmed what I thought my response would be. Titheing was part of the law, which we would no longer be under. When we give now -- it's not 10% -- it's just to give! I would assume, a Levite being required, was abandoned with the rest of the law.[/QUOTE][/B]It is irrelevant to my point whether tithing is still required or not. Historically the Levites took offerings whether it be a tithe or not. This includes goodwill offerings, wave offerings, etc. Why do you assume that the necessity of a Levite is no more? Who now has the divine authority to take an offering?And I am disappointed by the above article. The NT never states that tithing has been rescinded. The closest it gets is stating that tithing was being taken and justice was denied (hypocrisy). The NT does state that the people of the day had been withholding offerings from the House of God, therefore robbing Him. This is the work of a people who still believed they were under Mosaic law. The article is correct (IMO) in that a pastor cannot manipulate his parishoners to pay a tithe if they are unwilling.

[QUOTE][B]I'm not sure I know what you mean. Wouldn't that mean all Christians have given it up?[/QUOTE][/B]Not necessarily all. And they did not necessarily give it all up. But the corruption outweighed the good. [QUOTE][B]By the way, where are you getting this from the Bible?[/QUOTE][/B]2 Thessalonians 2:3. A "falling away" prior to the Second Coming and a great sinner is revealed. [QUOTE][B]And -- why would it necessarily mean our Bible is wrong?[/QUOTE][/B]The Bible is the source material for Christianity. If something goes wrong in Christianity there are two possibilities: (1) corruption of the Bible (2) incorrect interpretation. There are now 300 some odd English versions of the Bible with more in production by Bible scholars. That means that if (2) is the case then the "new" Bibles are being translated and arranged with the incorrect interpretations in mind. That would make the first the case as well.
What we have here is a feedback loop and it has been running for centuries. Only a prophet can save Christianity from this point on. I posit that it began nearly two thousand years ago as soon as the authors of the Bible and the professors of religion were no longer men of God.

[QUOTE][B]Science, to you, by definition must always exclude God regardless of what the truth is. Science, to me, by definition must not contradict God's teaching.[/QUOTE][/B]Science, by any correct definition of the word, deals only with the phenomena and mechanisms acting in or upon nature. Because God is "supernatural", God has no role in the way science works because God is outside the limits of natural phenomena. Science can never deny nor promote the concept of God.

[QUOTE][B]And the apostle Peter (2Pet 3) tells us precisely in what way mankind would come to doubt the reality of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming - it will be becasue they cry 'everything has continued from the beginning as it always has'![/QUOTE][/B]2 Peter 3 KJV, courtesy those YECs at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. Verse 4: [QUOTE][B]And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.[/QUOTE][/B]The reference to "all things continue as they were" in context appears to be a reference to the apparent absence of the things to occur before the Second Coming, (the return of Elijah, the apostasy, etc)My comments as to the global flood being recounted by apostles is that apostles did not themselves have perfect knowledge either but did have the Flood myths as history so it would be only natural that in their correspondence they would use them to make an example. Or the Flood might have been local. (I actually don't have a position on the Flood except that there is no geological evidence of a *global* Flood so it probably didn't happen)There is something in this chapter that at least some YECs should be seriously troubled by. [QUOTE][B]But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[/QUOTE][/B]Now see the AiG SoF

quote:

---

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation.

---

Now please note that BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. and Answers in Genesis are both members of the Gospel Communications Network.

[QUOTE][B]I hope I don't offfend too many Christians here but surely the church has fallen and has been in the process of getting up since Martin Luther et al![/QUOTE][/B]How can it be restored, without prophecy?

[QUOTE][B]I think a correct definition of Science should deal with what we can observe and test.[/QUOTE][/B]Let's take this definition for a spin. How can we observe and test intelligent design or creation by fiat? [QUOTE][B]But Scientists will still try to show how abiogenesis is possible, slap he Science label on it, and push it as fact to the public.[/QUOTE][/B]Chemists can generate amino acids in sterile flasks under a number of different circumstances. But can an ID proponent speak amino acids into existance? Which premise is more testable? [QUOTE][B]And the only reason it will be pushed as fact, is because we MUST explain things without God?[/QUOTE][/B]There is a very good historical precedent for not trying to explain things by God, a "naturalistic" mechanism has always come along to explain the former miracle.Now, how does abiogenesis rule out God? No matter how much precision an abiogenesis scenario gets it is impossible to ever confirm whether or not that scenario was planned and put into motion by God. So abiogenesis does not necessarily indicate a lack of God. However, to say that something happened because "Godidit" and not explain how it happened, in a *natural* context, is just glorified sorcery and it leads absolutely nowhere useful. It is an excuse to end research. [QUOTE][B]I think that rule originally only applied to what we can observe...[/QUOTE][/B]And so far we have been unable to observe God reaching down and designing life. In fact, from the YEC perspective, Creation is ended and cannot be observed. The closest you can get is through material evidence of the past...the very same things that support evolution, without the benefit of observations of modern day natural phenomena that evolutionists use to extrapolate backwards. This is another advantage evos have. [QUOTE][B]it was always thought that God was the creator and upholder of these natural laws.[/QUOTE][/B]And science just wants to explain everything within those natural laws. regardless of their ultimate origin. Is that so terrible?

[QUOTE][B]We cannot. The definition of Science, should not include the unobserveable and the untestable. [/QUOTE][/B]Then you agree that intelligent design is not scienceB [QUOTE][B]On the other hand, as soon as/if Scientists can explain abiogenesis, it becomes Scientific Fact in the real world.[/QUOTE][/B]What is there to "explain" about abiogenesis? Replicating organic molecules emerge from a soup of organics. No laws are broken, and so far there is nothing to rule it out. The best Creationists can do is point out that we don't know the exact environment it happened in. This is, to use an example similar to the one TB used, like ruling out the theories of electric current because they don't cover spin. [QUOTE][B]Science should NOT be concerned with the unobserveable and untestable! If you want to say life came about naturally - fine. If you want to say God created it - fine. Both should have just as much merit.[/QUOTE][/B]But they don't have equal merit. We can get close to early life in the chemistry lab, and we can simulate the conditions of Early Earth.
Until you can speak AAs into existance I can't take your position seriously., Our version of the origin of life is different from your version in another way, because our version can actually be studied. [QUOTE][B]Why do people say if we let God in on that, it's going to bring down Science?[/QUOTE][/B]Because God is not scientific. You say there was a time when we used God to explain things and everything was fine...you are wrong. Back when we used God/demonic possession to explain diseases sorcery was used in place of medicine and germ theory was hindered. Nobody liked the concept of a natural explanation for disease because it was perceived that it removed God from our daily lives. In fact, the whole world was run by God and demons, even something as basic as gardening was ruled by superstition. (Parsley, being a herb of the devil, could only be sown on one day of the year and seeds took so long to sprout because they had to make the journey to Hell seven times before germination. If a woman sowed the seeds she would be impregnated by a demon). We can laugh at it now, but such absurd worldviews are no sillier than YECism. But when we removed God and the Devil from our "explanations" of the natural world things suddenly got better. If the YEC philosophy were still in force in science I'm sure we'd still be bloodletting. [QUOTE][B]Why should a possibility be ruled out?[/QUOTE][/B]Because it goes nowhere. [QUOTE][B]It becomes terrible when Scientists go beyond what Science should, and teach the public that Evolution for all intensive purposes it how we got here[/QUOTE][/B]Evolution is, for all intensive purposes, how we got here, whether or not there was ID involved. It is the best explanation for the evidence. You simply are refusing to interpret the evidence, because for what ever reason, you refuse to accept the answer. You are being dishonest to yourself in the process. [QUOTE][B]I think Common Ancestry/Abiogenesis should be completely seperated into Philosophy that is supported by Science.[/QUOTE][/B]You accept that comman ancestry and abiogenesis are supported by science, or is that a typo?Why should we make them a philosophy? What purpose would it serve? Why not move the Atomic Theory over there as well? You cannot pick and choose scientific theories, you can only refute them...either none go over or all of science goes over. Anything else would only be your own personal favoritism. [QUOTE][B]Let people choose to believe what they want about Origins -- it isn't going to hinder practical Science one bit[/QUOTE][/B]"Practical science"? What's that? All science is the same.However, refusal of common ancestry could cause great harm to genomics, and therefore medicine, because much biochemical data could no longer be extrapolated across species. Knowing how taxonomy has evolved over time gives clues to researchers about how certain operons function and a change in paradigm might profoundly change medicine.EvC from a scientific perspective is not "I'm going to believe what I want, so there..." it is very serious business that could have profound effects upon our future technological progress. I hope your reasons for being a YEC are founded on good science because by attempting to propagate YECism you could be dooming thousands of people and doing the rest of the human race tremendous injustice. Science IS serious business. [QUOTE][B]if we believe we were created by God or evolved from an ape-like ancestor.[/QUOTE][/B]Or you could have been both.

[QUOTE][B]No, what I mean is this: If Scientists find a mechanism to naturally form the first cell, what happens? Even though there is no evidence, it will be touted as fact: "This is how we came to be on Earth."[/QUOTE][/B]That formation in the lab would be evidence that life can come from non-life under some particular abiogenesis scenario. It would not make it a fact that is is how it happened on Earth. Media and second-rate textbooks might march it around as a fact that it happened that way, but incorrectly so. It would not be the fault of science if that were to happen. [QUOTE][B]First of all, all they show in the lab is, it takes intelligence to create life. [/QUOTE][/B]What they show in the lab is that structures suspiciously similar to what chemists expect early life to resemble can appear spontaneously.This does not show that intelligence is needed to generate life because the same chemical reactions would occur anywhere else under similar conditions, regardless of if a chemist were present or not. Also the chemical reactions are not under intelligent guidance by the chemists, they are following the laws of chemistry. If those reactions could be intelligently guided in the manner you imply, this would be nanotechnology. [QUOTE][B]And they DO have equal merit -- because NO human was there to observe life forming![/QUOTE][/B]But one can be simulated the other cannot. We know organic compounds can be formed abiologically, and we know that some of these structures resemble life. We cannot speak those compounds into existance. The two do not have equal merit. [QUOTE][B]This isn't science... there is no way to falsify the claim that life formed in a chemical soup.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually panspermia is a contender. And if only you Creationists could get on the ball and speak something into existance... [QUOTE][B]Nor is saying life came about naturally.[/QUOTE][/B]Science is all about nature. Miracles don't have a place here, and the only spot for God is if God is really behind natural laws.

quote:

---

Gene90, I'm sure you're aware that YECism, even if wrong, does not hinder ANY practical science. I really dislike this tactic of comparing something one group says happened in the past according to the Bible, with say... medical research.

---

But it is relevant to medical research because for research in genomics to be valid long strands of DNA must be conserved and must operate in the same fundamental manners in primates and other mammals as in humans. To point out that this is directly relevant to medical research is fair.Also, I might add that "practical science" (and all science is the same, there is no such thing as "impractical" science) includes oil exploration, which is dependant heavily upon historical geology. Big Oil spends billions on oil exploration. An incorrect (YEC) model brought into the industry could cause economic ruin for their investors and could cripple entire nations. It might *seem* that the age of the Earth and Earth history is academic...it is not.
The very lifeblood of the current global economy is "pumped" by the Old Earth Evolutionist geological paradigm. This only strengthens my point, that there is no such thing as "non-practical" science. [QUOTE][B]where does believing we evolved from an ape-like critter get us, that believing we are made in the Image of God does not?[/QUOTE][/B]Evolving from a primate does not mean we are not made in God's image anymore than being inflated dust means we are not in God's image. But to answer your question, it brings results (alluding to research again). [QUOTE][B]Has believing you evolved from an ape helped you design some sort of cure?[/QUOTE][/B]Can you name one 20th century medical innovation that was not, at least *tested* on a non-human creature before being used on man? [QUOTE][B]Atomic Theory is in the present. Testable.
Evolution is in the past. Untestable.[/QUOTE][/B]Evolution left fossils and DNA. Therefore it is testable. Also evolution is still occuring today so it is testable in the present as well. [QUOTE][B]Why can't God have created life as it is -- why can't we still do the same research on the creatures we have alive today?[/QUOTE][/B]Simply asking why God didn't make life fixed as it is today is like asking why we aren't made of elephant mucus...it is an irrelevant question because there is no evidence that life is fixed and a tremendous volume of evidence that says it isn't.We cannot do the same research because then we can't make the assumption that genes are conserved or that their physiology works anything like our own. An assumption, true, but one that all of medicine is based upon, and one that has served us, very, very well.
I guess we could call it another historical precedent in favor of evolution. [QUOTE][B]Why must common ancestry be the explanation[/QUOTE][/B]Because it is indicated by evidence.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-20-2002]

[QUOTE][B]That is a horrible approach to life -- but there is nothing I can do about that. [/QUOTE][/B]If it's so horrible, then science just isn't for you. There is no way to find out if there is any supernatural realm so science is limited to natural explanations. [QUOTE][B]If things were designed by the same being, we can make the same assumption.[/QUOTE][/B]No you can't, actually. If God wanted to He could rewrite everything on a whim just to make sure everything in the new organism's genome is optimal. In the common descent scenario we know that most genes are conserved. This also includes HERVs that the organism was obviously *not* created with.Why would God recycle genomes, and if you knew nothing about the genetic code, what would make you assume that He did? And if He did, and if the genome is the defining trait of a species, how is having the same DNA as a primate philosophically different from being descended from one? There is no difference that I can see. [QUOTE][B]An incorrect model would do some harm, but give YEC's some time to create a full model [/QUOTE][/B]I see you're joking around but I want to reemphasize that the age of the Earth and Earth history are serious business that can't be tampered with just because somebody wants to take a particular text literally. I can think of other examples as well. In Washington state a school board was informed that they had built an elementary school over Mt Rainier lahar deposits and that if another eruption occured the school, and everyone in the valley, would be killed in in seconds. The estimated time to evacuate the valley was around two minutes from the start of an eruption. Now, if that schoolboard was filled with YECs who thought it was a Flood deposit as opposed to Uniformitarianists who thought the past might repeat itself, that school might still be there. After all, I'm not aware of any laws that require buildings to be moved to accomodate geological hazards. [QUOTE][B]Care to give an example on a prediction made?[/QUOTE][/B]I don't have a background in oil exploration but basically they drill in salt traps along the perimeters of extinct seas that had very long (evolutionary) timescales to deposit. Also, regions that, according to continental drift were once tropical (fast YEC tectonics wouldn't give enough time to produce any oil from these) for coal. [QUOTE][B]what is the mainstream explanation for coal bed and oil resevoir formation concerning how the plant/animal matter came to be in such a large mass all together -- if in other places we find that fossils are rare and spread out?[/QUOTE][/B]Fossils per se aren't rare and spread out. *Some* fossils are very rare but I can jump in my truck and take a two minute drive to some Cretaceous outcroppings that are loaded with marine fossils and foraminfera.To answer your question regarding oil, oil reservoirs today are not the peat bog oil formed in, they are under geologic traps for oil, under salt domes, various folds in strata, and certain faults. According to the current models there are traces of oil that move through strata in certain places that then are slowly trapped in these reservoirs.Coal, of course, doesn't move. Coal veins represent buried peat swamps. This is supported by the common presence of abundant fern and horsetail fossils in nearby layers and sometimes petrified stumps and roots. Depending on the conditions after burial, coal pits can be great fossil hunting grounds. I see nothing odd about this concentration of fossil fuels and materials, they were there millions of years ago and they are there now. [QUOTE][B]I never thought I'd go to PETA for information. [/QUOTE][/B]Forgive me, I didn't think you'd go that far. But do you think your examples were tested and licensed by government authorities *without* the benefit of animal testing? The stethoscope, sure, but I believe that is pre-20th century. [QUOTE][B]BY The way... I spent an hour responding on this board, and as much fun as I'm having, I can't use up that much time I'll probably just lurk once a week... take care everyone.[/QUOTE][/B]Fair enough. Right now this is the only thread I'm active in for the same reason.