Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 8:31 AM
26 online now:
4petdinos, Aussie, Diomedes, JoeT, Theodoric, vimesey (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,891 Year: 8,927/19,786 Month: 1,349/2,119 Week: 109/576 Day: 10/99 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   IMPOSSIBLE logic for evolutionists (from a smart creation scientist)
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 50 (37885)
04-24-2003 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 7:46 PM


Re: Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...
quote:
The problem is that I used to be a progressive creationist
Well, I've never been a progressive creationist - it's a position that I find neither supported by Scripture nor science. At least YEC is consistent with a strong Biblical Inerrancy position; progressive creationism tries to hold inerrancy and science together and ends up being false to both. In my opinion anyway. That seems to be something we can agree on.

quote:
six times in Genesis chapter one it says: ?and there was evening and there was morning on the (first, second?) day?? If there was morning and evening on the ?first day? then what honest reason would somebody have to conclude that the author of Genesis was not being literal?
Of course the author is being literal - when he says day he means a 24h period (or possibly the period between sun-rise and sun-set). Attempts to say that they refer to indeterminately long periods of time just aren't being true to what is said.

The question is, is he relating actual events happening in those literal periods? I'll limit myself to internal evidence of the passage only, but this just doesn't seem to work - as has been recognised for the entire life of the Church, and probably by Jewish thinkers before then.

1) The order is not logically sensible. Creating light, and night and day, before the sun, moon and stars? I know there are all sort of clever explanations, but isn't it simpler to say "it's not an account of actual events"?

2) There is internal structure in the account that makes theological sense, but seem to have little purpose other than that. Here is a way of arranging the days that highlights one of those structures:






In the beginning the earth was
Formless
Void
Day 1
Seperation of light and dark
Day 4
Creation of lights to fill night and day
Day 2
Seperation of water to form sky and sea
Day 5
Creation of birds to fill sky, fish to fill sea
Day 3
Seperation of sea to form land and plants
Day 6
Creation of animals and humans to fill land and eat plants
Day 7
Creation complete, and God rests

3) The accounts aren't simple prose. They contain elements of Hebrew poetry - repetition of phrases and parallelism. Even in English there is a rythmic quality to the passage.

4) There are certain numerological factors involving the numbers 3, 7 and 10. Certain words or phrases are repeated (eg: "God said" 3 times concerning humans, 7 times about other things).

5) There are questions about the use of certain words. Why call the sun and moon simply "lights" rather than use the normal Hebrew words for them? One answer would be that it's an attack on neighbouring cultures which worshipped them as gods - they're simply created lights. Why use "bara" 3 times? The initial creation and creation of humanity make sense, but why use "bara" for creation of sea monsters? Again, sea monsters had significance in creation myths of other cultures.

These point towards the author being primarily concerned with symbolism not chronology. Is it little wonder that even before the advent of modern science Christian scholars (such as Augustine in ~AD400) reluctantly held the opening chapters of Genesis to be literal history of how the earth was created? And then as soon as modern science, initially geology and then biology, started producing conclusive proof that reading this as such was incorrect evangelical Bible believing Christians started abandoning it for other approaches - some of which like "gap theories" and progressive creation have since been shown to be equally problematic.

Alan

(BTW, please call me Alan - I only registered as "Dr Cresswell" cos my usual id "Alan Cresswell" was taken by someone else who's since vanished again)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 7:46 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 50 (37889)
04-24-2003 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by zephyr
04-22-2003 2:09 PM


And now, a word from our topic...
Hello, everyone, remember me? IMPOSSIBLE logic for evolutionists concerning the origin of life? I'm getting lonely!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by zephyr, posted 04-22-2003 2:09 PM zephyr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Cresswell, posted 04-24-2003 3:43 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2003 5:12 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 04-25-2003 2:50 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 50 (37894)
04-24-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Admin
04-24-2003 3:22 PM


Re: And now, a word from our topic...
Sorry, but since the early replies had shown how possible the examples of "impossible logic" are I just kind of followed the questions raised.

Alan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 04-24-2003 3:22 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 49 of 50 (37909)
04-24-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Admin
04-24-2003 3:22 PM


Re: And now, a word from our topic...
Well I still want to know if you're BoobooCruises ideas as he said in the first post or someone elses as he said later.

So, speaking as the topic, can you say whether you are an example of plagiarism or whether your creator has lied in disowning you ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 04-24-2003 3:22 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4035 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 50 (37966)
04-25-2003 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Admin
04-24-2003 3:22 PM


Re: And now, a word from our topic...
Hi Topic, long time no see. How've you been?

It might be helpful if you could prevail upon your writer to flesh you out a bit. You have to admit you're a bit shallow and flippant as originally written, n'est-ce pas? Just between friends, and all...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 04-24-2003 3:22 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019