what do creationists believe? (robert true creation)

quote:

---

Since the Creationist is committed to the Bible as the Word of God he believes that God created the universe in six literal twenty-four hour earth days. Theistic Evolutionists, like Hugh Ross, try to explain away the "days" of creation by claiming that the Bible is just being figurative and not literal. But such a proposition does not fit the grammatical structure of Genesis 1 - especially when one considers the phrase "evening and morning" which in all its other references means only a 24 hour earth day. From a Christian perspective Hugh Ross has to denigrate the Bible in order to introduce his theories.

---

JM: One can clearly make a strong case that evening and morning had different meanings in Genesis simply due to the chronologies in Genesis. How can you have evening and morning without a Sun? The 24 hour earth day is based on its axial rotation (one hemisphere faces the sun as the other turns away). Yet, Genesis 1:14-19 tells us that the Sun and moon (presumably) were not created until Day 4 (the stars too incidentally). This verse seems to contrast with Genesis1:2-5 which is some other 'kind' of light. We therefore do not know the source of this light (cannot be the Sun, the moon or the stars). Therefore evening and morning can possibly have a different meaning up to Gen 1:14-19 and there is no compromise to the literal meaning of the bible. I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is meaningless in terms of describing science since this was never its intent, but I don't see how you can cling to a literal 24-hour cycle without one part of the equation (the Sun).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
JM correctly points out that the phrase "evening and morning" is a reference to the rotation of the earth. Since the earth rotates in 24hr periods a "literal" interpretation of the first several days of Genesis would be "literal" days and not "figurative" days. When God created light on the first day it had to come from somwhere and shine on the earth (or what would be the earth) in 24hr periods.

---

JM: Doesn't help. The 'light' could have simply turned on and off in order to give 'evening and morning' regardless of what the earth was doing. YOU DON'T KNOW! In fact, one is free to interpret this because there is no way to accept this in any literal fashion. Of course, since the bible is not, was not, and will not in the future be, intended as a scientific treatise, the meaning is irrelevant to science (also salvation).

quote:

---

I honestly do not know what is the age of the universe or that the age of the earth can be calculated. I am skeptical about the dating of fossils for various reasons. It is very possible that God could create a semblance of age.

---

JM: But such an attitude would make God a trickster and (as others have pointed out) means that it is equally likely that the earth, universe and all contents were created two seconds ago with the appearance of age and memories intact. This conclusion must be considered on par with 'semblance of age' since both are equally likely and, incidentally, completely untestable and unscientific! On the other hand, if one assumes that there is a possibility of understanding the Universe, then one can look at the evidence available. Creationists in the 18th and 19th centuries concluded that the earth was old based on the evidence. That evidence did not shake, but instead reinforced their faith in God. It's ok not to know how we arrived at the current age of the earth, because that means you can open yourself up to the discussion.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Everywhere in the Bible the phrase "evening and morning" is used to define a 24hr day: that, for example, is how Moses understood it, Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3. In Daniel 8:26 when more than one 24hr day is referred to it is used in the plural, "evenings and mornings". The use of the phrase "evening and morning" to mean somthing figurative is not how God wrote the Bible, therefore it is a false interpretation of what God has said. You must allow the Author to define His terms and not somebody else - like Hugh Ross.

---

JM: Makes no difference really. The 24 hour day is defined by the rotation of the Earth's axis and its relationship to facing/not facing the Sun, if there was no Sun, the definition is void and open to other interpretations. As for all your other discourse on 'true' religion, your religion is true because you think it is. Muslims' would argue that your faith is misplaced and a number of Christian sects would argue that you have misinterpreted the Bible. Why do I bring this up? There simply IS NO LITERAL UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON WORD OF GOD! Not anywhere or at anytime-- and there never will be so your insistence that Robert holds the truth because Robert believes he has truth is nonsensical. The nice thing about science is that it has a built in relativism filter. It does not matter what I believe so long as I can provide evidence to support it. That evidence must be testable and repeatable by independent researchers no matter their religious beliefs. Guess what, the system works well!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert:
[B]Greetings:JM: Can you show me such proof for evolution - specifically fish to lizard to dinosaur to bird transition? I have asked you all many times for such proof and I am still waiting for it. Trusting in "millions of years" and the fossil record is not proof. [/QUOTE]JM: I've asked if you would accept vertebrate to eukaryote?

quote:

---

Gene and JM: It is not what a person believes that counts. A person can believe whatever they want - it is what the Bible says that counts. You will probably say that the Bible is subject to interpretation, and, it is true that people have distorted phrases in the Bible in order to prove some arcane point.

---

JM: I think we all agree with you! The problem is that we want to know why Robert thinks he has not distorted the bible's true meaning!

quote:

---

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not many but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

---

JM: Babble (love to use that word!)! You've said nothing substantive in your completely circular logic. One can insert the word "Robert" quite easily in your statement. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Robert's interpretation; and therefore, when there is a question (if it is infallible, there should be no questions!) about the true and full sense of the scipture, one should ask Robert. Your logic escapes me here.

quote:

---

Our "morning and evening" discussion is an excellent example. Moses understood the phrase to be a 24hr day that is the specific reason why he used the phrase, because he meant a literal 24hr earth day. If he did not mean a literal 24hr earth day, than he would not have used the phrase. The phrase is "interpreted" correctly when you look at other passages in the Bible to see how it was used. The errors of interpreting the Bible that you point out are found when one takes his own philospphy/preconceptions and twists the Scriptures to their own fancy. Hugh Ross is just such a character.

---

JM: Robert is another character. Ross, also understands that science gives evidence that the days are long. Robert claims his view of scripture is correct. As a scientist, I go with the evidence. As someone who claims to know what the bible meant, Robert trusts only Robert and those who agree with Robert. Can you imagine why I'd rather look at Ross' evidence?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

There is an abundance of proof that the Bible is the Word of God. If you are truly interested (which I doubt) then I refer you all to a book entitled, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell. There is so much evidence that he wrote a second book, More Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

---

JM: Sure, he did. But he is also arguing in a circle since his premise is that the bible is true. I've read McDowell's book.

quote:

---

If the Bible is the Word of God, then Darwinism is not true since Darwinism contradicts the teachings of the Bible.

---

JM: No it doesn't. It contradicts Robert's narrow interpretation of Genesis. Robert is now dictating what his God can and cannot do. This is the result of your poor apologetics!

quote:

---

JM tries to distort my point about the infallible interpretation of the Bible but his attempt is bizarre to say the least, and I don't feel inclined to answer bizarre statements.

---

JM: Umm, I don't know why pointing out a circular argument is bizarre except to say that it must have hit home.

quote:

---

However, with the hope that JM can exceed his prejudices I will give an answer. Such is not circular logic because I am not making an argument. It is according to common curtesy and all acceptable theories of interpretation that an Author should be allowed to define His own terms. If JM does not want to extend this curtesy to God - that is not my problem. (By the way I would like to see your argument for vertebrate to eukaryote before commenting on it).

---

JM: YOU ARE making an argument by claiming the bible is infallible and that Robert's interpretation is the correct one. That alone is faulty logic on your part. HeLa.

quote:

---

Someone here mentions "empirical science" I am still waiting for an answer to my question on another thread about how Darwinism has been observed in creating a new class of organism (fish to lizard not fish to fish). Where is the observational evidence that would make Darwinism "empirical science"?

---

JM: HeLa

quote:

---

The Bible provides an abundance of observational evidence to prove its trustworthiness as the Word of God.

---

JM: If that's what you believe it is, then the statement is true. It is not scientifically testable however. It is my opinion that those who force the bible to conform to their own interpretation of it have lost the meaning of the word faith.

quote:

---

The evidence is both internal and external evidence that actually prove the statements of the Bible. Archaeology has proven over and over again that the Bible is hyper-accurate in its historical references. No archaeological dig has ever disproven a Biblical statement.

---

JM: Are you positive about that? EVER? How about that fact that science has shown the earth is not flat? Trust me, you don't want to pursue this line of argument. It will lead you to establish a new belief system called Robertism.

quote:

---

And, archaeologists actually use the Bible to find lost civilizations that are mentioned in the Bible - like the Hittite Empire. Darwinism cannot claim such accuracy.

---

JM: Evolution has been extremely accurate in its predictions and retrodictions. In fact, if you hold the Bible forth as a science text, it will lose hands down. Then again, the bible is only scientific in Roberts version of Christianity.

quote:

---

I feel for you all because you have been brainwashed into Darwinism since Junior High school.

---

JM: Are you sure about that? I was once a creationist! I changed my views when I saw the evidence against young earth creationism.

quote:

---

You have been told over and over that "darwinism is science ... darwinism is science" that you cannot conceive of anything different.

---

JM: I can honestly say that I NEVER EVER heard such a statement. Anyone else heard that "Darwinism is science"? I bet you can't find someone who was told that.

quote:

---

For over 200 years the history of American education has included the Bible as a necessary textbook. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others were all educated in the Bible (wether they believed it or not is not relevant) they were taught it in grammar school.

---

JM: Irrelevant side issue.

quote:

---

Harvard University, Princeton, William and Mary, and Yale all started as Seminaries teaching the Bible as the Word of God. The greatest mind America ever produced was a Pastor of a Christian Church - Jonathan Edwards. Such is the legacy of a Bible-centered education.

---

JM: I thought he was the guy who hosts "Crossing Over".

quote:

---

What do we have now that the Bible has been effectively separated from education? SAT scores have dropped - causing the "dumbing down" of the SAT in order to keep the scores up.
Drugs and violence in our high schools (which was unheard of even 40 years ago) and teenage pregnancies - all of which have become the rule now instead of the exception.

---

JM: Wrong, the reason for all that was the fact that teflon began to be sold in the US in 1960. It is teflon that has led to all those problems!

quote:

---

If the Bible were taught as the Word of God and not simply as "history", then we would see a dramatic decrease in all of these problems, and, maybe we would also see some "George Washington's" appear instead of "Bill Clinton's".

---

JM: Wrong again (and very scary). The truth is that if teflon is removed from frying pans and such and we get back to iron skillets, then the world will be right. I'm telling you, in 1960's teflon was introduced. Three years later Kennedy was assassinated and it is teflon that has caused the world's ills. You cannot dismiss this correlation. It's too strong.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:JM: Pangea is absolutely irrelevant in demonstrating a global flood. Magnetic reversals correlating on land and marine sections absolutely destroys the notion of a young earth and a global flood. Most fossils are dead animals and they completely and utterly falsify the global flood (Christian scholars noted this 150+ years ago!). Geology is incompatible with a global flood. Stop talking nonsense and post some meat!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"JM: Pangea is absolutely irrelevant in demonstrating a global flood."
--Thats right, though I do recall that metalpunk37 was asking for a summary of my personal creationist views, which includes a historical landmass.[/QUOTE]JM: What about the supercontinents of Rodinia, Panottia and Columbia?

quote:

---

"Magnetic reversals correlating on land and marine sections absolutely destroys the notion of a young earth and a global flood."
--We havent been able to get into this one yet, though I have seen you assert it, so how does it do so?

---

JM: This is one of my questions to you. I want you to explain how the flood created these correlations (see TC model thread). You've made the assertion that the flood fits, I want you to show me how.

quote:

---

--I'm sure you have noticed the rapid advancement in Geology Meert? After-all, you do have a doctorate in the subject. I have many geology related books from the 50-70's, much of which is very dated and would be considered erroneous today.

---

JM: Yes, I notice the advancement. I also notice that some very fundamental observations in geology are as germane today as they were several hundred years ago. Don't get smart-alecky in a subject where you have admitted some naivete.

quote:

---

--Can't get to the meat without penetrating the skin Joe, if you get my analogy.

---

JM: That's right, so don't pretend to know more than you actually do. At the same time, you can't ignore the details that argue against your point. Hey, I am willing to be convinced that you have a better model, but you have to show it and you have to be able to discuss the details that might ruin your model. You can't explain one thing and then run off and hide.CheersJoe MEert

Get a hold of Opdyke and Channel's book Magnetic Stratigraphy.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Sounds like an awesome resource, though, I seem to be a bit out of cash as it pertains to $109...
-Electronics, Cars, Fashion, Collectibles & More | eBay
--Maybe you could give me a decent price for your copy if you may own it, or recommend another that I may be able to obtain. Or if possible a reliable internet page with this type of information.

---

JM: Sorry TC, you'll have to get it the same way I did. Get a Ph.D., go through a series of interviews, end up in the same department as the authors, get an office next to the first author and beg for a free copy! Seriously though, if you do a google search under google and use the terms Robert Butler and paleomagnetism, you should be able to download his entire book.CheersJoe Meert