 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | Craig,
Have you chosen to completely ignore the topic of this discussion? Your last three posts have nothing to do with it.... |
The opening post of this thread:
| Quote: | | I am a Geologist by profession, and I have long taken interest in the debate over the age of the Earth. Would any YEC's like to present one argument to begin with for why the Earth is young? |
My most recent post:
| Quote: | | Perhaps it has escaped the attention of some who are participating in this debate that I am not arguing for Darwinian evolution or even for evolution in the broader sense—I am simply arguing that Gen. 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events. That much is an absolute fact just as certain that a water molecule (H20) is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. And I have not simply made this claim, as has been the approach of my opponents, but I have posted, in support of my claim, factual information that no one can refute. |
Instead of derailing the thread, as some have attempted to do, I have tenaciously stuck to the subject of the thread by refuting the notion still held in the 21st century by some radical Christian fundamentalists that the earth is merely thousands of years old because an archaic and naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament suggests such a notion. This refutation has consistently been along two lines of thought:
1. Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament, when carefully read in the broad context of early Hebrew literature other ancient oriental literature, are obviously not a series of accurate, historical narratives to be taken literally, but rather a series of epic tales full of spiritual truths about God, His creation, and man. That this is a true and established fact is supported by the absolute fact that the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars hold to this view, including today even those who hold to a very conservative interpretation of the Bible.
2. Genesis 6-8 is not an accurate, historical narrative as has been proven by ten of millions of facts that are so certain and so clear that 99.95% of all biologists and geologists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in one of those sciences from and accredited institution known for academic excellence in these sciences believe that the earth is at the minimum hundreds of millions of years old and the vast majority of these biologists and geologists believe that the earth is about 5 billion years old.
I have also posted that this is a very important issue because a number of very militant radical Christian fundamentalists are today, by aggressively teaching young earth creationism, making a mockery of the principles of Biblical interpretation and the fundamental principles of the biological and geological sciences with the consequence being that the credibility of the gospel message is being obliterated in the eyes of young people all over the earth resulting in their ultimate, eternal damnation to the fires of hell. Indeed, young earth creationism is today the greatest threat to the gospel message. |
Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? If you do, please tell us why, if you do not, please explain why. |
Instead of derailing the thread, as some have attempted to do, I have tenaciously stuck to the subject of the thread by refuting the notion still held in the 21st century by some radical Christian fundamentalists that the earth is merely thousands of years old because an archaic and naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament suggests such a notion.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? If you do, please tell us why, if you do not, please explain why. |
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | daviddale3 wrote: | Craig2uguys
And theres the 'BUT'. I believe in God and the things that the Bible states regarding Jesus, salvation, redemption, how I should live my life, etc..., BUT since fallible man has come to the conclusion, using fallible science as support, that the universe and everything that exists are billions of years old, I must reinterprete the Genesis account to fit that FALLIBLE science that says so.
Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? If so, WHY.
There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. In fact all would suggest that it never happened and can never happen. Science has disproved this ridiculous concept. Yet without it our faith is in vain. Why do you insist upon reinterpreting the Genesis account to fit big science's conclusions and not the resurrection? You are not being consistent in your views. |
Yes, all scientists, being human, are fallible. And, of course, all of the writers of the Bible, being human, were fallible.
Yes, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I do not believe in it for scientific reasons because there is no scientific evidence for it. I believe in it for historic reasons—reasons that I find quite compelling.
No, there is no scientific evidence that the resurrection of Jesus did not take place. And the New Testament does not portray the resurrection of Jesus as an event that occurred in keeping with the laws of natural science—it portrays the resurrection of Jesus as the most important MIRACLE that ever took place.
The account in Genesis of Noah and the Ark portrays the events as events that occurred in keeping with the laws of natural science (that is, of course, the events other than God speaking). However, such events, without any miracles, are both a biological and a physical impossibility, and all attempts to prove otherwise have given the scientific community the impression that fundamentalist Christians are “a bunch of intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia.” |
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | Craig,
Have you chosen to completely ignore the topic of this discussion? Your last three posts have nothing to do with it.... |
The opening post of this thread:
| Quote: | | I am a Geologist by profession, and I have long taken interest in the debate over the age of the Earth. Would any YEC's like to present one argument to begin with for why the Earth is young? |
My most recent post:
| Quote: | | Perhaps it has escaped the attention of some who are participating in this debate that I am not arguing for Darwinian evolution or even for evolution in the broader sense—I am simply arguing that Gen. 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events. |
|
And we have repeatedly asked you to present scripture that would lead one to arrive at this conclusion. Thus far you have presented a grand total of zero. However, in your defense, you have yammered a bit about some un-named 'Bible Scholars' with world class reputations whose commentaries on the book of Romans supports your assertion that Genesis is not to be taken literally... when David Dale and I have provided scripture, supporting scripture, a consistent exegesis, and a scientific study of the Hebrew linguistics (which you completely ignored BTW).
So.... when you try to alter something that is clearly articulated in the Bible with no scripture, consistent exegesis at all... I'd say... sorry... you are trying to lecture/preach here with no validity to your position.
| Quote: | | Instead of derailing the thread, as some have attempted to do, I have tenaciously stuck to the subject of the thread by refuting the notion still held in the 21st century by some radical Christian fundamentalists that the earth is merely thousands of years old because an archaic and naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament suggests such a notion. |
Sir... you have refuted dink. You have provided no scripture, cross scripture, etc... the only thing you have provided is an opinion... based on your belief.... not in what the Bible clearly says. If you have demonstrated this, perhaps I missed somewhere among your lecturing us 'uneducated' masses. Please... cite... please... cite something...
| Quote: | This refutation has consistently been along two lines of thought:
1. Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament, when carefully read in the broad context of early Hebrew literature other ancient oriental literature, are obviously not a series of accurate, historical narratives to be taken literally, but rather a series of epic tales full of spiritual truths about God, His creation, and man. That this is a true and established fact is supported by the absolute fact that the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars hold to this view, including today even those who hold to a very conservative interpretation of the Bible. |
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO TELL US HOW INSTEAD OF APPEALING TO UN-NAMED AUTHORITY?
| Quote: | | 2. Genesis 6-8 is not an accurate, historical narrative as has been proven by ten of millions of facts that are so certain and so clear that 99.95% of all biologists and geologists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in one of those sciences from and accredited institution known for academic excellence in these sciences believe that the earth is at the minimum hundreds of millions of years old and the vast majority of these biologists and geologists believe that the earth is about 5 billion years old. |
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO TELL US HOW INSTEAD OF APPEALING TO UN-NAMED AUTHORITY?
| Quote: | | I have also posted that this is a very important issue because a number of very militant radical Christian fundamentalists are today, by aggressively teaching young earth creationism, making a mockery of the principles of Biblical interpretation and the fundamental principles of the biological and geological sciences with the consequence being that the credibility of the gospel message is being obliterated in the eyes of young people all over the earth resulting in their ultimate, eternal damnation to the fires of hell. |
For someone who wants to lecture me about the use of grammar... you have just written about an 80 word sentence..  A sentence that essentially is unsupported... at all. Just another one of your opinions...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | The account in Genesis of Noah and the Ark portrays the events as events that occurred in keeping with the laws of natural science (that is, of course, the events other than God speaking). |
A rain storm that covers the face of the earth is completely consistent with the laws of science?
Having every kind of animal in the world walk to and get on your boat... that is consistent with the laws of science?
Craig... I thought you said you have intently studied this matter?
| Quote: | | However, such events, without any miracles, are both a biological and a physical impossibility, and all attempts to prove otherwise have given the scientific community the impression that fundamentalist Christians are “a bunch of intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia.” |
Trying to tell the world that all extant life evolved from a single celled organism (goo-to-you) that crawled out of the primordial oceans (without telling us how this life 'became' in the first place) without providing an empirical mechanism supporting said supposition makes those who try to teach this garbage look like 'snake oil salesmen'.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7610
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Trying to tell the world that all extant life evolved from a single celled organism (goo-to-you) that crawled out of the primordial oceans... |
Come now Trinity, you know better than this. Nobody believes this. Life left the oceans and 'crawled' up onto land a LONG time after it had proliferated and speciated greatly in the water.
Without a doubt all known life on Earth had a common ancestor, but it wasn't one which lived on land.
Merry Christmas, by the way! 
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Trying to tell the world that all extant life evolved from a single celled organism (goo-to-you) that crawled out of the primordial oceans... |
Come now Trinity, you know better than this. Nobody believes this. Life left the oceans and 'crawled' up onto land a LONG time after it had proliferated and speciated greatly in the water. |
Life originateed in the oceans... any support for this? Any data supporting discussing the process? 
| Quote: | | Without a doubt all known life on Earth had a common ancestor, but it wasn't one which lived on land. |
Without a doubt? Why are we then having these discusisons? If there were no doubt, you would be able to provide the uncontrovertable supporting demonstrating as much...
| Quote: | | Merry Christmas, by the way! |
Thanks brother! Happy Holidays
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7610
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Life originateed in the oceans... any support for this? Any data supporting discussing the process?
|
Yes, the fossil record shows that there was life in the oceans long before there was life on land. This is also consistent with what we know of the primordial Earth; we know that it was rich with organic molecules, and the and the first self-replicating molecules started doing their stuff very soon after the formation of the Earth, and this couldn't have happened on land, since a watery medium was necessary.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Without a doubt all known life on Earth had a common ancestor, but it wasn't one which lived on land. |
Without a doubt? Why are we then having these discusisons? If there were no doubt, you would be able to provide the uncontrovertable supporting demonstrating as much...
|
Sure. All life uses exactly the same DNA base codings for amino acids. The probability of life arising in separate instances and this being the case is infinitesimally small. Therefore all life on Earth has a common ancestor.
That is, unless you believe in magical creation myths from ancient civilizations. If you believe in those then the origin of life is much more interesting, at the cost of being much less plausible.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Life originateed in the oceans... any support for this? Any data supporting discussing the process?
|
Yes, the fossil record shows that there was life in the oceans long before there was life on land. This is also consistent with what we know of the primordial Earth; we know that it was rich with organic molecules, and the and the first self-replicating molecules started doing their stuff very soon after the formation of the Earth, and this couldn't have happened on land, since a watery medium was necessary. |
That is wonderful... so... since you insist that this what an area of science, not religion, then perhaps you could share the science of abiogenesis? The same demand you would make of a Creationist, I would also insist you produce the same empirical evidence you yourself demand.
Empirical process for life originating please. Process for all extant life originating from a single celled organism, that includes observable instance of increases in both the genome and functionality. (NOTE: The process you and science are clinging too require both increases) Please provide an empirical example of this occurring.
Thx!
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7610
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
That is wonderful... so... since you insist that this what an area of science, not religion, then perhaps you could share the science of abiogenesis? The same demand you would make of a Creationist, I would also insist you produce the same empirical evidence you yourself demand.
Empirical process for life originating please. Process for all extant life originating from a single celled organism, that includes observable instance of increases in both the genome and functionality. (NOTE: The process you and science are clinging too require both increases) Please provide an empirical example of this occurring.
|
Although what you're asking for would certainly be sufficient to prove that abiogenesis happened, it is by no means necessary.
When you throw the fossil record together with genetic evidence and evolution and inductively reason backwards, it becomes very clear that all life on Earth had a common ancestor. People do experiments all the time where they simulate the conditions on the primordial Earth. They add a bit of heat, light, and electricity (to simulate volcanoes, the sun, and lightning), and they very quickly get a MASSIVE amount of organic matter. It's all very compelling.
The only other alternative is that some magical creator God created everything, and the evidence against that is pretty compelling. For example, every genome that has ever been inspected looks like a huge mess. It looks EXACTLY like what you'd expect from billions of years of random mutations. Not one has EVER shown even a hint of having been designed by an omniscient God.
The only reason why you disagree with any of this is because you've decided that the Bible (which was written thousands of years ago by scientifically ignorant people) must be literally true, and you unwaveringly stick to this belief no matter what. This makes you unreasonably skeptical to good science such as cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, etc.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
