http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/ISD/javor.asp

Hi everyone,

Wanted to share this article with you.



thanX
Louie Buren <><

Nice article, Louie. But since the author believes what the Bible has to say, his reasons don't matter. He can't possibly be a 'real' scientist. I can't wait to read the refutations that will doubtless be advanced in this thread.

Wow! You’re good.

Looks like the same old irreducible complexity (already debunked numerous times) with a dash of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Actually, he may be an otherwise good scientist.

from the link:



The author makes some vague statements about cycles, dynamic equilibrium, and his own personal incredulity about some things. But how exactly does a "six day creation" follow from any of that?

How does a world created in 6 days look different from a world created in 90 days, or a million years?

I think 'disputed' would be a better term.




Using Latin to camoflage calling someone, or an argument, ignorant is not acceptable.




"A good scientist" being defined how? Perhaps as one who does not rock the evolutionary boat?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" is a logical fallacy describing an augment claiming we (as in all of humanity) are incapable of understanding something. It was not meant to be an insult to the good Doctor, just a description of his logical position.

No that’s not what I meant. Skepticism of an idea is a necessary element of good science. It forces the proponents of an idea to more closely examine their facts and logic. The best example of this was Einstein’s reluctance of accepting quantum physics. He spent the last half of his life trying to disprove it, yet the computer sitting in front of you is proof that it is a valid theory, even though one of the most brilliant minds of all times didn’t like it.

But yet I hear that some of his brillant ideas are now in question. And if most end up on the wayside, I don't think science will consider him brillant anymore. Just a stepping stone to find their version of truth and reality.

And if he were alive right now, he’d probably be the first to agree with you. He claimed to have only had one original idea in his life (I can’t remember which it was). But that’s the way science works, you do the best you can then someone else follows you and refines your work. Sometimes it’s completely overturned.

And changing God's word through personal interpitations, called translations, has done more harm to the original and it's meaning. Even to the point it mocks God. And is the reason I stick with an older version KJV. Because sometimes, the old stuff has more truth, and changing it, does more harm.

No offence, but how did this discussion morph into a critique of the various translations of the Bible (which I admit to being completely unqualified to judge)? Just for the record, I was talking about human scientific endeavor, not Holy Scripture.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was comparing an ever changing scientific theory, to something that also happened to God's word, and how changing it messed it up through personal translation texts. So it was meant as a comparison, not a subject change on the thread.

Um, getting off topic. If you'd like, I can start another thread on this subject in the bible section, and move these post to it and you two can continue discussing this. It would only take me about two minutes to do.


Added: I went ahead and moved the last three posts to the bible section so that things discussed here can be continued there without changing the subject of this thread. Here's the link: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...p?showtopic=251

So if a an atheist thinks the earth evolved,we would not listen to him because he is an atheist.We would by your reasoning.

Actualy, that part about six days was grossly misinterpreted (as well as a lot of other remarks in the Bible). The original Bible doesn't mention God but Elohim which means "Those that came from the sky". They created all life on Earth, not the universe and Earth. The six days mentioned weren't days but periods. These periods represent about 1000 to 2000 years each. These periods are separated by the varying complexity of the organisms created (plant or animal). I'm sure you asking how these scientists lived so long given that I told you the range of the periods. They can extend their life to 700 to 1200 years with a surgical implant. But that doesn't explain how they lived through each period. Also, they can clone themselves a new body and transfer their memories and personalities into this new body and that's how they lasted so long to create all these lifeforms (including us).

Please ignore posts by raelian1.

Man, that guy is just a clown. I'm glad he's banned. Lol. His ideas are somewhat amusing, though they are completely offtopic.

I mean no offense, but seriously, do you really belive in what you say? Or are you just joking around?

That's why he's banned. He was just here to annoy people I think.

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical. That is not to say that creation did not occure, but it did not occur in the manner that modern people believe it; just look at Christ's parables to understand that something can both be true and not literal. There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be. Also, we must recognize that the ancient Hebrew/Egyptian mindset is much different than that of modern societies, and may call for a greater amount of interpretation than we traditionally give to literary works.

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.

What do you make of Jesus' mention of Adam and Noah's flood?
Just curious. He seemed to think they were historical events.

Well they certainly were, however that does not preclude them from being technically different than the account in Genesis.

Not trying to start anything - just trying to understand.

If they are historical events, why would they be recorded differently than what actually happened. After all, Moshe was a prophet - presumably the L-rd spoke with him about it?

I suppose it boils down to...I do not understand your logic. Could you explain in a bit more detail?
Thanks,
Will

Because it is largely symbolic of what really happened, if Moses wrote down about evolution and a universe that is countless years old, no one would understand. More importantly it doesn't matter if they do understand, it's not really an important part of the Bible.

I do not think this is a good basis to just dismiss Genesis 1 out-of-hand. The Hebrew is written as a historical account, not an allegorical one. I understand what you are saying about the physical parts of the "clock" not being formed until day four, but why does this preclude a 24-hour period of time beforehand? Why isn't it possible or reasonable that God was the Light before he created the sun on day 4?



Why could life not survive without the sun and moon for one day? (the plants were created on day 3). If you accept the progressive creation position of millions of years crammed into each "day", then the problem is far worse, because that means the plants would need millions of years without the sun! How do progressive creationists “solve” this? They monkey with the text and claim the sun was really created on day 1!

Do you consider Adam & Eve as real, or allegorical?

Fred

I do not believe it is a technically accurate account, I do believe it is accurate, but not technically accurate. If that makes any sense.

This is something I'd like to pursue a little bit if you are interested. I'm curious what your stand is regarding Adman & Eve. Do you believe they were real, or allegorical?

Well, I think that is a tricky one. Adam and Eve may be allegorical, however I do believe they were real people. Since I do not believe in original sin(I do not believe it is literal based on my reading of Romans), I think it is really unimportant. And though they were referenced in the New Testament, that does not mean they are accurate, for example the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude.

I question the literal six days, because it is both unimportant to the whole, and because the reason that God would create the earth in six days is to show how we should work in our lives. I have no doubt that Genesis 1 is divinely inspired, but if the seven days are ltieral, why would God rest on the seventh? He has no reason to rest, except to set an example to man.

I think another important point is that even when we are talking about historical books, that does not mean they are the same kind of historical books we use today. For instance the genealogies of Christ differ in order to show different attributes of Christ.

So my next question would be, why did Christ have to die for us? You probably know where this is heading based on the obvious answer to this question.

We do have very compelling evidence that it is important. Churches that no longer stand on Genesis are far more likely to have liberal theology. When you start to compromise on any part of God’s word, it puts you on a slippery slope to the next compromise, then the next, then to the next, and ultimately many of these churches end up denying even the resurrection! Churches that accept abortion, churches that allow H*mosexual pastors, churches that deny the resurrection (which means they are no longer Christian), all have one thing in common - they reject a literal, historical Genesis. They reject the very foundation of the Bible, a book that is quoted from and referred to more than any book in the Bible, a book that contains every major doctrine in the Bible – the law, the gospel, marriage, why we wear clothes, etc.

Psalms 11:3: If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?



I agree, He has no reason to rest, so there must be a message here - He established the pattern for our work week as given in Exodus 20:9-11, a pattern that has carried forward to this day. If the days were not real but allegory, how do you explain this in light of Exodus 20:9-11?

Exodus 20:11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Finally, if the historical account in Genesis 1 is not really history but allegory, why should we believe the historical account of the resurrection? Why can’t that be allegory also? Hebrew scholars, many of whom are not religious and thus have no inherent bias, readily admit Genesis 1 was written as an historical account. I think it goes without saying that the resurrection was written as an historical account. How can we justify accepting one as history but not the other?

Fred

Please explain this further Mikel. How does the text indicate allegory?



Don’t understand the argument. The ancient writers didn’t think in these terms. The weren’t aware of planetary rotations. They viewed evenings and the end of day and mornings as the end of night.



That the sustainer of the sun and moon is not able to sustain life in the first few days of creation apart from the sun and moon is quite a difficult concept to grasp. There's got to be more to this. What is leading you to believe the writer is speaking allegorically?

"Don’t understand the argument. The ancient writers didn’t think in these terms. The weren’t aware of planetary rotations. They viewed evenings and the end of day and mornings as the end of night."

His point is that in order for there TO BE a morning and evening like you say, there has to be a sun and moon. But this arguement is not really legitimate for a number of reasons.
A: There were no people around to say "Oh that wasn't really a day because I didn't see the sun come up." God told the first writer of Genesis, (probably Adam) that he had made it in six days.

"5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Proving that A: There was day and night to start out at the beginning of the creation, AND,B: it was the FIRST day. If God says it was one day, then I'm gonna believe him. You can twist the text if you want, but God doesn't lie.

In the above verse, God establishes the basis for the rest of the creation. Every DAY thereafter were all referred to as THE SECOND DAY, THE THIRD DAY etc. Notice that it didn't change on THE FOURTH DAY when the lights were created. Interesting huh?

Well being that the writer explicitly defines "day" in the prior sentence, as you point out, I'm assuming that wasn't his point. Perhaps it was.

Personally I'm trying to think of a better way God could have put it if He really did want to convey literal days. He mentioned evening and morning. He defined day and night. He even gave us a frame of reference in Ex. 20:10-11.

It seems the objection to literal days is not rooted in the text but in modern theories about the age and formation of universe—theories which deny contributions by a supernatural creator. I can certainly understand why deists and atheists would embrace such things, but am amazed and perplexed over how many very sincere devout christians do also.

Spiritual light has no need for the sun or the moon, because it comes from a spiritual being.



God's light cannot have darkness.



Being that it was the glory of God that shined upon the earth, cast no shadows, was the reason the first light had to be divided.



And when God's light was divided, the first day now come into the picture.



But can the light that shines from God sustain life?



Added:
And God set the bounderies for what a day will contain on the very first day. For is there any other time frame, that is known, that also contains these 4 parts of a day?

Genesis 1:
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The reason the four parts of the day are not really listed in order is that God see's in 4d, and can also see through solid objects (like seeing into our hearts). Because of this, He often refers to His creation from it's center point (the very center of the created object). God also likes to make references to opposites. Day being opposite of night, and evening being opposite of morning.

Yeah, instead of people always saying, "Well how do you know it wasn't just a story that the writers of Genesis made up?" Why not ask them, is there a better way for God to tell us that he made it all in six days than to say "In six days God created the heaven and the earth"?