The Truth, The Whole Truth about Creation

[River Jordan]

Only to address what I thought were your valid concerns, but apparently you just want to argue about anything.

Huh? Are you just dodging around the question because you really can't point to anyone who has actually expressed the thought that science is "absolute truth", but your pride won't let you admit it?

What sciences? Geology, history, cosmology, theology? You're already not listening, so why do you need more info?

Pick whatever one you like. I am truly curious about your experiences.

I see no contradiction between that which Stan and I have said.

So you see no contradiction between "God created starlight already mostly on its way to earth" and "God made starlight speed up at the beginning, and then slow down"? Both of you cited your interpretation of scripture to support your argument, yet one of you has to be wrong.

I did not say it was the gospel, I was merely speculating.

So you could be completely wrong?

 

[pom2014]

Stan,

I apologise I misspoke about the constant. It was much faster when the cosmos was younger.
And it will need to adjusted in a couple of eons.

Zeke,
If you wish to believe in an earth as the same age of the cosmos you may.

I believe that God has a different time line than theologians have calculated. A literal interpretation of the Bible when prophets and the King used metaphoric language is problematic and open to abuse. Like the flood account it can be truly misinterpreted. And on that error alone we have use context and judgment.

Also please don't put words in my mouth. That's not keeping the second great command.

 

[zeke25]

So you see no contradiction between "God created starlight already mostly on its way to earth" and "God made starlight speed up at the beginning, and then slow down"? Both of you cited your interpretation of scripture to support your argument, yet one of you has to be wrong.


So you could be completely wrong?

Do you see these two quotes in Scripture? No, of course not. On my part I was speculating. I do not speak for Stan. But the common part is that we both believe in 6 days of Creation as taught in the Bible. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Could I be wrong? Yes, about my speculation. But, no I'm not wrong about 6 days of creation and you have not presented any evidence that contradicts that. Is my speculation correct? Yes, it could be. I believe it, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

Zeke25

Stan,

I apologise I misspoke about the constant. It was much faster when the cosmos was younger.
And it will need to adjusted in a couple of eons.

Zeke,
If you wish to believe in an earth as the same age of the cosmos you may.

I believe that God has a different time line than theologians have calculated. A literal interpretation of the Bible when prophets and the King used metaphoric language is problematic and open to abuse. Like the flood account it can be truly misinterpreted. And on that error alone we have use context and judgment.

Also please don't put words in my mouth. That's not keeping the second great command.

pom2014,

A literal interpretation of the Bible is appropriate when the language is literal. Because of the literal meaning of "evening" and "morning" there is no other interpretation that can be correct except that we are speaking of one rotation of the earth on it's axis. In fact, that wording is there, so that someone who comes along speculates that eons of time are being spoken of, they must first change the definitions of very specific "time markers" that are placed there so that the humble do not lose their way.

We are up to post #44 at least. I last addressed you directly in post #28. Where did I put words in your mouth? What is it that I said to prompt this response?

Zeke25

 

[StanJ]

Huh? Are you just dodging around the question because you really can't point to anyone who has actually expressed the thought that science is "absolute truth", but your pride won't let you admit it?

As it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to you, there's really no need. You would just continue to prevaricate about what I have to say anyway.

So you see no contradiction between "God created starlight already mostly on its way to earth" and "God made starlight speed up at the beginning, and then slow down"? Both of you cited your interpretation of scripture to support your argument, yet one of you has to be wrong.

Funny how you make your quote of what you say I said actually link to what I did say, but they are NOT the same.
You have a bad habit of prevaricating on what others say even when their words are clearly posted. Makes me not want to deal with you as I feel this is a dishonest practise and show you don't really stay in the context of the OP or thread. If you can refute what I actually posted then please do so, but stop with all this prevaricating and misdirection.

 

[River Jordan]

On my part I was speculating.

Ok then.

Could I be wrong? Yes, about my speculation.

How would you know that your speculation is wrong? How would you even find out in the first place?

As it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to you, there's really no need.

So I was right. You can't point to anyone who has expressed that science is a source of absolute truth in the same way as God, but you can't admit it either.

Funny how you make your quote of what you say I said actually link to what I did say, but they are NOT the same.

If you're going to accuse me of something like that, you shouldn't do it in a forum where everything is there for all to see. You said "Genesis teaches us the stars came with there light already there", which I paraphrased as "God created starlight mostly on its way to earth". Now, can you explain to me what is so different between those two statements that it warrants an accusation of dishonesty?

 

[StanJ]

Hence another reason to stop responding to your posts. You constantly prevaricate and misdirect. You are NOT worth the agravation.
BTW, prevaricating is NOT the same as paraphrasing, and as I post in plain English and not in KJV speak, paraphrasing my posts is not required.

 

[River Jordan]

And you have ducked and dodged almost everything I've asked of you, which is a sign of someone who has something to hide.

 

[zeke25]

Ok then.


How would you know that your speculation is wrong? How would you even find out in the first place?

River Jordan,

How do you know that my speculation is not right? We may never find out in this lifetime. I'm okay with that, are you? Besides, it doesn't violate that which is taught in the Bible. If it can be pointed out to me that it does, I will drop it like a hot potato. Besides, I've already given several Scriptures that point to the possibility that I could be right.

Are you more comfortable with uniformitarianism. I am more comfortable with catastrophism.

1. 
   Catastrophism is the theory that the Earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. This was in contrast to uniformitarianism (sometimes described as gradualism), in which slow incremental changes, such as erosion, created all the Earth's geological features.
   

Expanding upon the use of these terms, I do not need to put my faith in dumb rocks floating around the cosmos for 15 billion years. I have faith in the God of Creation that can make things happen quickly or slowly or anywhere inbetween.

Are we finished yet?

Zeke25

 

[StanJ]

And you have ducked and dodged almost everything I've asked of you, which is a sign of someone who has something to hide.

Not taking your bait of prevocative responses has nothing to do with ducking or dodging. If you asked pertinent and honest questions, you would get the same in return.... it's called reciprocation. Thinking how you do is obvious here, and is just plain paranoia.

 

[River Jordan]

Are we finished yet?

Yeah, I think so. Thanks for your time.

 

[zeke25]

Yeah, I think so. Thanks for your time.

River Jordan,

If you want to know why I believe that Creation Week speaks about literal 24 hour days (or nearly that) you need to know where I'm coming from as far as the definition of "evening" in the Bible. It can be found in this forum at http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20204-between-the-evenings/.

If you don't want to know, then have a nice day.

Zeke25

 

[JimParker]

The widely held notion that a "day" of creation in Genesis 1 is to be understood as a 24-hour period is a good example of why some people conclude that to be a Christian requires that you also be of low intellect as well.

The creation litany of Gen. 1 is written for a pre-scientific society. There would be absolutely no purpose in telling people 3500 years ago that it took at least a half million years before hydrogen atoms could begin to form let alone tell them that the heavier atoms required for life wouldn't exist until after the formation of stars some billion years after God said "Let there be light." (Which was immediately followed by the "big bang".) So there would be no "waters" to separate (Gen1:6) for more than a billion years.

Those billion or so years would compose "day" one, by the way.

To call the conclusions of physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, etc. "pseudo-science" is a very foolish position to take. There is no reason why any rational person would take someone seriously who would make such a statement. It would be like arguing with a 5-year-old about quantum mechanics. (even if the child wanted to be a "quantum mechanic" when he grew up)

Science is not in conflict with divine revelation.

The focus of theology is God the creator, who is supernatural. (Outside of nature.)

The focus of science is creation, which is natural. (Nature itself)

But, there are Biblical literalists who are (foolishly) in conflict with science.

 

[StanJ]

Read and learn Jim.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

http://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/

 

[winc]

So you have absolutely no problem believing God went out of His way to make the universe look billions of years old, even thought it's really not? :blink:

imho it seems He did it so that we would or at least should know that it was created and did not evolve and so that we would praise and worship Him as Creator of heaven and earth just in case we did not read the Bible - that is why He also created the sun on the fouth day lest any should worship the sun as creator of life - winc

The widely held notion that a "day" of creation in Genesis 1 is to be understood as a 24-hour period is a good example of why some people conclude that to be a Christian requires that you also be of low intellect as well.

The creation litany of Gen. 1 is written for a pre-scientific society. There would be absolutely no purpose in telling people 3500 years ago that it took at least a half million years before hydrogen atoms could begin to form let alone tell them that the heavier atoms required for life wouldn't exist until after the formation of stars some billion years after God said "Let there be light." (Which was immediately followed by the "big bang".) So there would be no "waters" to separate (Gen1:6) for more than a billion years.

Those billion or so years would compose "day" one, by the way.

To call the conclusions of physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, etc. "pseudo-science" is a very foolish position to take. There is no reason why any rational person would take someone seriously who would make such a statement. It would be like arguing with a 5-year-old about quantum mechanics. (even if the child wanted to be a "quantum mechanic" when he grew up)

Science is not in conflict with divine revelation.

The focus of theology is God the creator, who is supernatural. (Outside of nature.)

The focus of science is creation, which is natural. (Nature itself)

But, there are Biblical literalists who are (foolishly) in conflict with science.



Big Bang - what big bang - it seems scientists are foolishly in conflict with foolish scientists - winc

not so hazy, dazy, crazy creation days = try any other crazy combination and be convinced - so lets try 6 seconds shall thou labour and then rest for a second,or 6 minutes or 6 hours or 6 weeks, months, years or six hundred or six thousand etc - daft I call it - winc

 

[justaname]

So you have absolutely no problem believing God went out of His way to make the universe look billions of years old, even thought it's really not? :blink:

Similar to a different post about what I said about Scripture, nothing of what God does in the creation process makes anything look billions of years old. It is the lens or process scientists use in evaluating or interpreting the data. God is not the deceiver, the scientist is confused.

 

[StanJ]

Similar to a different post about what I said about Scripture, nothing of what God does in the creation process makes anything look billions of years old. It is the lens or process scientists use in evaluating or interpreting the data. God is not the deceiver, the scientist is confused.

A M E N !!!

 

[JimParker]

imho it seems He did it so that we would or at least should know that it was created and did not evolve and so that we would praise and worship Him as Creator of heaven and earth just in case we did not read the Bible - that is why He also created the sun on the fouth day lest any should worship the sun as creator of life - winc


not so hazy, dazy, crazy creation days = try any other crazy combination and be convinced - so lets try 6 seconds shall thou labour and then rest for a second,or 6 minutes or 6 hours or 6 weeks, months, years or six hundred or six thousand etc - daft I call it - winc

The universe being created and evolving are not mutually exclusive phenomina.

We can observe the fact that the universe is evolving. That does not in any way interfere with our belief that God created it.

And we can worship God whether the universe is evolving or not.

<<lets try 6 seconds shall thou labour and then rest for a second>>

That's a bit of a stretch since the Jews of Moses time had no concept of a period of time we call a "second." To be of any usefulness, "seconds" required a device to measure time.

Why would anyone insist that the scriptures give a false report of how long it took for the universe to evolve to it's current state or that every last one of the scientists who study the universe is wrong? Gen 1 is poetry, not a science paper.

 

[JimParker]

No River, for some Christians, science is NOT regarded as absolute truth in the way God is. There is a big difference. My faith has taught me to trust my God and saviour in ALL things, and my experience has shown me I can't have the same faith in some sciences, or so-called sciences.

<< my experience has shown me I can't have the same faith in some sciences >>

That is a straw-man argument.

No one asks that anyone regard science as absolute truth.

Science is not considered "absolute truth" even by scientists but only the understanding of nature at this time, based on the information gathered using the instruments available.

And there is no such thing as a "so-called scientist"; either you are a scientist or, like you, you are not.

Also, your experiences is miniscule compared to the accumulated knowledge of real scientists so you're comparing apples and oranges. That is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy based on the assumption that your experience is a legitimate authority.

 

[StanJ]

<< my experience has shown me I can't have the same faith in some sciences >>

That is a straw-man argument.

No one asks that anyone regard science as absolute truth.

Science is not considered "absolute truth" even by scientists but only the understanding of nature at this time, based on the information gathered using the instruments available.

And there is no such thing as a "so-called scientist"; either you are a scientist or, like you, you are not.

Also, your experiences is miniscule compared to the accumulated knowledge of real scientists so you're comparing apples and oranges. That is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy based on the assumption that your experience is a legitimate authority.

Bored Jim?

 

[JimParker]

Bored Jim?

That is the logical fallacy called ""[SIZE=10pt]Appeal to Ridicule or Mockery."[/SIZE]

Since you could not refute one iota of what I posted, your resorted to mockery.

You loose.