Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[George Affleck]

And Yahweh Elohim built (way·yi·ḇen) the side which He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her (way·ḇi·’e·hā) to the man. And the man said, This now at last( hap·pa·‘am) is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man. (Gen 2.22 – 23)

As the first human clone, three things in these two passages indicate that Eve was created as a child needing to be raised separate from Adam before she was presented back as an age-appropriate mate.

• The Hebrew verb ‘banah’, employed for the creation of Eve, carries with it the meaning to ‘have children’ and ‘obtain children’.

• The Hebrew verb ‘bo’ informs the reader that after Eve was created from Adam, she then had to be brought back to Adam because she was not with Adam. If Eve had been created as a same-age-adult as Adam, then why would Adam have not woken up with Eve by his side to begin with?

• The exclamation ‘hap·pa·‘am’ (at last!) by Adam indicates that he had been waiting for his mate for a very long time. ‘Paam’ carries with it the definition of ‘annual’ and ‘time’, indicating long duration.




The only logical conclusion to draw from the text is that Eve was created and raised as a CHILD.

You really are a weird sort.

 

[George Affleck]

The same science that operates the GPS on our smart phones says that the Universe is billions of years old.

Incorrect.
Presuppositional science does not give us smart phones.
Observational science does that.

 

[Stripe]

The same science that operates the GPS on our smart phones says that the Universe is billions of years old.

Darwinists do nothing but trot out the same irrational nonsense time after time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Apple7]

You are bound to end up with false conclusions when you start with false assumptions. Eve was not a clone of a man.

The text declares that she was.

Remember...Adam, as a male, already had the 'X' chromosome required to clone a female.

That is silly, but in any case she was not "created from the ground up" as you earlier said. She was woman... not a child.

Adam was created from the ground-up, as declared by the text.

If you are a literalist, then you have no room to disagree.

Further, Eve was called a 'woman' by Adam AFTER she was brought him at a later date.

In six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.

Six epochs.

 

[Apple7]

You really are a weird sort.

How about a rebuttal..?

 

[Apple7]

Incorrect.
Presuppositional science does not give us smart phones.
Observational science does that.

Tell that to the engineers at NASA, since you seem to know more than them...

 

[Stripe]

How about a rebuttal..?

Clones have the same DNA.

Males and females don't even have the same chromosomes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Apple7]

Darwinists do nothing but trot out the same irrational nonsense time after time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

A billions of year old Universe does not invoke evolution.

 

[Stripe]

Tell that to the engineers at NASA, since you seem to know more than them...

This one?

https://creation.com/exploring-the-heavens-michael-tigges-nasa-interview

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

The text declares that she was.

Remember...Adam, as a male, already had the 'X' chromosome required to clone a female.




Adam was created from the ground-up, as declared by the text.

If you are a literalist, then you have no room to disagree.

Further, Eve was called a 'woman' by Adam AFTER she was brought him at a later date.

Six epochs.

Nope.

Context always determines which meaning of day is being used in scripture, and Genesis chapter 1, Exodus 20, etc, indicate 6 literal 24-hour days. Genesis 2:4 is referring to an epoch of time, specifically:

before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; - Genesis 2:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:5&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

A billions of year old Universe does not invoke evolution.

Yet Jesus said He created man at the beginning of creation. Day 6 out of 7000 years is at the beginning. 6 billion years (or however long) into a 13.4 billion year old universe is not at the beginning.

 

[Apple7]

Nope.

Context always determines which meaning of day is being used in scripture, and Genesis chapter 1, Exodus 20, etc, indicate 6 literal 24-hour days. Genesis 2:4 is referring to an epoch of time, specifically:

before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; - Genesis 2:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:5&version=NKJV

Except that we are in the Seventh 'day', right now.

Can we claim 'day 7' as a new Guinness World Record?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except that we are in the Seventh 'day', right now.

Um, what are you talking about?

Can we claim 'day 7' as a new Guinness World Record?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

God rested on Day 7, and then after day 7 came day 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and on day 13 (a Friday, no less), as best we can tell, Satan fell, and caused Eve to sin, and then Adam, causing all three (along with all of Satan's angels) to be cast out of heaven (aka Eden).

 

[Apple7]

Yet Jesus said He created man at the beginning of creation. Day 6 out of 7000 years is at the beginning. 6 billion years (or however long) into a 13.4 billion year old universe is not at the beginning.

'At the beginning' would be day 1...NOT day 6.

 

[JudgeRightly]

'At the beginning' would be day 1...NOT day 6.

Week 1 is the first week of the universe's existence. Or are you calling Jesus a liar?

 

[Lon]

Well given that's about 80% of the population in my country, it's a fairly wide church. There must be a few who aren't trustworthy.

Yowch. Are you sure, at 80%, you aren't a dupe? You'll have to forgive me, but I know, beyond doubt, God exists and, as I've said, atheism is entirely too arrogant and founded in arrogance and ignorance. You nor the other 80 in 100 people there are the actuator of truth. Can't be. A (don't) gnostic (know) is the proper position for ignorant people (again not a slam, I'm trying to get you to see the bigger picture).

It's tricky with PhDs. On the one hand a scientist needs to have had very specific training and experience that makes them an expert in whatever field it is, but on the other hand a PhD qualifies you to comment on only a very narrow area of science. PhDs can certainly be called authorities, but no ones word should be taken as gospel, so ultimately the PhD is not relevant to determining what the scientific consensus is, or even what the evidence says and fails to say. There are a lot of creationists out there with STEM PhDs in fields unrelated to their favourite topics in creationism. I am always skeptical about books that add PhD after the author's name, because that is not the convention used commonly in science. It is most often used to sell self-help books or creationist works to impressionable people. But I did think earlier today that I find myself repeating the same explanations to different people, so perhaps a series of blogs could cut down my typing.

Again, an MA arguing with a PhD? :nono: He/she has spent the time and put in the dues. Having done half the work at this point, I value the hard work.

That would be very unusual, but I guess you can believe in ghosts while dismissing gods...

You would need to explain that to me in more detail.

Stuart

There are a couple of them who have come and gone on TOL. Start a thread in the religion or other section. It'd probably be a fascinating conversation.

 

[Apple7]

Week 1 is the first week of the universe's existence. Or are you calling Jesus a liar?

Literal is literal.

Having second thoughts...?

 

[Lon]

So what you're telling me is that you believe that Jesus could tell you about up quarks and down quarks? And how they make up subatomic particles?

Colossians 1:17 :doh: John 15:5 etc. etc.

And if so, when did he acquire this knowledge? Did he have it always? If so, did baby Jesus know subatomic physics?

Luke 2:52 :think: Important segue question: Was/is Jesus God in your understanding? :think:

Same question to George

▼

Col 1:16-17KJV

 

[Lon]

I think it is reasonable. Any of us going back to medieval times and speaking to an educated person of the time would be amazed at their knowledge of theology.

It is a difficult comparison given what is available for different generations. None of them would know about DNA. None of us would relate well to the death penalty for heresy, so you are talking about removing one or the other from their contexts. I believe this kind of thinking is good, but necessarily superficial because it is but speculative.

Along a similar line: Native Americans were often called savages, but a lot of medicines and agriculture understanding came from them.

In case I wasn't clear, I wasn't referring to different precipitation rates, merely to the claim that the annual layers would be the same thickness all the way down. The increasing thinness with depth is one of the first things someone casually reading about ice cores would learn, but the website cited gave a calculation of sorts that assumed no difference. You would expect that an object buried in the Greenland ice even five years ago would be several metres down, but the last thousand years of ice core at the bottom of the deepest core might only occupy a metre or two in height.

Similar to taking us out of our context and transplanting us in medieval ages, or vise versa, there are always assumptions with anything regarding 'time.' Time, even "millions of years" is a construct for understanding. Being a construct, it is subject to buying into a speculative nature. None of us were there. Scientists often get caught up in formal operational thinking, but your 5 senses are not all there is. I just watched an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy. In it, an actor/scientist joked that everything is made of chemicals and if it weren't it wouldn't exist. :nono: It is like a blind man denying red. It is an untenable non-observation. By the same token, how can any human being possibly deny the existence of God, given another's sight (or feel, or other sense) of Him? Can't. Doesn't make logical sense. Atheism is political, not science nor tenable observation. It is a declaration from egocentrism and disbelief. "Atheism" says more about you or whoever, than it does about actual conditions. I ALWAYS know I'm dealing with an egocentric individual at that point. Philosophy cannot be dead. Hawking wasn't seeing past the end of his 'proverbial' nose at that point. It is near idiot savant for him to have asserted it.

One that genuinely amuses me is these results from a survey which had questions about the bible and religious practices from across the world:

Also egocentricity. More in a moment...

{Christians don't score well on their own religious facts}

Spoiler

Some of this is and should be expected. You find it humorous. I rather, find it needs investigation and explanation and those make sense.
I'm actually encouraged a bit by the numbers because 1) Christians make up more than atheists or Mormons, or Jews. That means the numbers here lie a little bit. If you take 20 Jews, 20 atheists, and ONLY 20 Christians, the representative level isn't there. Nor does this interpret 'why' others would do better. Jesus, Himself, said He came to confound the wise. If this stat were off, the wise wouldn't be confounded. I'm not talking about anti-intellectualism with such, nor calling black - white. I'm saying there are explanations for why you see these statistics.

Without confounding you (homage to your wisdom), a lot of Christians are not as intelligent as you are. That IS the beauty of Christianity. You don't HAVE to be a brain surgeon. That some of us are or could be? Of course Jesus never intended to keep intelligent people out. It is simply a religion that can and does reach everybody. Think also about 'the masses.' 80% Atheists? Do you believe 80% have above average intelligence as well (you are only 4 points above the U.S. and the percentile of 3.2 GPA and above is rather small). Imho, it means even if you are not, most of your public are about the same regarding being crowd followers rather than thinker. I'd speculate a good number of your 'atheists' actually aren't but by 'acceptance' rather than thought out conviction (would be an interesting study against the back drop of egocentrism).

Or do you mean must not? Herod was already dead by the time of the Census of Quirinius, so either the slaughter of the innocents or the trip to Bethlehem is fiction, or both. That should be enough for now. Maybe I should write a blog that summarises all the examples I have posted in the past. I could even ask Ask Mr. Religion for a critique of it to include in the blog.

:nono: That is a 'hasty' judgement, not a scholastic one. Surely you've read the counterpoints?

No, it's just that I usually do my homework before posting.

Like your hasty, quick'n'dirty just ▲just above▲ :think:

Er, I don't understand what the point is.

Very simple. You CANNOT assert I've never seen Bigfoot, by example. ALL you can assert is that YOU haven't seen Bigfoot/sasquatch. That's it. A-sasquatch is an untenable position. It CANNOT be defended properly as a position. It is a stand on sand. Surely you and 80% of Swedes are more intelligent than making a stand on shaky ground like that?

I disagree strongly. The one thing I am always open to is unambiguous evidence.

I disagree strongly on what is 'ambiguous.' Love exists. You nor 80% of Swedes could possibly convince me otherwise. Love is certainly an intangible with 5 senses. It is, however, tangible and imminent.

Sorry you have completely lost me there.

"A-sasquatch. I don't believe there is a sasquatch but I have NO audacity to be 'a-sasquatch.' None.

There appears to be quite a bit of speculation on the internet about the IQ difference. Not sure if any of it means very much.

When we are looking at statistic, either way, it is always like this. I agree, none of it means much, but when we are talking about mass-thinking, it is always good to at least look at what is out there and (especially for me) 'why?'.

Is that an American expression? I am trying to guess what you mean.

Projection. We often project from our own worldview upon another.

 

[KingdomRose]

Hold on a second, sunshine. The Bible says "six days." You explain your assertion that it does not say "six days."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I didn't say that it does not say "six days." Don't twist what I said. My point was that a "day" does not mean 24 hours in length. Not here in Genesis. A "day" means a period of time of unspecified length, just as when someone says, "In my father's day..." Are they talking about a single 24-hour day in their father's life? No! Then why is it so difficult for you to understand that a creative "day" is not necessarily 24 hours in length?

You still haven't explained Genesis 2:4 that speaks of "the day that God created the heavens and the earth." Hello.