Perhaps you should educate yourself. Your poor arguments against our position is evidence that you have no idea what you're arguing against.
Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
I just flesh out the half-baked, pie-in-the-sky notions which you YEC's espouse.
How do I know for certain that nothing happened to the animals after "the fall" (itself a term of Christian mythology)?
Because nothing happened to Adam or Eve. No genetic change. No mental change. No spiritual change. Nothing. Nada.
Adam and Eve were exactly as they were after they ate as before. Sure they felt guilt, and shame and "knew evil" as well as good, because God booted them out of their sheltered employment.
But physically, nothing changed in their genes or in their dentition, and neither did it for the animals.
"The fall" is a myth.
All that happened is that they were cut off from the Tree of Life, which animals most likely had no access to either, so both man and animals were made mortal of flesh, and now, cut off from the Tree of Life, they had no way of sustaining their fleshly, mortal lives.
Jose Fly
New member
Right after you explain how disagreement among "Darwinists" over plate tectonics (which by itself is hilarious) is problematic, but disagreement among Christian creationists over things like the age of the earth, the mechanism behind the flood, and the shape of the earth isn't.
Lon
Well-known member
"Wow" especially without the where-with-all? :think: Simply "correctly' assess your own or anybody else's prowess and DESPITE whether it is higher or lower, you won't get caught up in 'arrogant.' Correctly assessing academic prowess is NOT, in fact, arrogant. Sorry AGAIN for the need to correct you. I'm not at all apologizing for a teachable moment, but here and prior, for the necessity of hitting your fragile ego. It is necessary for correction. -Lon
Ah, the snarky again. Do YOU realize 'air' isn't just oxygen? What did they teach you in school? I realize articles to date are hyped on the 'organisms that don't need oxygen' but it is a misnomer and hype/sensationalism. Worse? You picked this hype to 'try' and make points. Snarky ones. You failed. :wave:
Lon
Well-known member
Logic is simply word math. It is when propositions add up to a whole (just like in mathematics and often provable by numerals).
IOW, it is a declaration of the 'way things add up' (math).
Yes, logic does exist between Saturn and Jupiter. In what way? However you add it up correctly, what you are comparing. The 'logical' things between them is always there. It doesn't change unless the numbers related to them change. You don't have to exist for those relationships to exist and maintain, against your assertion. Logic isn't man-made. It is RATHER man-observed/discovered. No man can do anything to change its principles (much like mathematics). 2+2 will always equal 4, Jupiter is larger than Saturn. Logical "if/then" statements are mathematical expressions.
It was unfortunate that Hawking said 'philosophy is dead.' Many have been led astray by his poor observation. He was flat-wrong and it is equivalent of saying 'mathematics are no longer necessary.'
Lon
Well-known member
Isaiah 65:25 :up: IOUAE, please pay attention and read your Bible. -Lon
I've heard this said before. Can you explain why, a bit further? Thanks
Yep, you add to your wow. Especially as you dismissed without argument the work of an entire book by a well-respected academic, who really just graphed the decline in rates of so many perceived ills that social conservatives are inclined to beat up. Pinker presents 72 such long-scale trends in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature. Some examples from his book and elsewhere:
The long-term decline in homicide rates:
The decline in use of judicial torture in major countries:
The decline in legal slavery:
The decline in executions in the US:
The decline in deaths from interstate wars, international civil wars, and civil wars:
From Bureau of Statistics data, US crime trends:
From Johnson's Archive, the abortion rate in the US:
If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Stuart
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: Statistics are comparisons that somebody puts together to tell a story they want to tell. The problem is often those statistics don't really tell the tale the guy who dug them up is trying to get across. Mark Twain said they were damnably worse than lies. Cowards have always shot people who can't shoot back. More people are starving today. More Christians, by some reports, have died this past century and this, than 19 centuries of Christianity combined. Please stop buying 'statistical' rhetoric. All statistics, including mine, need BETTER investigating and inquiry. Be a BETTER scientist as well.
Lon
Well-known member
Irony. You are the one that looks more and more foolish for this. You are wasting my time with bald unimpressive assertion thinly veiling attempts at personal attack that fall far short. YOU are seen petty for it. It reflects on me, not at all. Sorry about that. Grow up a little bit.
Done both.
You're obviously not interested in this subject.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I agree that it is possible for a statistic that shows a decrease per 100,000 people can also represent an increase in absolute numbers because of an increasing population. But it is not possible to establish a trend over a long period fairly unless there is a reference to the whole population. On a per capita basis christianity is dying, even though the absolute numbers of christians is rising. I would think the better indicator of any factor in a democracy is the per capita statistic because it gives you a more complete picture.
On per capita data, overall, there has never been a safer time to be a human. Of course that reality doesn't fit some agendas, so there is objection.
Stuart
6days
New member
Gap theorists place themselves in a position of superiority over Scripture. They essentially interpret Scripture, using the belief in an old earth as their source of absolute authority. (Eisigesis rather than exegetical interpretation). They ignore historical context and rules of grammar. Gap'ists add to Scripture (ex. Lucifer flood) and they reject Scripture (ex. they reject God made the sun and stars on day 4). Here are just a few ways in which the gap theory is heretical, and / or a false belief.Lon said:
1. The gap theory is heretical because they believe human like creatures in the past suffered and died, and that death was not the result of sin. (Gap'ists don't accept what 1 Cor. 15:21 and Rom. 5 plainly state about death). Gap theorists often reject that physical death is part of the curse...even though it plainly says so in Gen. 3:19
2. The gap theory is false / heretical in that they reject everything was created in six days. (They usually believe Genesis 1 was a re-do). See Ex. 20:11
3. The gap theory is false / heretical in that they reject Gen. 1:31. God tells us everything was "very good", but gap'ists believe billions of years of death and sufferting had already occurred, and that Satan was already 'god' of this earth.
4. The gap theory is false in that they impose artificial (and false) definitions to "tohu wabohu" (formless and empty)suggesting it was a chaotic waste. But, there was nothing chaotic... God created / formed and filled the earth over the course of six days.
5. The gap theory is false in that they impose artificial (and false) definitions to "bara" and "asah" (create and made) in Genesis 1. The words are interchangeable in Hebrew and used interchangeably in the Old Testament.
6. The gap theory is false because they insist that that in Gen. 1:2 should be translated "BECAME (hayetha) waste and void". Their insistence upon that word is not based on Hebrew grammar/ translation, but instead because of their priori belief in old earth. (More than 25 top translation teams used the word 'was... not the word, 'became. http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm
7. The gap theory is false because they insist Satan's rebellion was on earth, throwing it into chaos and causing a global flood. Again, this not in scripture, but simply an attempt to add secular beliefs into God's Word. (death before sin).
8. The gap theory is heretical because it destroys the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection. If physical death was part of God's "very good" creation, then it really is not the "final enemy"... and Jesus would not have to defeat physical death.
9. The gap theory is heretical because it denies the plain words of Jesus and several Bible authors who referred to Genesis as easy to understand history. For example Jesus referred to humanity existing from a time near the foundation of the world...or The beginning of creation.
10. The gap theory is false because it denies the obvious attempt of the author of Genesis 1 that this was the absolute beginning; not a re-do. (Such as the word 'bereshith'... or the grammar of 'Day 1'
Something interesting in the Hebrew to help confirm Day 1 was a re-creation....
I'm going to use Young's Literal Translation to show this, since most translations don't properly reflect an important nuance.
Genesis 1
8 ...."day second."
13 .... "day third".
19 .... "day fourth."
23 ...."day fifth."
31 ... "day the sixth."
In the Hebrew, these are called 'ordinal'numbers.
But... Why is Day 1 not an ordinal number...IE. Why doesn't the Hebrew call it 'the first day'?
Again Youngs Literal translation says this...
Genesis 1:5 "and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- DAY ONE"
"Day one"... not, 'first day'. This is significant because it is now a 'cardinal' number in the Hebrew.
There was no other days before this time. And, it was so far thee only day. There was only that one day.... Thus the cardinal number is apt.
11. Also re science, gap'ists think the fossils formed over billions of years in multiple layers; then a so called Lucifer flood caused the earth to become formless wasteland, yet preserved the layers. Science shows us that belief is silly.
iouae
Well-known member
Every Passover I commemorate the death of Christ, taking the bread (body) and wine (blood) of Christ.
His broken body is for our healing. Christ could have died painlessly, but experiencing the pain and suffering which He did on the cross, gave Him empathy for our sicknesses and physical weaknesses.
Christ died on the cross. Above him was written the charge sheet of the person crucified (handwriting of ordinances which was against the one crucified) and it read "sins of everyone else in the world".
Thus Christ died in our stead. To Him was IMPUTED our death, and from Him was IMPUTED eternal life to us.
Also, his blood covered/atoned/whited-out our charge sheet so that it can no longer be read - leaving us without charges against us.
But mostly, from the death of Christ, I learn how invested God is in this project of making beings in His image, after His likeness. Having God die for His project in such a gruesome way, shows me that God is not playing games, but has invested all in this project.
iouae
Well-known member
6days
New member
Thanks for answer iouae.iouae said:
Why did Jesus have to die...shed blood? Why couldn't Jesus just grant forgiveness, and eternal life to believers without dying Himself? IOW...If physical death is just part of God's plan for humanity; then why did Jesus have to defeat physical death? You would agree I think that physical death is a consequence of first Adam's sin? Would you then agree that the genealogies from first Adam to Last Adam are important, and that Christ died only for the descendants of first Adam (who existed about 6,000 years ago)?
iouae
Well-known member
God is God. Nothing ever forces Him to do anything. Jesus did not have to do anything - unless the Father wished it. Suppose God asked Christ to die for the sins of the world. This would have been one of hundreds of possible plans of salvation - all of which would have worked - only having Christ die was the best plan - hence the one carried out.
Another reason Jesus died apart from those I mentioned is that a good leader leads from the front. Having Christ die as the first martyr set an example to Paul, the apostles and all other Christian martyrs who would follow.
Thus, as unsatisfying as it may appear to you, there is no legal reason why Christ HAD to die.
Enoch was saved long before Christ ever died, as were all the OT saints. If Christ had never died they would still have been saved. Sure they were saved in anticipation of Christ dying, but this was not an absolute necessity, as evidenced by the fact that David etc. loved God, was a friend of God, was eternal life worthy - despite Jesus not having died.
And yes, only those descendants of Adam and Eve seem to be saved. There were iterations of hominids before Adam, the Neanderthals, Denisonians etc. but no indication of them being offered salvation. God was still experimenting with hominids, putting a sense of religion, superstition, sociability and altruism in them, and by Genesis 1:3 after seeing that the Neanderthals were almost perfect, God reduced the brain size and musculature of the Neanderthals a bit, and was ready to begin project "Save modern man" beginning with Adam.
While there was some interbreeding with them in Europe, modern homo sapiens is not descended from Neanderthals.
Stuart