Evening and Morning before the sun....

[wattsr1]

So you "dare" me, huh. You must enjoy taunting me because we've been down this road many times before
and still you keep coming back with the same ol' song. As Steve Martin would say, "One more time ..."

There are matters of science and then there are matters of faith and then there are matters where the two are mixed together. People like yourself can't distinguish between these or choose not to distinguish. The former is ignorance, the latter is being willfully ignorant (you decide where you fit).

As an example, the following assertion is regarded by most as a scientific "fact" : Humans are the product of billions of years of evolutionary processes. The entire thing began with a common, single-celled 'goo' that over the eons produced every living thing alive today including man.

Oh good.

So you wish to finally discuss this Jorge and take the next step beyond where you pulled out all that time ago?

Why is "Humans are the product of billions of years ..." not a scientific statement?

Is "Domestic dogs are the product of microevolution from wolves" a sceintific statement?

What about "Snow forms when water vapor crystallizes in the upper atmosphere"?

What about "Mesons hold the atomic nucleus together by bringing about an exchange of ..."?

That is, what is a scientific statement or science to you? It cannot be about "observability" because you have had that one shot from under you. It cannot be about "repeatability" - you lost there as well. It cannot be about "metaphysical neutrality" because I am waiting for you to answer many questions on that one.

So what, exactly, do you mean?


And if the Bible is full of literal, metaphorical and literally metaphorical statements - by what rules do you decide which is which? And if you can say it is not up to you to understand/justify every claim you make about the Bible, why do you suggest that your opponents must, nevertheless, be able to do so?



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

[snip]

So don't play 'holier-than-thou' over your fellow christians. Your beliefs are originating by the teachings of men, just like theirs; only theirs are also in accordance with the WORK of their God, as we perceive it.

That is all.

I sometimes imagine Christ returning to earth and we atheists get to heaven and Jorge, JM, Samurai go to hell.

We get to heaven because we say "Good heavens, we were wrong. Sorry."

They get to hell because they outrightly deny him. He does not match their expectations. After all, every expectation they had was based on their interpretation of the Bible.



Regards, Roland

[Warcraft3]

Fair enough. I wouldn't be too hard on Samurai, though. If you listen closely, he's on the ball.

I'm not trying to be hard on him....

And I do not think he is on the ball at all. He assumes things about me that he can not possibly know one way or the other,,,,

You may recall that I referred to that fact in an earlier post. Specifically, NO ONE has all the answers -- now or ever. Therefore, people that leave YEC using the excuse of "YEC can't answer this or that" are simply not with the program. It comes down to choice and WHY that choice "satisfies".

Right...and my reasons for leaving were because of YECs answers as a whole to the entire Bible...not just one or two issues. It was an overall scriptural issue that I had with YEC....

It's worth reminding you here that the only answer that I've ever gotten is that these verses are "allegorical or mythical or the writings of primitive men" and, therefore, cannot be taken at face value. IOW, whenever something in Scripture cannot be squeezed into their evolutionary views they simply dismiss it, just like a magician makes an elephant disappear. I bring this up again because it's fairly easy to detect something "fishy" in those actions. I mean, 'whenever it doesn't fit then make it go away' --- does that seem kosher to you?

Well I do not take it to be allegorical or mythical or the writings of primitive men....although some of the arguments that the allegorical guys are pretty god scriptural arguments, but they aren't good enough to convince me.

In the meantime, I'm glad to hear that you don't believe that man evolved through purely natural processes. Just remember what I've said about the 'slippery slope' : it starts with a little of this and then a little of that until, before you realize it, it's hard to tell where the line is that divides what you believe in certain areas from what materialistic Naturalists believe in those same areas.

As far as I understand his views neither does Glenn Morton.....he discusses the "Adam" issue on his website....

Samurai has brough this up and he's absolutely correct : it should be very easy to tell apart a Christian from a non-Christian -- no one should have to squint. If on matters of faith we all believe the same thing then what's the difference? You may be thinking, "But these things are not a matter of faith, they are a matter of scientific evidence." Wrong! Big Bang, macroevolution, billions of years -- all of these and more belong far more to the faith realm than to the science realm. But that would take us into another topic.

Well from my perspective evolution and billions of years seems to have the weight of evidence on their side....although there are certain areas of cosmology that do seem to lack evidence.....

[Samurai]

We aren't getting very far - are we? You have taken a stance and will not be moved. So be it. But please do not then make the absurd claim that stance is based on any kind of reason or science. It is not. And bag the "I've learned these theories" line, you are not the slightest bit interested in what the data or the theories are, your mind is made up and will not be confused by the facts.

Jim. I think our definition of facts are up for debate. I am a high functioning mutidegreed specialist doctor with an excellent understanding in science. I know what a fact is. I also know what conjecture is. Where something is not provable…. Let me repeat that word… provable… and it is in contradiction to God’s word, I will not believe it. God was perfectly capable of making Himself clear and He did. You try and make the Bible a confusing maze in historical and scientific matters and then present that to the world as worthy material. That is internally consistent.

Sweety, we are talking about biblical interpretation not flying 747s. He will teach you concerning all things pertaining to Him.
Good you recognize this statement applies to understanding spiritual things.

Well Duh…

Now the problem for you is that you want to be able to make statements about the natural world derived from a specific interpretation of Genesis.

I’m not interpreting anything. If I said “I made a watch in 6 days” and English is your first language , it requires no interpretation. It is self explanatory.

And while the spiritual truths taught in Genesis are not up for much debate, the correlation of the text to the history of the universe simply is not clear. And trying to make that correlation without investigating and understanding nature is very much like trying to fly a 747 by prayer alone. That is what you are missing.

What you are missing is this: The Bible is internally consistent. The Holy Spirit will (to those with an open ear) guide us through it. The historical narratives are accurate as is everything else. I am not suggesting scientific endvour be thrown aside, but mindless meanderings into the philosophical and unprovable realm of evolution and cosmology aren’t of any benefit to society. Again I will believe God’s account over man’s as He made it. He was there.

History is riddled with failed attempts by well meaning Christians trying to draw correlations from scripture with the natural world without first learning what the true state of the natural world is. But unfortunately, you and many like you are not interested in learning from the mistakes of the past. Galileo should have been a sufficient lesson in this regard, but clearly each generation must learn for themselves.

Again, ad hominem attacks do little to advance your case. You know nothing about my knowledge of the past, present or future. Numerous scientists that embraced the authority of the Bible were responsible for many advancements. Even Galileo rejected his heliocentric ideas in his later years.

No -we are not. We are talking about what the true structure and history of this cosmos is. And this promise may well apply - if one is willing to learn from nature what nature has to teach. But not if one ignores nature in the learning process.

The tue nature of the cosmos and its history is in the Word (earth first. Sun moon stars later). Read it . Believe it. If you worship the creation and ignore the Creator you end up in error.

There is no Biblical principle from which we can expect to learn about the natural world w/o studying it. The Bible's first purpose is to teach us about spiritual things, not physical things.

Hogwash. This is the typical stance of the watered down, "I don’t believe all the Bible" crowd. So when it lists the no. of sheep this or that person had, we must think it can’t be accurate as it pertains to the physical. Rubbish.


Actually, you are the one twisting the meaning. Science comes into play in interpreating scripture only where scripture speaks concerning what science understands.

The issue is where and in whom is your faith? Clearly yours is in man and not God. Where the two are in opposition you should be choosing God’s word. Science whilst excellent in some areas (where you can actually conduct scientific experiments), is way off in others. The history of the universe and evolution are to prime examples. These areas would be better termed philosophy. Ps. You are aware that the modern notions of the origin of the universe and evolution have their roots in Babylonian and Kabbalistic religions don’t you?

But any interpretation which leads to physical contradiction is incorrect.
Sure. The Reality of my world is entirely consistent with the Bible. I see the design and loving nature of God in the world around me albeit with an overlay of the curse. Like begats like. The fables you like to pretend are reality (evolution and big bang) are nothing but stories by clever but foolish men. They have no bearing in my day to day life.

You do not seem to be able to process more than a binary on/off kind of reasoing here. And I am not sure I can find an example that will make this clear to you. Nevertheless, just because a superficial reading of Genesis fits with a 24 hour day understanding does not mean that will survive closer inspection.

It has survived and will always survive, as that is the God given truth, despite your hard heart rejecting the truth in favour of an unprovable lie.

You don’t need a scientist to tell you what bits of the bible are acceptable and which aren’t. If I said I built a house in 6 days and rested on the seventh, it is self explanatory.
That is because 'day' has a clear context in your statement. If you are in an environment where what a 'day' is is not clearly defined, then I would not know precisely what you mean.

I am sorry, but we are all in an enviroment where we understand what a day is. The Jews were when God says in Exodus He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

There was no literal evening, nor no literal morning that first day.

It was. We had light, dark, night, day. Called so by God Himself. Same before and same after the creation of the sun. These are the key ingredients in defining the unit of time in question. God is clearly s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g it out for you and you still refuse to believe Him.

We haveEach and every term used is in some way a symbol or a metaphor - yet you insist it must be literal. This is totally illogical.

OK. They are all symbols and metaphors. The sun being made after the earth is symbolic for what? The plants being made before the sun is symbolic for what? Eve being made after Adam is symbolic for what.

They are all symbols and idioms of something extremely obvious. Evolution has been shot out of the water as a possibility by the Bible.

Why can I be so certain?
1) His word is contrary to it (please fit your evolutionary script into the biblical account of Eve as Jorge suggested)
2) God has spoken to me on this issue and confirmed His word.

I will never be swayed.
This pretty much sums it up then. As I said above, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with the facts.

Absolutely my mind is made up. you don't think I come here to be persuaded do you? Faith is meant to be solid. My house thanks to God is on the Rock.
Well I have some facts. They are these; Evolution isn’t a fact and neither is Big Bang. God has spoken to me. Has He ever spoken to you? I mean really spoken to you? If He had you would be more certain of that than your computer before you, when you read this.

The reason for discussing the theory and data is simple. They are in complete contradition to your interpretation.

Correct on 2 counts. You only have theories and the bible says they are rubbish.

>And it denies the fallability of the human in understanding the Bible.

You exemplify that, when being unable to understand : For in 6 days…

You can only maintain this view by assuming the scientific evidence is flawed, yet you will not debate it - a good sign deep down you know it is not.

Rubbish. I can’t get into a long diatribe discussing evolution etc. We both know it is an unhealthy mix of philosophy and science.

I can tell you honestly, deep down, I KNOW, that the Genesis account is 100% true and accurate in its entirety when read at face value. I KNOW because God has told me clearly that this is the case. I KNOW , because this account read at face value is entirely consistent with the remainder of the Bible including Exodus 20.11. This account directly contradicts the evolutionary model in the order of the creation of things. Jesus quotes Genesis numerous times and at no time, does He allude to it being simile, allegory or anything other than historical narrative.

…>But this is essentially a speculative issue anyway - we do not have Adam and Eve's bones nor any artifacts attributed directly to them, and so we have no way of knowing anything specific about the events describing them in Genesis other than what Genesis tells us.

Yes and Genesis is as clear as mud to your eyes. Please, Jim Genesis is very specific in regards to Adam and Eve.




I don’t think an ongoing discussion will be possible. You accept mans word is superior to the very plain, matter of fact historical narrative God has given us. Sure you have your excuses, but they will only ever be excuses for unbelief.

You didn't make any comment in relation to my previous post which I will relay again.


Rubbish. The world is quite capable of laughing the gospel to scorn on its own. Taking God at His word I will never be ashamed. It is God’s opinion that counts not people. God saves them, not me by the way. You said "Taking the Lord at His word dresses up the gospel as a clown". Nonsense. You do that. In your version a day, when it is defined by morning and evening, isn’t a day. Nope. For in 6 days… doesn’t mean 6 days. Plant life came about before the sun according the bible, yet you believe we can still say the word is accurate to unbelievers ie compatable with evo? The Bible says a woman was made from Adam’s rib but evolution had men and women arising together. The Bible has the sun/moon/stars after the earth, hardly compatable with modern cosmological arguments. With just a few points highlighted you can’t claim the bible to unbelievers as an authority if it to be contorted in these few examples to accommodate the modern unprovable, conflicting arguments.

Do with this as you will. I grow wary of this back and forth and have other things I need to be devoting my time too. I have shown you the way. If you don't want to believe me or my testimony that God has spoken to me, so be it. I would only encourage you to set aside your certainty and really seek God and ask for His guidance. If you really want to know, He will show you. There is much we are told from when we are young by the world, science and tradition that we grow to believe is proven without realising we are indoctrinated. Don't be happy there


Stop. Be silent and sit before God. There is all to often an eagerness (out of pride, ego, certainty you are right etc) to want to better the "opposition" on these boards. How about some prayer? You can claim like Warcraft that I am arrogant and think I am more spiritual than thou etc. Well, if that were the least of my sins that would be marvelous. I am all of the above and worse. Yes I am a sinner saved by grace alone. I am merely passing on what God has shown me and it is therefore not a matter of private interpretation.

If you wanna have the last say and pull apart my words feel free. I'll let you have the last say.

Ciao

[Faid]

Samurai, I am a doctor too. Not multidegreed (I still have 3 months to complete my residency) and I am an ortho, but I still ( :) ) have a fair grasp of science, compared to some highschoolers that post here pretending to know everything (but never discussing it).

So, I hope you can forego your old, used pre-emptive strike strategy of "I'll let you have the last word" (What would your colleagues say if you used that in a convention, I wonder?) And answer a few questions before you leave.

I won't "take your words apart" myself; They are too many and most statements just need not be adressed, since they are just different ways of saying "nuh-huh". But I'd like to know a few things, because some of your comments startled me.

First of all, what do you mean by "provable"? You should know as well as I do, that there is no definite proof in science. There are theories that work based on their successful explanation of the world. It is evidence, not proof that helps science progress.

You also say that, if science makes a statement that is not "provable" by scientific experiment (what other kind is there?) and is against the "word of God", you will take God's word over that of fallible men. OK, let's go with that. What about statements that ARE "provable", but are against this "Word of God" (that is actually an interpretation of it)? You know those exist, right? Take helocentricism. It is clearly and indisputably against a literal meaning of the Bible in that regard- especially since you seem to believe that the Bible was meant to instruct us on the physical properties of the Universe as well.
Why do you accept heliocentricism, against a literal meaning of the "Word"? Or don't you? Your comment about Galileo was a bit puzzling. Are you a Geocentricist, Samurai?

And let's not get into the whole sky being solid thing...

As a side note: I don't know where you got that "Big Bang = Pagan legends" theory. Babylonian Creation myths are quite alike the Genesis account, with waters above and below the Earth, solid skies etc. As for Kabbalah, are you sure you want to go there? The whole notion of it is based in a literal interpretation of the Torah, that borders on OCD. And you also say that the Word is supposed to teach us more than just spiritual matters. So, setting aside your accepting Jesus Christ as a personal Lord and Savior (something most of your opponents here also do), your views is not that different from the Kabbalists. Please don't take it as an insult; I'm just making an observation (and, after all, you started it).

One final question: You say numerous times that God spoke to you and told you that evolution is rubbish. These are almost your exact words.

Did god really speak to you? In a literal way?

I am not questioning the truth of your experience, or the effect it had on you. I just want you to tell me if it was a literal voice- or was it something else? A revelation, a sudden enlightement of the mind and soul, a feeling of coming in contact with something? All these are indeed unique experiences, and could change one's life forever- but they are not literal voices coming out of nowhere.

Please understand that I am not questioning your sanity. I am simply trying to explain to you that a literal way of examining all statements can lead to problems, even when accepting that these statements are true. Your experience may have come from an omnipotent, infallible entity- but your mind is neither, and human language may be (like Chesterton said) inadequate to clearly describe it. So the word "spoke" is the best approximation for expressing what you felt. It can be true, and it can be a metaphor.
If we can accept the sincerity of your experience, and still understand that you did not literally hear voices, why can't you accept (like other theists) that the Bible is divinely inspired, even if it should not always be taken literally? Why wouldn't those divinely inspired authors of the Word feel the same way you felt, and still tell the truth in the best way possible?

Samurai, I have no personal involvement in theses issues. You can check my profile to see my stance. However, and like I said before, although I can relate to the beliefs of theists in general, I am unable to understand the stance some YECs maintain. It is like they worship a book, not a God. And they choose to ignore their god's own creation to do so.

Hopefully, before you leave, you will clarify these points for me.

[wattsr1]

I KNOW because God has told me clearly that this is the case.

Surely that God spoke to (some of) your opponents should be enough for you, given that you appear to think that God speaking to you should be enough for us?

I grow wary of this back and forth and have other things I need to be devoting my time too.

Nobody here made you do it.

There is much we are told from when we are young by the world, science and tradition that we grow to believe is proven without realising we are indoctrinated. Don't be happy there.

Since you appear to believe that “trust me” is good enough when it comes to us accepting your claims, then why do you object to the above - assuming it to be always true that is?

You can claim like Warcraft that I am arrogant and think I am more spiritual than thou…

As with Jorge - “By their fruits you will know them”?

If you wanna have the last say and pull apart my words feel free. I'll let you have the last say.

How nice.

Does this mean you are now prepared to discuss your claim that:-

“We see stars billions of light years away? really? Scientists tell us this but I have no way of knowing this to be true or untrue and they have no way of proving their assertions.“?




Regards, Roland

[oxmixmudd]

Jim. I think our definition of facts are up for debate. I am a high functioning mutidegreed specialist doctor with an excellent understanding in science. I know what a fact is. I also know what conjecture is. Where something is not provable…. Let me repeat that word… provable… and it is in contradiction to God’s word, I will not believe it.

I would love to debate the facts with you. But so far, you will not. You claim an excellent understanding of science, yet you dismiss all conclusions contrary to your a priori assumptions. Surely you understand this is not how science works. You follow the data, searching for the best conclusion which fits it.

You claim the evidence for age is not provable. That is true - nothing in science is provable.
But that does not mean that the evidence is not clear or substantial. If you understand probability and the basics of science, then you understand that an alignment of millions if not trillions of data points with a single hypothesis is for all practical purposes proof that hypothesis is true. And lest we get bogged down in generalities, the state of this universe is 100% consistent with a billion year history and can not be cleanly fit into any history less than that. Not only are the stars themselves too far away to be seen without that passage of time, they exist in relationships with each other that themselves require millions of years to form,(tidal tails in galaxies) or there exists the remnants of events which span multiple millions of years (A set of shockwaves exist in Andromeda(m31) the remnants of a collision between itself and satellite galaxy m32 some 200 million years in the past.)

On the Earth there exist structures such as ice packs and lake varves which tell of hundreds of thousands or millions of annual events, and which, even though formed by very different physical processes, record variations in structure at the same relatvie 'times' as implied by their forming process. There are meanders carved into solid rock with vertical wall and 180 degree turns (something impossible with the kinds of water velocities required to carve through the same rock in <10,000 years).

So you are at least stuck with the idea God put false histories and events into the universe to make it appear old.

But even more puzzling, given your approach to scripture and science, why then do you trust science to provide healing for the people you treat in your practive when the Bible says God is our healer, and that if anyone is sick we should call on the elders of the church to pray for us, and God will make us well? It is very, very clear this instruction in James. Why do you waste your time on the 'knowledge of men'? Do you not believe God means what He says there?

God was perfectly capable of making Himself clear and He did.

That is what we are trying to establish. You say the text is clear. But it is not clear at all what an 'evening' or a 'morning' would be in an evironment where the Earth has no form and the sun and sky do not even yet exist. For you to say this is clear is simply stubborness on your part - an inability to accept there is a flaw in your assumptions and a certain amount of simple intellectual dishonesty on your part.

You try and make the Bible a confusing maze in historical and scientific matters and then present that to the world as worthy material. That is internally consistent.

The contradictions between your interpretation and the witness of creation are very, very real. You just refuse to acknowledge them. I suppose that gives you a certain amount of power in an unmoderated debate - I can't make you look at the real data, and I can't make you acknowledge what is as plain as the nose on your face, but you are the one that has to live with that when all it said and done. And those observing with their minds not already made up also can see quite clearly the dishonesty with which you approach this issue.

I’m not interpreting anything. If I said “I made a watch in 6 days” and English is your first language , it requires no interpretation. It is self explanatory.

Actually, even this simple statement is not as clear as you would like it to be. Is that 6 work days (m-f,m) = 8 days. Is that 6 8hour 'days', 6 10 hour 'days', 6 4 hour 'days'. You see, the term 'day' when descibing the work we do is not sufficiently detailed give us a precise definition of what you are saying. And indeed, If I ordered a watch from you, depending on your sense of meaning and your working houly pay rate, I could make a good many false assumptions about how long it would take for me to receive said watch or how much it would cost. Also, if I was trying to determine how many watches you could make in a years time, I could also easily be off by a factor of 2.

But in this text, we do not have a clear context in which to evaluate what 'day' is. But one thing is clear - 'day' and 'night' in the first day are not primarily about time, they are about the creation of that which allows a day to be - light and dark. It may be a light/dark period of 24 hours, it may not be. I do not deny you 'could' be right in how you look at it. What I am saying is that from the text alone you can't know for sure if you are right. This is obvious, and again, by holding such a rigid stance on the issue and refusing do discuss any aspect of it beyond declaring yourself correct, you display a very real intellectual dishonesty and arrogance towards your own capability to know that which simply can't be know with certainty.

What you are missing is this: The Bible is internally consistent. The Holy Spirit will (to those with an open ear) guide us through it. The historical narratives are accurate as is everything else. I am not suggesting scientific endeavor be thrown aside,

Actually - you are. There is no way to claim the state of the Earth and Universe is consistent with a 10,000 year timeframe without discarding almost all of physics and astronomy.

but mindless meanderings into the philosophical and unprovable realm of evolution and cosmology aren’t of any benefit to society.

We can coun't rings in trees. We can count layers in lakes. We can observe the process that make them. And we can measure radioisotope ratios. Lake suigetsu has over 100,000 layers that today form annually. The layer count and c14 date for those layers to the limits of measurement precision match virtually 1:1, and. coincidently, match the c14/tree ring callibration curve data.

Further, as I have said over and over on these pages, there are records in the cosmos of grand events like galactic collisions which take place of millions of years. Just in this galaxy there are millions of structures that imply huge amounts of time - far more that a few thousand years.

Indeed, i would love to see how you could dismiss the specifics of this data as 'unprovable philosophical meanderings'. My guess is you can not make a reasonable case that the implications or logic are flawed. You will simply have to ignore it, declariing it invalid with no logical reason for doing so.

Again I will believe God’s account over man’s as He made it. He was there.

Again, this is not man's account you are rejecting. It is the clear implication of the state of creation you are rejecting. The issue is this, you allow your reason to function as you read the Bible, but you must turn it off and declare it invalid when looking at creation. It is absolutely true that the most obvious implication of the observable state of creation is great age. And you could not prove that statement wrong, though I'd love to see you try.

... But unfortunately, you and many like you are not interested in learning from the mistakes of the past ...

Again, ad hominem attacks do little to advance your case. You know nothing about my knowledge of the past, present or future.

You call that ad hominem? My goodness! Have you noticed that with every other paragraph you accuse me of compromising my faith, distorting God's Word. You have treated me as an apostate with almost every paragraph. You assume I do not pray, I do not seek God, that I'm placing man's opinion above God's - yet you have yet to address any of my substantive points. Indeed, any most points I have made are met only with accusations and derision of my faith, not my data or my logic. So just how do you define ad hominim?

Numerous scientists that embraced the authority of the Bible were responsible for many advancements. Even Galileo rejected his heliocentric ideas in his later years.

Yes - one of them is Francis Collins - evolutionist. He proclaims His faith un Christ unabashadly. Has written a best selling book to that effect with national if not global influence. And apparently conducts seminars where his proclamation of his faith is somewhat disturbing to his atheistic counterparts. Yet I suppose he isn't too good of a Christian in your world.

BTW - it appears you are a geocentrist. If that is so, that would explain quite a bit.

Are you John Martin?

If not, are you a geocentrist?

This does wear on - that I would agree. I will now skip to that which you seemed to feel important enough to emphasize a second time:

Rubbish. The world is quite capable of laughing the gospel to scorn on its own.

Yes it is - why give it a legitimate reason to do so?

Taking God at His word I will never be ashamed.

That is laudable. But at the same time you are an 'ambassador for Christ'. If you present the Gospel in a clown suit, you aren't functioning very will as a credible ambassador.

It is God’s opinion that counts not people. God saves them, not me by the way.

That is probably a good thing ...

You said "Taking the Lord at His word dresses up the gospel as a clown". Nonsense.

Misquoting me is not lending credibility to your discussion skills. I said proposing the world is only 10,000 years old dresses the gospel up as a clown. Can you show me a verse in the Bible that gives an age for the Earth? You arrive at an age through a series of assumptions, not a direct reading of the text. And you ignore obvious clues from the text and creation that those assumptions are false. In doing so, you dress up the gospel as a clown and present an unnecessary stumbling block to faith.

You do that. In your version a day, when it is defined by morning and evening, isn’t a day. Nope. For in 6 days… doesn’t mean 6 days. Plant life came about before the sun according the bible, yet you believe we can still say the word is accurate to unbelievers ie compatable with evo? The Bible says a woman was made from Adam’s rib but evolution had men and women arising together. The Bible has the sun/moon/stars after the earth, hardly compatable with modern cosmological arguments. With just a few points highlighted you can’t claim the bible to unbelievers as an authority if it to be contorted in these few examples to accommodate the modern unprovable, conflicting arguments.[/COLOR][/I][/B]

I've got news for you. Presenting those statements as you have and as superficially as you have does not give anyone confidence in the authority of the Bible. To claim that is the correct reading of the text is to send whoever you are talking to on to the next religion on their list. You must either address the science which renders such statements absurd, or address the interpretive mode which produces such absurdity. You appear unwilling to do neither.

Do with this as you will. I grow wary of this back and forth and have other things I need to be devoting my time too. I have shown you the way. If you don't want to believe me or my testimony that God has spoken to me, so be it. I would only encourage you to set aside your certainty and really seek God and ask for His guidance. If you really want to know, He will show you. There is much we are told from when we are young by the world, science and tradition that we grow to believe is proven without realising we are indoctrinated. Don't be happy there

Stop. Be silent and sit before God. There is all to often an eagerness (out of pride, ego, certainty you are right etc) to want to better the "opposition" on these boards. How about some prayer? You can claim like Warcraft that I am arrogant and think I am more spiritual than thou etc. Well, if that were the least of my sins that would be marvelous. I am all of the above and worse. Yes I am a sinner saved by grace alone. I am merely passing on what God has shown me and it is therefore not a matter of private interpretation.

If you wanna have the last say and pull apart my words feel free. I'll let you have the last say.

Ciao

That is all good advice (the seeking God for wisdom part) but it applies equally to you as it does to me. For you to assume I do not already do that on a daily basis is arrogance, and incorrect. Now consider this:

There are over 30,000 protestant denominations on this Earth. And each one thinks they through prayer and revelation have 'got it right'. Some of them you would find absurd. Some you would agree with. They can't all be right. But the attitude you display, that there is no way you could possibly be misunderstanding the text, is why we have 30,000 protestant denominations.

Think about that.


Jim

[Samurai]

Guys, I will, since you asked nicely respond to your requests. Can't do so tonight but will tomorrow. Hopefully at that point we can let things rest. I have heaps on my plate.
Till then
Ciao

[Samurai]

Samurai, I am a doctor too. Not multidegreed (I still have 3 months to complete my residency) and I am an ortho, but I still ( :) ) have a fair grasp of science, compared to some highschoolers that post here pretending to know everything (but never discussing it).

Good to hear. Hope you enjoy your doctoring!

So, I hope you can forego your old, used pre-emptive strike strategy of "I'll let you have the last word" (What would your colleagues say if you used that in a convention, I wonder

I wouldn’t use it in a convention as they involve discussions. These blog type situations can never reach a conclusion and it is simply too hard to address every detractor of my arguments. Therfore since it seems that I am in a minority, I thought I’d put my experiences and views out there… you never know when they may be a useful input into someones life.

I won't "take your words apart" myself; They are too many and most statements just need not be adressed, since they are just different ways of saying "nuh-huh". But I'd like to know a few things, because some of your comments startled me.

Ooookayyy….

First of all, what do you mean by "provable"? You should know as well as I do, that there is no definite proof in science. There are theories that work based on their successful explanation of the world. It is evidence, not proof that helps science progress.

I agree. The trouble is there are various levels of certainty in the scientific world and all to often people equate the notions of evolution and big bang with a level of certainty they, in no way deserve. You cannot observe the big bang in a lab experiment. You cannot have life form itself in a controlled enviroment (abiogenesis) and we cannot replicate via experimentation the transformation of primordial goo to Britney Spears. Believing these things took place is a matter of faith. These, adamantly believed notions aren’t testable in the same way we can observe the effects of gravity or perform a randomized controlled trial using a new chemotherapy agent.

You also say that, if science makes a statement that is not "provable" by scientific experiment (what other kind is there?) and is against the "word of God", you will take God's word over that of fallible men. OK, let's go with that. What about statements that ARE "provable", but are against this "Word of God" (that is actually an interpretation of it)? You know those exist, right? Take helocentricism. It is clearly and indisputably against a literal meaning of the Bible in that regard- especially since you seem to believe that the Bible was meant to instruct us on the physical properties of the Universe as well.
Why do you accept heliocentricism, against a literal meaning of the "Word"? Or don't you? Your comment about Galileo was a bit puzzling. Are you a Geocentricist, Samurai?

I don’t accept heliocentrism. The maths in both heliocentrism and geocentricity is the same. Again, heliocentricity is not “provable”. The only way we could prove beyond doubt which view was the correct one, is, if we could stand outside the universe and observe what moves relative to what…
Sure it is preposterous to take a stand like that, given the length of time we have been indoctrinated that heliocentrism is proven…. but, that is my position

And let's not get into the whole sky being solid thing...

Here’s an article I think sufficiently addresses the solid thing.
http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/itf.html

As a side note: I don't know where you got that "Big Bang = Pagan legends" theory. Babylonian Creation myths are quite alike the Genesis account, with waters above and below the Earth, solid skies etc. As for Kabbalah, are you sure you want to go there? The whole notion of it is based in a literal interpretation of the Torah, that borders on OCD. And you also say that the Word is supposed to teach us more than just spiritual matters. So, setting aside your accepting Jesus Christ as a personal Lord and Savior (something most of your opponents here also do), your views is not that different from the Kabbalists. Please don't take it as an insult; I'm just making an observation (and, after all, you started it).

Well the views are very different in fact. The biblical view is that the universe was made by God and man was a direct creation, rather than the product of evolution. Young rather than old Universe. Hindu beliefs of universe cycles has far more in common with modern cosmology than anything in the Torah.
Kabbalah is far more than just the study of the natural reading of the Torah. It really places far more importance on the so called hidden/secret messages of the text than the natural reading of it. For example you can reveal messages not rendered by natural reading by manipulating the letters to fall in line by sounds and all sorts of other mumbo jumbo. In other words you reach conclusions that can be directly opposed to the natural reading. I, in know way endorse, or have anything to do with such practices.
I have to confess at this point, I don’t know how other “Christians” claim to believe the Bible, but at the same time, believe something other than what is very clearly stated in the Bible. Simple case in point: The Bible says earth was here first, sun and stars later. Plants came before the sun according to Genesis. They say they believe the Bible, but have to in some way, contort the Bible to have it bend to what they believe scientists have proven. There are no rules of grammar/ allegory or anything else, that I am aware of, that would permit such a radical change in meaning. It would be like you reading a text book which states something along the effect of…”Magic angle effect occurs when the structure runs at 55 degrees to Bo…” and then Joe Blogs comes along and says “the text really means it occurs 37 degrees”. You would have no faith in either Joe or the textbook. Their approach has more in common with Kabbalah than simply believing God's word as is.

One final question: You say numerous times that God spoke to you and told you that evolution is rubbish. These are almost your exact words.

Did god really speak to you? In a literal way?

Yes!

I am not questioning the truth of your experience, or the effect it had on you. I just want you to tell me if it was a literal voice- or was it something else? A revelation, a sudden enlightement of the mind and soul, a feeling of coming in contact with something? All these are indeed unique experiences, and could change one's life forever- but they are not literal voices coming out of nowhere.

Too many “Christians” unfortunately operate in the warm fuzzy zone. They believe they have heard this or that. They “feel” this or that. I have done that before, too. However when God really speaks, you KNOW He has spoken. I have been very blessed. God has spoken to me on several occasions. The first time was when He told me to be a physician, when I was a 15 year old high school nobody and going nowhere fast. Did He speak with an audible voice? More than audible. I heard, felt and saw what He was saying (I saw the words He spoke in words written in fire). Not every time God has spoken has been the same, however. When He spoke in relation to creation, it was just as real

Please understand that I am not questioning your sanity. I am simply trying to explain to you that a literal way of examining all statements can lead to problems, even when accepting that these statements are true. Your experience may have come from an omnipotent, infallible entity- but your mind is neither, and human language may be (like Chesterton said) inadequate to clearly describe it. So the word "spoke" is the best approximation for expressing what you felt. It can be true, and it can be a metaphor.

See above.

If we can accept the sincerity of your experience, and still understand that you did not literally hear voices, why can't you accept (like other theists) that the Bible is divinely inspired, even if it should not always be taken literally? Why wouldn't those divinely inspired authors of the Word feel the same way you felt, and still tell the truth in the best way possible?

If the text is divinely inspired (it is), it would mean what it says and say what it means. The actual meaning of the text would not be contrary to the natural reading. You wouldn’t read… For in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth…” and think, oh, God had trouble articulating the actual length. Same gives when He describes the order of the creation. “He just gave a confusing account to throw us off the scent….” Or some other bizarre rational…

Samurai, I have no personal involvement in theses issues. You can check my profile to see my stance. However, and like I said before, although I can relate to the beliefs of theists in general, I am unable to understand the stance some YECs maintain. It is like they worship a book, not a God. And they choose to ignore their god's own creation to do so.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First and foremost, true Christianity is about a relationship with God and I, in no way, worship a book. I have a relationship with God (still working on it, as u do in any relationship). Knowing Him (partially), I know that He is trustworthy. If He says His word is true, it quite simply, is. Because I know His word is as trustworthy as Him, I can believe it and accept it in real simplicity. I don’t have to read it as you would have to read that ficticious textbook example I gave you. You don’t have to reinterpret it as you go along. Sure there are passages that aren’t clear, this is where one has to rely on God to teach us.

Hopefully, before you leave, you will clarify these points for me.
Hope this helps.

Good luck in Ortho land.

[oxmixmudd]

I don’t accept heliocentrism. The maths in both heliocentrism and geocentricity is the same. Again, heliocentricity is not “provable”. The only way we could prove beyond doubt which view was the correct one, is, if we could stand outside the universe and observe what moves relative to what…
Sure it is preposterous to take a stand like that, given the length of time we have been indoctrinated that heliocentrism is proven…. but, that is my position

While I don't really want to go down the geocentrism debate road again, this does explain a lot relative to Samurai's position. I suppose his only inconsistency relative to literality in scripture then is a flat earth ...

I will point out to the observers there is a very long geocentrism discussion here on TWEB if you want to get at the details. While one can mathematically describe both systems mathematically, and even relativistically, there are major differences in observation and physics. In specific, Geocentrism does not conform to the physics we observe, 'heliocentrism (from a solar system pov) does. Especially in terms of the observations of stellar paralax, tidal firction as reflected in quasar motions, and differing launch energy requirments for prograde and retrograde orbits.

No geocentrist has any viable explanation for why whatever force or substance keeping the universe together and rotating around the earth resists/assists a rocket launch but then - once in orbit - offers no further resistance/assistance to the satellite's orbital motion.

No geocentrist can explain (with any known physics) how a quasar can track in the sky the predicted variations in the Earth's rotational velocity due to tidal friction, or why the variations in rotational velocity around the Earth should track the predictied effect of tidal friction on the Earth's rotation.

Finally - with geocentrism we end up once again with a deceptive God. For there is not logical reason all the various pertebations required of said geocentric universe to match observation would happen to match so precisely those of the non-geocentric universe of mainstream science - except that the God who designed it is purposefully trying to fool us.

Jim

[Faid]

Thank you for your enlightening post and your sharing of your views with me, Samurai. I had in mind to continue this debate, arguing about parallax and Foucault's Pendulum and all that, but further reading made me see that there would be no point. The distance between our worldviews is too big- much bigger than between, for example, me and jorge, supersport or afdave. Clearly I cannot convince you about anything, and I am sure you also understand that I cannot be convinced about, say, a Geocentric view of the Universe (and the global conspiracy that implies). I can only say that I am glad your intense experiences had such a beneficial effect on you, and I hope you will continue to have a successful life.

Thanks for the wishes- I will certainly need them! Ortho land is a real jungle- hopefully I'll fit in, being an "evolutionist" and all.

[rogue06]

While I don't really want to go down the geocentrism debate road again, this does explain a lot relative to Samurai's position. I suppose his only inconsistency relative to literality in scripture then is a flat earth ...

I will point out to the observers there is a very long geocentrism discussion here on TWEB if you want to get at the details. While one can mathematically describe both systems mathematically, and even relativistically, there are major differences in observation and physics. In specific, Geocentrism does not conform to the physics we observe, 'heliocentrism (from a solar system pov) does. Especially in terms of the observations of stellar paralax, tidal firction as reflected in quasar motions, and differing launch energy requirments for prograde and retrograde orbits.

No geocentrist has any viable explanation for why whatever force or substance keeping the universe together and rotating around the earth resists/assists a rocket launch but then - once in orbit - offers no further resistance/assistance to the satellite's orbital motion.

No geocentrist can explain (with any known physics) how a quasar can track in the sky the predicted variations in the Earth's rotational velocity due to tidal friction, or why the variations in rotational velocity around the Earth should track the predictied effect of tidal friction on the Earth's rotation.

Finally - with geocentrism we end up once again with a deceptive God. For there is not logical reason all the various pertebations required of said geocentric universe to match observation would happen to match so precisely those of the non-geocentric universe of mainstream science - except that the God who designed it is purposefully trying to fool us.

Jim

Interestingly (at least to me), I once heard YECs described as belonging to the liberal wing of Bible Literalists. Geocentrists were considered the "moderates" and Flat-earthers the "conservatives." I wonder how Jorge would like being thought of as a "liberal" Bible Literalist?

[wattsr1]

[snip]

Thank you for your explanation Samurai – at least I know where you are coming from now. I can only agree with Jim, having argued with JohnMartin a bit over geocentricism and a lot more over the metaphysics.

JohnMartin accepted the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, and hence his science was largely that of 13th century Europe.

Out of curiosity, and if you see this – are you “just” a geocentrist or like JM, do you also accept the metaphysics of Aquinas?



Regards, Roland

[Samurai]

You'll fit in just fine! I deal with orthopods regularly (I am a Radiologist with an interest in musculoskeletal imaging) and most are good blokes, despite being of a "certain" stereotype (big with hairy chests). Personally I thought ortho was too much hard work for me...
Regarding Geocentricity, I don't profess to understand all the physics, but Gerardus Bouw's views and the explanation of the geo physics make sense to me.
Any-who.....
Adios

[Samurai]

I did say, I will respond to this post... hopefully I will get to this, this weekend.