Questions for Young Earth Creationists:

[Calminian]

You game?

Nah, I've moved on and am busy in new threads. You guys go on without me. I'll be back soon enough.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Nah, I've moved on and am busy in new threads. You guys go on without me. I'll be back soon enough.

How unfortunate. I'll expect not to hear any more about how science-minded people are often lousy philosophers, then. It's no good making claims that you refuse to defend.

Best of luck in your other endeavors—

—Sam

[Calminian]

...I'll expect not to hear any more about how science-minded people are often lousy philosophers, then. It's no good making claims that you refuse to defend.....

This is one of the reasons I avoid conversations with you. The argument you just made is akin to the kind I expect from you. The issue is so emotional with you it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation. You guys were so attached to that solid dome argument that, when it was effectively refuted from scripture, things got extremely heated and you guys turned very sour and rude. It's no longer about searching for truth, but revenge, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. I'm not hearing anything intelligent out of you anymore and am certain this is due to the extreme emotion you have over this issue.

[Ansgar Seraph]

This is one of the reasons I avoid conversations with you. The argument you just made is akin to the kind I expect from you. The issue is so emotional with you it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation. You guys were so attached to that solid dome argument that, when it was effectively refuted from scripture, things got extremely heated and you guys turned very sour and rude. It's no longer about searching for truth, but revenge, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. I'm not hearing anything intelligent out of you anymore and am certain this is due to the extreme emotion you have over this issue.

Emotion? Revenge?

I expect people to defend the claims that they make, especially when the claims are accusations. There is nothing unreasonable in this. If you want an intelligent conversation, you have the perfect opportunity: form a syllogism of an opponent's argument and post it up. That way, we can all talk very specifically about premises and conclusions and avoid the incivility that seems to weigh down these conversations.

If you actively avoid defending your claims, then it is hardly "extreme emotion" that puts a disappointed flavor in my mouth.

—Sam

[Calminian]

Emotion? Revenge?

I'll let the readers decide as they look at the nature of the posts you guys have made here. You're some of the most emotional folk I've come across in a long time.

I expect people to defend the claims that they make, especially when the claims are accusations. There is nothing unreasonable in this. If you want an intelligent conversation, you have the perfect opportunity: form a syllogism of an opponent's argument and post it up. That way, we can all talk very specifically about premises and conclusions and avoid the incivility that seems to weigh down these conversations.

Sorry, the issue has been covered and covered and covered. And it wasn't just me making it. Even people on your side were saying it. But if you want to make the case that scientists are the best philosophers, have at it. I'll have to pass on that intriguing debate.

If you actively avoid defending your claims, then it is hardly "extreme emotion" that puts a disappointed flavor in my mouth.

For some reason you're emotional about just about everything I say. Forgive me, but I really am in other conversations which I don't want to neglect. You can only spread yourself so far. Maybe one day, things will calm down between us a bit.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Whatever, Cal.

Though I hate to say it in such low terms, these forums work based on the law of "put up or shut up". If you don't play by the rules, then people are going to get annoyed. And annoyance is the only emotion that you elicit from me right now.

Good luck in your other threads, anyhow.

—Sam

[Calminian]

You are pressing this much too far. Paul's point is simply that God's creation reveals something of His character, and that this has been true ever since the creation. Paul is not stressing an exact time period (i.e. the end of the creation week as opposed to the beginning), and is not stressing when man was created. (Besides, as Jim has pointed out, forcing this to speak of the end of the creation week fits just as well with an OEC as with a YEC interpretation.)

It's true that Paul is not directly stating the duration of the creation of the cosmos, but that's not the problem you face. If naturalistic theories are correct, the cosmos was set in process about 14 billion years ago and is still in process now. So if you go by its beginning, it was 14 billion years ago and man wasn't on the scene to understand anything. If you go by the completion of the process, it's not yet complete!! What you have to do to make this work is create some arbitrary completion of the cosmos when man first evolved which is simply stacking the deck. When you have to jump through those kind of hoops to force an interpretation to work, it's a good clue you have the wrong interpretation.

If you take the Bible in a straightforward exegetical way, the meaning just falls off the passage. Men were there since the complete of the cosmos no day 6.

Koine Greek frequently omits words that the reader is expected to supply from context, as it does here. So here we have two options:

1) “But from the beginning of the creation (of the cosmos), God ‘made them male and female.’"
2) “But from the beginning of the creation (of mankind), God ‘made them male and female.’"

Yes, I realize this which is why it is important to look at how the term "the creation" is used in the context of the N.T.. It is never a term for mankind. It is always a summation of the entire creation. This is the case with Mark's gospel as well as the rest of the N.T.. Thus the interpreter would have to force this to mean mankind in order to make the interpretation compatible with natural theories—eisegesis by definition. And as I'll show shortly, even if you do force this to mean mankind, you have another problem.

The first interpratation does not make sense, because God created the cosmos ("the heavens and the earth" in Hebrew) back in Gen 1:1, at least six days before creating mankind. Mankind was NOT created "at the beginning of the creation of the cosmos", and the attempts of folks like Sarfati to make the "beginning" some fuzzy, general time period are exegetically strained.

Again, this is what Ross and Ankerberg and others argued, but it this is not the case. Gen. 1:1 is a summary statement of the six days that are to follow. This understanding is almost universal among people on both sides of this debate. Cosmos can never be used to merely mean a component of God's creation. Thus when there was only light, but no land or sea or heaven it was not complete. When there was only earth, but no heaven dry land and sea, it was not complete. God was still piecing it together. Cosmos does not mean earth, nor heaven, nor sea, but the sum of everything which came together on day 6.

The second interpretation makes the most sense both in the immediate context (speaking of man and woman) and in the context of Genesis.k

Impossible. The term has never meant this and a simple word study in the N.T. would reveal this. In fact even the very sentence itself gives you a clue that "the creation" cannot be referring to them alone.

]It literally reads, [COLOR="DarkRed"but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them; [/COLOR]

This sentence could have been constructed several ways to make this say what you want it to, but it doesn't. He could have wrote, "from the time He created them they were male and female." or "from the beginning of their creation, they were male and female.

But here's the real problem you face. If you read Genesis carefully, the creation of man alone did not start with male and female. Rather, Adam alone was created. Eve came later but was not in existence since the creation of man. This is the problem you will have when you try to isolate the term the creation, to merely mean a portion of the creation such as man. The creation of man alone doesn't fit this statement. The creation of the complete cosmos does.

[Calminian]

Whatever, Cal.

Though I hate to say it in such low terms, these forums work based on the law of "put up or shut up". If you don't play by the rules, then people are going to get annoyed.

I realize that's how it is for you Sam, and that's because you are much more emotional than me, at lest at this point in time (not to generalize). For me it's about learning and refining my own opinions through the challenges of others. Winning is not everything, and that's unfortunately all you seem to be focused on. Trust me, you and I need a break.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I realize that's how it is for you Sam, and that's because you are much more emotional than me, at lest at this point in time (not to generalize). For me it's about learning and refining my own opinions through the challenges of others. Winning is not everything, and that's unfortunately all you seem to be focused on. Trust me, you and I need a break.

Might as well liken this to the vaudeville act that it has become . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYCOyaIUCSo

—Sam

ETA: "So, you refuse to shake my hand, eh?!"

[Calminian]

Might as well liken this to the vaudeville act that it has become . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYCOyaIUCSo

—Sam

ETA: "So, you refuse to shake my hand, eh?!"

You're taking this way too hard Sam. I've conversed with you in depth on many occasions. I'm a little burnt out on the subject back in the science forum. Can't you just let it go for while?

[KBertsche]

It's true that Paul is not directly stating the duration of the creation of the cosmos, but that's not the problem you face. If naturalistic theories are correct, the cosmos was set in process about 14 billion years ago and is still in process now. So if you go by its beginning, it was 14 billion years ago and man wasn't on the scene to understand anything. If you go by the completion of the process, it's not yet complete!! What you have to do to make this work is create some arbitrary completion of the cosmos when man first evolved which is simply stacking the deck. When you have to jump through those kind of hoops to force an interpretation to work, it's a good clue you have the wrong interpretation.

If you take the Bible in a straightforward exegetical way, the meaning just falls off the passage. Men were there since the complete of the cosmos no day 6.

You are inferring the word "completion", but I do not see this implied in the text. The point of the text is very simple. The Creation reveals some of the character of its Creator. It has done this ever since the beginning, even before Day 6. Even before mankind was here to see it, the heavens declared the glory of God. Paul is stressing that there is something intrinsic in Creation itself that evidences the Creator, and this was true even on Day 1.

Again, this is what Ross and Ankerberg and others argued, but it this is not the case. Gen. 1:1 is a summary statement of the six days that are to follow. This understanding is almost universal among people on both sides of this debate.

I realize that this is one common interpretation of the text, but it is grammatically strained. The Hebrew grammar implies that God's "creating" in 1:1 was the first of a series of actions by God, not a summary statement. The second action is God "saying" in 1:3. The grammatical form in 1:3 is a "preterite" (or "waw-consecutive"), which is the word "and" followed by the verb in the imperfect form. This is a common narrative construction for a series of events. The first event of the series should be a verb in the perfect form with no "and". This form occurs in v. 1; God "created". A number of YEC's also argue for this interpretation; I think you can find some analyses of this on the AIG website.

[Calminian]

You are inferring the word "completion", but I do not see this implied in the text.

You are correct I am doing this but with good reason. The word Paul used is cosmos. He spoke of the creation of the world not just components of it such as the earth (land) or sea (waters) or heavens (expanse).

The point of the text is very simple. The Creation reveals some of the character of its Creator. It has done this ever since the beginning, even before Day 6. Even before mankind was here to see it, the heavens declared the glory of God. Paul is stressing that there is something intrinsic in Creation itself that evidences the Creator, and this was true even on Day 1.

But the context is about people and their lack of excuse for not seeking after their Creator.

I realize that this is one common interpretation of the text, but it is grammatically strained. The Hebrew grammar implies that God's "creating" in 1:1 was the first of a series of actions by God, not a summary statement. The second action is God "saying" in 1:3. The grammatical form in 1:3 is a "preterite" (or "waw-consecutive"), which is the word "and" followed by the verb in the imperfect form. This is a common narrative construction for a series of events. The first event of the series should be a verb in the perfect form with no "and". This form occurs in v. 1; God "created". A number of YEC's also argue for this interpretation; I think you can find some analyses of this on the AIG website.

But that's not the main trust of the problem for you, and if you stick to the Waw-construction chronology, it's even tougher. Even if I grand this may be the case, the heavens are not created as we know them until verse 6 and are not populated with the lights until day 4.

[blackapologist]

All right. I just have a few questions:

Does the theory of gravity contradict anything in the Bible?

If no, then does the theory of General Relativity contradict the Bible?

If no, then does the round-earth theory contradict the Bible?

If no, then does the Big Bang theory contradict the Bible?

If your answer to most/all of these questions was no, then a few more questions:

Does science contradict the Bible?

If yes, then how many scientific theories can you name that contradict scripture?

If no, then why go against evolution?

Does the scientific theory of evolution mention the Bible? Or God? Does the theory of gravity do this?

If no, then on what grounds do you dismiss evolution?

Theistic Evolution, nice. I'm an old earth creatiovolutionist.

I think you should also post this for those arrogant scientific atheists. Same exact questions, but the last one, "on what grounds do you dismiss the Bible?"

Of course, many of them have their different reasons, but I'd just be curious to see their "atheist testimonies"