Would The President of C.O.P.E. Please Stand Up?

[Jorge]

No Jorge. God does not tell us it took six literal days. That is an interpretation. In fact Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8 suggest otherwise.

God does not tell us the world is between 6 to 10,000 years old. That is based upon calculations largely based upon genealogies among other things in spite of Paul's apparent warning against doing things like that (1 Timothy 4:1; Titus 3:9).

Nowhere does Scripture state or even imply our salvation hinges upon how we read the opening of Genesis. There has been considerable disagreement as how to understand the nature of the creation since the first decades of Christianity without any talk of declaring one view the orthodox one and all others wrong.

Instead, it makes it pretty clear what is important. When Paul states in 1 Cor 15:12-14 that and "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" he does not add "oh and if you don't believe that the world and surrounding universe were created in six literal sequential days a couple thousand years ago, your faith is in vain."

***********************************************************
I am well past the point of being sick and tired of explaining these things
to you, rogue06. We cannot use one side of our mouth to say that we
accept Christ as LORD and Savior while with the other side we distort His
Holy Word -- that is preposterous! You keep bringing out the nonsense
of, "Six days is an interpretation!". If what you say is true then let's toss
the Bible into the bonfire right now since NOTHING in it may be understood.

You have at multiple errors in the above post - I will not waste my time
addressing them since (1) I have already done so many times and, (2) it
wouldn't do one bit of good for you.

Focus on the word "compartmentalization" for a few months and it may
come to you (but I doubt it ever will).

Jorge

[Tiggy]

"Accordingly, we believe the Framework and Standards must (1) describe methods of testing
historical hypotheses in historical sciences by seeking the best of competing explanations"

Jorge, is the historical hypothesis of Biblical Special Creation a competing explanation to evolution?

Can you describe the methods you would use to test the historical hypothesis of Biblical Special Creation?

What would falsify the hypothesis?

- T

[Jorge]

"Accordingly, we believe the Framework and Standards must (1) describe methods of testing
historical hypotheses in historical sciences by seeking the best of competing explanations"

Jorge, is the historical hypothesis of Biblical Special Creation a competing explanation to evolution?

Can you describe the methods you would use to test the historical hypothesis of Biblical Special Creation?

What would falsify the hypothesis?

- T

*************************************************

Quit being lazy by trying to get others to do the work for you.
There are thousands of books on the subject of validating the
historical position of Christian Biblical Creation. It's not a simple
'Yes or no' answer, just as the model of Materialism / Naturalism is
not a simple answer. Stop your laziness and do the work.

I'll even be a nice guy and start you off ............

A good starting point for beginners like you would be Josh
McDowell's The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict I & II,
ISBN 0-7852-4219-8, 1999. This book also has several
hundred references in its bibliography that go towards
answering your question. There you go ... now SCAT !!!

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I highly doubt those verses mean what you think they mean(I also have no idea why you used 1 Timothy 4:1, because it says nothing about genealogies, but about people following doctrines of demons.). First we have Pslam 90, which says that a day is like a thousand years OR a watch in the night. This has NOTHING to do with how long the days of Genesis are, but that God is not limited by time, the same goes for 2 Peter. As for Titus, it's dealing with legalism basically. They don't want people going into problems that circumcision cause in the early church, and other issues that could fit there(there is nothing in there about using the knowledge we DO have, to dispel false doctrines, and on of the most important things in dispelling the Gnostic heresy was referring back to Genesis, and other early Christians had to use Genesis to support the Gospel as well). I highly doubt that it is saying that we are to completely ignore parts of Scripture(that highly ridiculous, but that's what your argument leads to). Also, there are many reasons why we SHOULD take the days in Genesis as 24 hours periods. One issue is the comparison in Exodus, where God basically says for them to follow what He Himself did, and it's quite literal there. Also, the language and grammar support 24 hour periods, and no other interpretation takes these things into consideration(at least not that I have seen).

In the section of Psalm 90 rogue refers to, it is speaking of the immense age of the mountains. It is, in fact, very much related to the creation, and in the context of 'age' we are told time is relative in relation to God. Since we see that God uses 'days' to describe his creative act, and that 1000 years is 'as a day' or a 'watch in the night', the implication is very clear that the 'days' of Genesis might be periods of time God perceives like we do a day, as opposed to some literal rendition. This is most especially true in that the Earth simply is far older than a 6 day creation (as perceived by mankind) would allow for.

As for Timothy - this is a typo - 1 Timothy 1:4

"nor pay attention to myths and endless genealogies which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith"

Never could it be more appropriate in that the YEC speculations of a given initial day of creation is based on cross correlating known historical periods (extra-Biblical information BTW) with the genealogies, assuming they are full and complete and suitable for such extrapolation ... which 1 Timothy says rather clearly they are NOT.

The primary issue being that long before the many who have observed the intrinsic record of great age of the Earth, men of faith reading the scriptures could tell that the 'days' of Genesis were not necessarily literal. No historical creed does more than mention creation as God's creative act. The assumption that derive a short time frame for the existence of the Earth and universe, while somewhat common reading scripture without a window into the actual workings of the natural world, are not in any way required or necessarily even directly implied by the wording of the text.

And more to the point, the scriptures themselves have NEVER served as an accurate scientific rendition of the workings of nature. And almost all attempts to use it thus have failed. The reason for this is simple. God did not override the natural understanding of the writers as regards nature, they wrote in the context of the culture. Apart from extra-Biblical knowledge of the cosmos, the most direct reading of the text reflects their primitive understanding from a flat earth to a rigid domed sky where the stars are fixed to its surface. Being careful to understand this is not what scripture teaches, but rather what the language used reflects relative to the writer himself, much the same as the language of Peter reflects his crude upbringing, wheras the language of Luke and Paul reflects their immense education relative to their time.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

*************************************************

Quit being lazy by trying to get others to do the work for you.
There are thousands of books on the subject of validating the
historical position of Christian Biblical Creation. It's not a simple
'Yes or no' answer, just as the model of Materialism / Naturalism is
not a simple answer. Stop your laziness and do the work.

I'll even be a nice guy and start you off ............

A good starting point for beginners like you would be Josh
McDowell's The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict I & II,
ISBN 0-7852-4219-8, 1999. This book also has several
hundred references in its bibliography that go towards
answering your question. There you go ... now SCAT !!!

Jorge

There is not one sound scientific investigation that could lead one to conclude the Earth, or the Universe, is 6 to 10,000 years old. ALL information in the books and web sites you reference is either fundamentally flawed, omits critical damaging details, or is just plain flat out wrong.


Jim

[rogue06]

I highly doubt those verses mean what you think they mean(I also have no idea why you used 1 Timothy 4:1, because it says nothing about genealogies, but about people following doctrines of demons.).

My bad. Was supposed to be I Tim 1:4 not 4:1.

First we have Pslam 90, which says that a day is like a thousand years OR a watch in the night. This has NOTHING to do with how long the days of Genesis are, but that God is not limited by time, the same goes for 2 Peter.

We should not immediately assume that God’s days are the same as ours and Ps. 90:4; I Tim 1:4 help to make that point.

Further, the same sentiment is seen in the apocryphal Letter of Barnabas “…for with Him a ‘day’ signifies a thousand years” (15:4). Jubilees 4:29-30 expresses a similar view saying that “One thousand years are a single day in the testimony of heaven.”

There is even a bad joke that points all of this out:

A preacher went into his church and he was praying to God.
While he was praying, he asked God, "How long is 10 million years to you?"
God replied, "One second."
The next day the preacher asked God, "God, how much is 10 million dollars to you?"
And God replied, "A penny."
Then finally the next day the preacher asked God, "God, can I have one of your pennies?"
And God replied, "Just wait a sec."

I should probably be clear that when it states that with God “a thousand years is as one day, and one day is as a thousand years,” that this wasn’t meant to be understood as some form of algebraic equation (“x = 24 hours, y = 24 hours, ergo x = y”). To me it seems clear that this means that time doesn’t matter to God and is best understood as a generic “long time” not as a literal thousand years.

The fact that we are told that a day is like or as rather than “equal to” a thousand years is an important clue, as is the fact that in Psalms the thousand years is compared to both a day and a watch in the night for God. These indicate we aren’t dealing with precise units of time here.

Finally, we are told that Jesus will return soon (Romans 16:20; Revelation 1:1), yet 2000 years have passed which again indicates that God’s time doesn’t necessarily equate to man’s time. In God’s perspective the creation of the world and the end of the world could happen at the same time.

And it seems that at least part of the context of II Pet 3:8 is the Creation so there is some connection here.

As for Titus, it's dealing with legalism basically. They don't want people going into problems that circumcision cause in the early church, and other issues that could fit there(there is nothing in there about using the knowledge we DO have, to dispel false doctrines, and on of the most important things in dispelling the Gnostic heresy was referring back to Genesis, and other early Christians had to use Genesis to support the Gospel as well). I highly doubt that it is saying that we are to completely ignore parts of Scripture(that highly ridiculous, but that's what your argument leads to).

In both cases Paul deliberately and specifically includes "endless genealogies" as something that "promote controversies rather than God's work" and as being "unprofitable and useless." He doesn't say why so caution should dictate that we avoid using them rather than seeking to employ them as the foundation for a religious belief (namely the world is only a few thousand years). With this very specific proscription stated not just once but twice your claim that I'm urging that we "completely ignore parts of Scripture" is what is exposed as being ridiculous. Paul doesn't say ignore -- just avoid using them lest you seek to "promote controversies rather than God's work."

Also, there are many reasons why we SHOULD take the days in Genesis as 24 hours periods. One issue is the comparison in Exodus, where God basically says for them to follow what He Himself did, and it's quite literal there.

Instead of the six day motif in Exodus being used to reinforce the notion of a creation week it could be that the six day motif in Genesis was used to reinforce the concept of the work week with a holy seventh day of rest.

IOW, the only thing it demonstrates is that God gave us a pattern of work/rest not that the 24-hour long day model is the correct interpretation. Essentially the text establishes the principle of six periods of work followed by one period of rest.

Looking at it this way even makes the days less likely to be literal 24-hour periods, and more likely to be a divine "accommodation" or literary construct to serve as an example for man's work week.

As an aside it probably should be noted that the six days of creation are mentioned twice in Exodus when talking about the Sabbath. The other instance (Ex 31:17) also mentions that on the seventh day God "rested and was refreshed."

I think this is another indication that these verses shouldn't be taken too literally since God didn't actually become tired and need refreshment.

Also, the language and grammar support 24 hour periods, and no other interpretation takes these things into consideration(at least not that I have seen).

If you're saying what I think you are here, this is based upon a made up rule with no basis in reality.

[rogue06]

***********************************************************
I am well past the point of being sick and tired of explaining these things
to you, rogue06. We cannot use one side of our mouth to say that we
accept Christ as LORD and Savior while with the other side we distort His
Holy Word -- that is preposterous!

What is preposterous is your insistence that any disagreement with you over how the creation accounts should be read is therefore distorting God's Holy Word. From Christianity's earliest days it appears there was no consensus as to how to understand them and absolutely no out cry that it needed to be resolved. Remember Augustine's sage advice: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [or liberty].”


You are no different than those Medieval theologians who supposedly would get in vehement debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Jesus very specifically rebuked those who favored the letter of the Law over its spirit so insisting on the most woodenly literal, simplistic interpretation just might not be the best way to approach this.

[Jorge]

There is not one sound scientific investigation that could lead one to conclude
the Earth, or the Universe, is 6 to 10,000 years old. ALL information in the books
and web sites you reference is either fundamentally flawed, omits critical
damaging details, or is just plain flat out wrong.

Jim

*************************************************************

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - wrong as it may be.
Heck, if you wish you can join Obama in saying that,
"the economy and job markets are fine" ... go ahead, be my guest.

Also, your statement above is misrepresenting - what else is new?
I have never nor will I ever say that we can use natural science to
determine that the universe is 6,000-to-10,000 years old.
Natural science may be used to SUPPORT that the universe can't
be billions of years old and that the Biblical timescale is possible.
Beyond providing this support, natural science can do no more.

Aside from your misrepresentation, you are also guilty of omission.
The number one reason why billions of years is rejected in favor
of the 6,000-to-10,000 year time frame is THEOLOGICAL, not
natural science. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Of course, I am well aware that people like yourself have given
natural 'science' full authority over what Scripture says, so I fully
understand your attitude and conclusions. GIGO applies.

Jorge

[Jorge]

What is preposterous is your insistence that any disagreement with you over how the creation accounts should be read is therefore distorting God's Holy Word. From Christianity's earliest days it appears there was no consensus as to how to understand them and absolutely no out cry that it needed to be resolved. Remember Augustine's sage advice: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [or liberty].”


You are no different than those Medieval theologians who supposedly would get in vehement debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Jesus very specifically rebuked those who favored the letter of the Law over its spirit so insisting on the most woodenly literal, simplistic interpretation just might not be the best way to approach this.

****************************************

Read my last post directed at O-Mudd - it pretty much answers your nonsense above.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

*************************************************************

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - wrong as it may be.
Heck, if you wish you can join Obama in saying that,
"the economy and job markets are fine" ... go ahead, be my guest.

Also, your statement above is misrepresenting - what else is new?
I have never nor will I ever say that we can use natural science to
determine that the universe is 6,000-to-10,000 years old.
Natural science may be used to SUPPORT that the universe can't
be billions of years old and that the Biblical timescale is possible.

No - Natural Science CAN'T be used to support that idea. THAT is the point.
I am reminded of Baghdad Bob, proclaiming the Americans where nowhere near Baghdad as we could see a US tank rolling down the street behind him.
You can claim anything Jorge, but there needs to be something out there that can support the idea independent of you claim. And the truth is, you can't back this up, nor will you, nor have you - ever. And I've asked you to - repeatedly. There is NOTHING out there that even comes close to Science that can be used to legitimize or support this interpretation of scripture.

Now - you can either back up you claim (which you won't), or you can be exposed as simply one of the most ignorant people posting on this page or ...

Beyond providing this support, natural science can do no more.

Aside from your misrepresentation, you are also guilty of omission.
The number one reason why billions of years is rejected in favor
of the 6,000-to-10,000 year time frame is THEOLOGICAL, not
natural science. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

This is so much BC Jorge. The evidence is overwhelming for great age. ANY child can figure it out. It's as simple as:

Little Girl: Daddy, how far away is that galaxy?
Dad: Well about 15 million trillion miles.
Little Girl: How far is that Daddy.
Dad: Well, it would take about 2 and a half million years for light to go from here to there.
Little Girl: Really? You mean it took 2 and a half million years for that light to get to us?
Dad: Yep.

For YEC to deal with this one simple fact it must invoke all manner of absurd conjectures and speculations, none of which have even one ounce of supporting evidence! But there is so much more.

Dad to daughter looking through a Telescope:

Dad: That fuzzy ball you see there is the center of the Andromeda Galaxy and the smaller one next to it is a satellite galaxy the goes around Andromeda sort of like planets around the Sun.
Little Girl: Really?
Dad: Yep, and a few years ago scientists noticed its patch should have taken it through Andromeda.
Little Girl: Really? What happened?
Dad: Well, the collision produced a huge shock wave that we can still see today as a ring of star formation where it passed through.
Little Girl: Wow? How long ago did it happen?
Dad: Well, based on the current speed of the Satellite Galaxy, it would have been about 230 million years ago.
Little Girl: Wow! Doesn't that mean the galaxies are more than 200 million years old!
Dad: It would certainly seem that way. And indeed, in our telescope, we can see a quasar that is more than a billion years away a light speed!

I mean Jorge, the evidence this universe has been around millions and billions of years can literally be seen everywhere we look! Your statements are nothing more than absurdities asserted with absolute chutzpa and little else!

Of course, I am well aware that people like yourself have given
natural 'science' full authority over what Scripture says, so I fully
understand your attitude and conclusions. GIGO applies.

Jorge

It's not authority over scripture Jorge. It's simply that scripture was not meant to teach us science. It was meant to teach us about God and how we can know Him. God didn't shove 21st century concepts into the ancient writers. He let them express His truth in their language and culture.


Jim

[Jorge]

No - Natural Science CAN'T be used to support that idea. THAT is the point.
I am reminded of Baghdad Bob, proclaiming the Americans where nowhere near Baghdad as we could see a US tank rolling down the street behind him.
You can claim anything Jorge, but there needs to be something out there that can support the idea independent of you claim. And the truth is, you can't back this up, nor will you, nor have you - ever. And I've asked you to - repeatedly. There is NOTHING out there that even comes close to Science that can be used to legitimize or support this interpretation of scripture.

Now - you can either back up you claim (which you won't), or you can be exposed as simply one of the most ignorant people posting on this page or ...






This is so much BC Jorge. The evidence is overwhelming for great age. ANY child can figure it out. It's as simple as:

Little Girl: Daddy, how far away is that galaxy?
Dad: Well about 15 million trillion miles.
Little Girl: How far is that Daddy.
Dad: Well, it would take about 2 and a half million years for light to go from here to there.
Little Girl: Really? You mean it took 2 and a half million years for that light to get to us?
Dad: Yep.

For YEC to deal with this one simple fact it must invoke all manner of absurd conjectures and speculations, none of which have even one ounce of supporting evidence! But there is so much more.

Dad to daughter looking through a Telescope:

Dad: That fuzzy ball you see there is the center of the Andromeda Galaxy and the smaller one next to it is a satellite galaxy the goes around Andromeda sort of like planets around the Sun.
Little Girl: Really?
Dad: Yep, and a few years ago scientists noticed its patch should have taken it through Andromeda.
Little Girl: Really? What happened?
Dad: Well, the collision produced a huge shock wave that we can still see today as a ring of star formation where it passed through.
Little Girl: Wow? How long ago did it happen?
Dad: Well, based on the current speed of the Satellite Galaxy, it would have been about 230 million years ago.
Little Girl: Wow! Doesn't that mean the galaxies are more than 200 million years old!
Dad: It would certainly seem that way. And indeed, in our telescope, we can see a quasar that is more than a billion years away a light speed!

I mean Jorge, the evidence this universe has been around millions and billions of years can literally be seen everywhere we look! Your statements are nothing more than absurdities asserted with absolute chutzpa and little else!






It's not authority over scripture Jorge. It's simply that scripture was not meant to teach us science. It was meant to teach us about God and how we can know Him. God didn't shove 21st century concepts into the ancient writers. He let them express His truth in their language and culture.


Jim

***********************************************

People that know me well say that I have "the patience of a saint" yet I do not
have the patience nor the desire to explain why your words above are, in the
words of Pauli, "Not even wrong."

The only thing that is upsetting to me is how you lie and get away with
it. I've been banned 4 times (I think) for calling out lies and I guess I'll be
banned another 4 times. You see, I have this little 'problem' that was
enhanced by my mom during my upbringing. My 'problem' is that I call
a spade a spade and after that I let the chips fall where they may.

You definitely lie here because in my over 7 years here (I've lost track
- could be 8 or 9) I know for a fact, Fact, FACT that I have on many
occasions presented what you claim above I never have. That it
swooshed past your head is another matter ...
That you have no desire to accept it is another matter ... that you
wish to deny or ignore is still another matter ... and so on.
But that I have presented on numerous occasions what you claim
"never happened" makes this conversation end here and now.

Jorge

[Wally]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - wrong as it may be.
Heck, if you wish you can join Obama in saying that,
"the economy and job markets are fine" ... go ahead, be my guest.

Interesting to see your quote mining extends to politics also.

[Roy]

As in the case of Roger DeHart, when he brought materials from SECULAR
sources that mentioned problems in Evolution, he ended up being EXPELLED from his long-held job.

Of Pandas and People is a secular source?

Roy

[Tiggy]

*************************************************

Quit being lazy by trying to get others to do the work for you.
There are thousands of books on the subject of validating the
historical position of Christian Biblical Creation. It's not a simple
'Yes or no' answer, just as the model of Materialism / Naturalism is
not a simple answer. Stop your laziness and do the work.

I'll even be a nice guy and start you off ............

A good starting point for beginners like you would be Josh
McDowell's The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict I & II,
ISBN 0-7852-4219-8, 1999. This book also has several
hundred references in its bibliography that go towards
answering your question. There you go ... now SCAT !!!

Jorge

Sorry Jorge, that book has no testable hypotheses in it, only the same old tired Creationist PRATT claims.

I'm looking for a testable hypothesis, like what you demanded the school standards include.

Do you have one or not? If so, what would falsify the hypothesis?

- T

[Tiggy]

***********************************************

People that know me well say that I have "the patience of a saint" yet I do not
have the patience nor the desire to explain why your words above are, in the
words of Pauli, "Not even wrong."

The only thing that is upsetting to me is how you lie and get away with
it. I've been banned 4 times (I think) for calling out lies and I guess I'll be
banned another 4 times. You see, I have this little 'problem' that was
enhanced by my mom during my upbringing. My 'problem' is that I call
a spade a spade and after that I let the chips fall where they may.

You definitely lie here because in my over 7 years here (I've lost track
- could be 8 or 9) I know for a fact, Fact, FACT that I have on many
occasions presented what you claim above I never have. That it
swooshed past your head is another matter ...
That you have no desire to accept it is another matter ... that you
wish to deny or ignore is still another matter ... and so on.
But that I have presented on numerous occasions what you claim
"never happened" makes this conversation end here and now.

Jorge

Enjoy your next stint in the matrix Jorge. That's one way to avoid the questions you never answer, and to avoid having to come up with the evidence you never provide. NEVER.

- T