ps418

Non-Theists like the idea of the Bible strictly stating a young earth, because arguing against YECs is like shooting ducks in a barrel....sorry, but that's not the case.

Sorry, that's clearly an overgeneralization. In fact, I wish whole-heartedly that you were right, so that I could show YECs that they need not hold such obviously false beliefs.

Shadow Wraith

To quote a paragraph from Ham's site: "The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin' then' is totally undermined."

Yeah. God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do in the first place anyways, but he still punished them and all subsequent generations with all that stuff. And he loves us. Pardon me. I have to go. My bullshit meter just overloaded.

Shadow Wraith

lpetrich

So all animals were vegetarians before Adam and Eve ate that fruit? Including all the now-carnivorous ones? Did they all grow sharp teeth and get carnivory-adapted digestive systems when that terrible fruit consumption happened?

LinuxPup

Carnivores did exist before the fall of Adam. In Romans chapter 5 is where get the idea that death in itsef, that is of all things, entered the world. But Paul specifically wrote in Romans that the death was subjected to mankind... it says nothing of plants and animals... and it's obvious that there must be death in order for life to sustain itself. Ken Ham even stated that plants and animals "died" before the fall, but he believes that the plants and small animals aren't really "alive" to begin with.... this is obviously not the case, and has no scientific or biblical basis. The Bible does not argue the absence of death/carnivores before the fall. And this is no way effects doctrine either... I know atheists love to poke holes in Ken Ham/Duane Gish/Kent Hovind's arguments... but many Christians, such as myself, don't hold to them anyway... a better person to go against would be Dr. Hugh Ross... check out his website at <a href="http://www.reasons.org..." target="_blank">www.reasons.org...</a> The Day-Age theory is far more accepted in the Christian community than the few (and I mean few) creation evanglists who speak of the 24-hour theory. Just give it a shot anyway... it's an interesting website... Also, if you really want a challenge (and I hope you do), check out <a href="http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/" target="_blank">http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/</a>

Hugh Ross and other scientists do a weekly update on new scientific evidences for the God of the Bible. Have a good one...

theyeti

Not so. The Day-Age "theory" is the one that's in the minority. I recent poll showed that something like 45% of all Americans believed that the Bible is true word for word and that the Earth is something like 6000 years old. I find those numbers somewhat hard to believe myself, and I suspect that the questions may have been loaded in such a way as to make Christians feel that they had to answer in the affirmative. But at any rate, the Day-Age interpretation is in the distict minority.

If you want to know what atheists really get a kick out of, it's watching Ham/Duane Gish/Kent Hovind spew utter vitriol at Hugh Ross and other Day-Agers. To them it is most certainly not a minor detail, and they will use far more abusive language toward Ross than they will towards atheists. It just goes to show that in an ultra-authoritarian ideology like YEC, dissent of any kind is viciously put down.

And yes, we've seen those links before. I regard them as only slightly less nutty than the YECs. Actually, a great deal less nutty, but nutty still.

theyeti

LinuxPup

Nutty? Why? And try to keep things objective without merely slandering (i.e. no ad hominem argumentation)... just pointing out the scientific flaws with Day-Age creation...

theyeti

Fair enough. I shouldn't have referred to them that way, though that is my subjective opinion. Basically I find them nutty because they try to claim that the Bible is inerrant and that reality, "rightly understood", will be identical to scripture, "rightly understood". You would feel differently, but to me it's a silly excercise. I see no reason whatsoever to think that the authors of the Bible knew diddly about science or the universe, and thus I'm not surprised when they make claims that are factually incorrect. But the RTB people don't see it that way.

There are many contradictions and falsehoods in the Bible, though this is not the forum to discuss those. The RTB people predicate their appologetics on trying to deny or gloss over those problems. I don't personally think that biblical errancy is a reason not to believe, but when someone does some extreme twisting of logic to make it appear otherwise, I feel that their reasons are not based on faith, but on false hopes.

Aside from that, the only difference between RTB and your average YEC as far as I can tell is that they accept an old Earth and a non-six day creation with some questionable biblical interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they still reject evolution (i.e. common descent) and to me that's nutty enough. I tried looking on the RTB website and the "creation update", but I could find little other than audio and video files, and I don't want to bother downloading those. The only text files at CU were just devotionals, and had nothing to say about science. There were lots of links trying to sell me stuff though.

So at any rate, I still don't know their arguments against evolution. Mabey you could bring up some of them (preferrable one at a time) in a new thread and we could disscus them. I promise I'll do my best to keep you from getting flamed, but I won't be able to respond until tomorrow.

theyeti

excreationist

But that's because geology, etc, has made them suspect that the earth is quite old. It isn't because a plain reading of the Bible only suggested that the days weren't literal days.

Well the first creation account Genesis 1:1-2:3 talks about the seven days of creation. I guess 2:4 refers to the sixth day even though it involves some trees being created. So what verse exactly implies that the events of Genesis 2 couldn't have happened during one day? Perhaps the naming of the animals. It says that he only named the beats of the field and birds of the air - not insects and sea animals.
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1254.asp" target="_blank">AiG - Naming the Animals: All in a day’s work for Adam</a>
This discusses this "problem".

Or so you assert, without responding to my last post about 6 or 7 periods of light and dark.

Well remember that centuries ago, people like Archbishop Ussher calculated that the earth must have been created on 4004 B.C. and Shakepeare also talked about a 6000 year old earth, etc. Remember that you said that a young-earth is incompatible with scripture rather than just saying that an old-earth can agree with scripture.

I agree.

This link doesn't work.

It doesn't seem to say that a plain reading of the Bible suggests that the days are long... it even says "The Bible speaks of at least one more day after this Seventh Day is ended."

Kosh

Was he there? The bible never says that the
animals died before the fall. So what's his source? Remember, his standard is "Were you there?"

Ham is a MORON. My 9 year old son has
better reasoning ability than Ken Ham. The
sooner you quit quoting him here, the easier
it will be to take you seriously.

Case in point. Repeat after me "I will not
follow the lead of obvious Morons... I will not..."

I'm really starting to get pissed at how my
tax dollars are being wasted in the public
education system.