The Earth: Young or Old [Archive]

Eriol

09-25-2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit S
So I'm wondering does the Christian dogma specifically state that the earth has existed for some thousands of years, and if so, why is this belief rejected by so many Christians or is it some twisting of the doctrine?

The word "dogma" is a very technical word. Only the Catholic Church can pronounce dogmas (according to itself :) ). There are articles of faith, opinions, and such, but a dogma is:

"a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful."

(Catholic Encyclopedia)

So if you don't like this definition, pick some other word for it, because we Catholics have been using this word for a long time with that sense :D.

Note that it does not touch at all into scientific matters. "Faith or morals", it is. So the age of the Earth is not only not a dogma, but it is also outside the domain of dogmas.

The infallibility of the Scriptures, on the other hand, IS a dogma. But it is the Scripture that is infallible, not the reader :D. So if some Christians read Genesis as evidence of a young earth, and some others Christians read it as evidence for an old earth, or as no evidence at all, who is right? We don't know; we know that Genesis is right, and that's the extent of the dogma.

Snaga

09-26-2003, 11:10 AM

Thol: the universe is considerably older than earth.

The Earth is 4.55 billion years old or so.
The universe is over 10 billion years old... perhaps about 14 billion years.

I'm not going to give out any physics lectures myself!

Eriol... that's a wonderful twist of logic. So now I can take any point of view and say 'The Bible may appear to say X, but I believe it to mean Not-X, and it is only the fallibility of the reader that interprets it incorrectly' ... hehe... that's fantastic!:D

Eriol

09-26-2003, 11:53 PM

I'm glad you liked it. Of course, it is no more a twist of logic than any interpretation of any observation... If you look at a windmill and see a windmill, while Don Quijote sees giants, who is right?

That is a mighty interesting subject in its own right, what makes our interpretation of reality the real thing. And the Bible is no exception. The point is never to confuse the interpretation itself with the real thing.

Celebthôl

09-27-2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by snaga1
Thol: the universe is considerably older than earth.

The Earth is 4.55 billion years old or so.
The universe is over 10 billion years old... perhaps about 14 billion years.

I'm not going to give out any physics lectures myself!

I was going by the stuff the earth was made up of, it would in general be about the age of the Universe. . .

Athelas

09-27-2003, 12:42 AM

Some Biblical scholar once counted up all the "begats" in the old testament and calculated that the Earth was 6,000 or so years old. You have to remember, these are the same people who up until very recently still believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Don't blame children for believing children's stories. Everyone grows up eventually.

Eliot

09-27-2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Athelas
Don't blame children for believing children's stories. Everyone grows up eventually.

Yeah, eventually, you'll grow up and not say such foolish things. That was completely uncalled for and immature, just so you know. I'm surprised you acted that way, Athelas.

Athelas

09-27-2003, 01:45 AM

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I Corinthians 13

Eliot

09-27-2003, 02:00 AM

Why are you quoting the Bible, when you're calling Biblical beliefs childish? Please, tell me.

Snaga

09-27-2003, 10:22 AM

Eriol: fair comment but then I could ignore any biblical argument on these grounds.

Eriol

09-27-2003, 07:34 PM

I wouldn't expect you to accept any biblical argument at all :). The Bible is just another book -- if you don't accept its infallibility. And to accept that you have to accept Jesus' divinity, and believe in His sacrifice, etc. etc.

For a non-believer it makes as much sense to believe uncritically in the Bible as it does to believe in the Silmarillion :D. After all, "if Christ is not risen our faith is vain"... why should we trust the biblical human authors just because they claimed to be inspired by God while Tolkien was a bit humbler? Only a bit, mind you; remember that letter in which a stranger asks him if he really thought that he had written all of that by himself, and he is silent.

It is not the authors' claim that makes the Bible an authoritative source; it is Jesus.

Athelas

09-27-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
It is not the authors' claim that makes the Bible an authoritative source; it is Jesus.

You can believe in Jesus without automatically having to accept the enitire Bible as historical fact. Nothing sounds more inane to me than someone spouting, "You either believe the entire Bible or you believe none of it." Hogwash.

Eriol

09-27-2003, 08:26 PM

But I meant the historical Jesus, not the avatar ;).The real Jesus; the one who walked around 20 centuries ago.

Since it was Jesus who claimed that you either believe in all the Bible or in none of it, you are saying that Jesus -- the historical one -- said hogwash. It is your right.

Athelas

09-27-2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
Since it was Jesus who claimed that you either believe in all the Bible or in none of it, you are saying that Jesus -- the historical one -- said hogwash. It is your right.

Another example of Eriol Logic: start with a false premise and leap to a completely unrelated conclusion without a shred of support cited for either one.

Jesus never claimed that you either believe in all the Bible or none of it. Do you just make this up as you go?

Eriol

09-27-2003, 09:35 PM

No, I have a big book of false premises and unwarranted conclusions and I pick the one I feel is more fitting... and to discuss logic with you would be really boring.

Go ahead and keep your logic, Athelas. As I said, it is your right. I've seen where it leads in that Incarnation thread of long ago; it's not a pretty spot.

If, on the other hand, you want to follow the rest of the world's logic, tell me. We'll talk about Jesus and Paul, and how Scripture was acknowedged to be divinely inspired by Jesus' followers, and how Jesus said that he would be with his followers until the end of time, and how these same followers received the Holy Spirit directly from him, etc.

I know you won't want to do that, though.

Athelas

09-27-2003, 09:46 PM

Gosh, anything but actual support for your premise. Really I'm dying for you to prove your original premise:

>it was Jesus who claimed that you either believe in all the Bible or in none of it<

Knock yourself out.

The Incarnation thread is a great example of your unique idea of logic. None. You prefer to dicker over semantics than say anything of substance, support your assertions, or disprove your opponents. :o You are as transparent as glass, and your arguments just as strong.

Eriol

09-27-2003, 10:05 PM

Sigh... as usual you lack a mirror, Athelas. You are the one who is slipping away from any discussion with rhetoric and fog. Check that thread if you don't remember it.

Since you insist, here is the reasoning behind the premise; I know for a fact that you won't accept it, you are very obstinate in error, but perhaps there are others who are interested in that question; even though we are hijacking Inderjit's thread on the age of the Earth :(.

The Infallibility of the Scriptures is asserted by the Church. The infallibility of the Church was asserted by Jesus. There you go.

The first premise is known by all; want some evidence for the second premise? Here it is:

Matthew 28: 18-20

18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Note that the person speaking is God. You should put some weight in the words of God ;). He says this: first that all power is given to Him. Another reason to pay close attention to him. And then he says that the Church should "teach all nations". Finally, he says that he will be with them all days.

Should the Church teach falsity? Is that what Jesus meant?

Now, Matthew 16:18, quite famous:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Again it sounds as if this church is worthy of our attention; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Can She be teaching falsity, and teaching falsehoods, in that case?

Let's leave Matthew now. John 14:16-17

16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

So the spirit of truth was with those guys; according to Christ.

Let's take Paul now. I Timothy 3:15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

So that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, according to Paul and the other apostles; and remember, those guys had the spirit of truth, and the gates of hell would not prevail against them, etc.

I think the infallibility of the Church is pretty much established by now. The book of Acts also is very clear about that, showing the Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit and deciding on matters in the name of Christ.

If you want to dispute all that, please open another thread...

Athelas

09-27-2003, 10:37 PM

>The Infallibility of the Scriptures is asserted by the Church. The infallibility of the Church was asserted by Jesus.<

THE CHURCH will be relieved to know that. The world trembles before the might of your intellect.

>Again it sounds as if this church is worthy of our attention; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Can She be teaching falsity, and teaching falsehoods, in that case?<

Sure THE CHURCH has never taught falsity, falsehoods or falsies of any sort. THE CHURCH is infallible.

HA HA HA AHA OH, MY ACHING SIDES, OH HO HO, AH MY GOODNESS oh brother...

Snaga

09-28-2003, 01:07 AM

Eriol, your interpretation is ... umm... fallible.

Matthew 28: 18-20 is an imperative. It says what he wants his followers to do. It proves nothing about their infallibility. Unless you reject free-will??

Matthew 16:18 rather suggests that Peter, not Paul is the foundation of his church. Note in any case 'my church' not 'The Church'... and certainly not 'the Catholic Church'. If the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it... that would be over what timescale? Many would say that the Reformation was a proof that a corrupt institution could not forever suppress the essential truths in Christ's teaching.

John 14:16-17: Again hardly a statement about a 2000 year old institution!

Timothy 3:15 describes 'the church' as a place where truth may be discovered. It doesnt say that noone could ever declare a falsehood from the pulpit!

So much for all your quotes. And look... no mention of the scriptures in ANY of your quotes!!:D No wonder... Jesus could hardly declare the infallibility of a book that was not in existence yet!! Less still an institution that did not exist either!!

Frankly it seems to me that you, Eriol, have been caught in a falsehood, ascribing words to Jesus that he never said, resorting to preposterous contortions of words that are scarcely relevant to defend your indefensible position. Par for the course for you I fear.

Eriol

09-28-2003, 02:47 AM

Gosh, guys, you should form a fan club.

This is not "my" interpretation, as in "Eriol's tricky ways are exposed again"; it is The Catholic Church's interpretation. And this is something I rarely claim for my own statements.

If you assume that Christ was unfortunately mistaken about the courses his Church would take, Snaga, you deny his divinity. He was not an ordinary Joe. He is God, all-knowing, and He knows the entire course of history from beginning to end. Unless you want to deny omniscience?

So much for all your quotes. And look... no mention of the scriptures in ANY of your quotes!! No wonder... Jesus could hardly declare the infallibility of a book that was not in existence yet!! Less still an institution that did not exist either!!

Eliot has a signature pertaining to the infallibility of the Scriptures, if that's what you want; but I assumed in my post that the sentence "The Church affirms the infallibility of the Scriptures" was common knowledge. Is that what you are questioning? As for the "temporal constraints" in Christ's words, I suppose you did not read the quotes. Especially "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world". You are showing yourself to be very skilled at not reading the posts you comment, Snaga...

It is really sad to see intelligent people more worried about how to insult the other guy than to think about what was said. Par for the course for the two of you I fear... and unfortunately I can't really make more than I already did about it. You can either decide to take my words seriously, or to bash them; the choice remains with you.

Lúthien Séregon

09-28-2003, 02:53 AM

Just turning back to the original topic of this thread, perhaps some might find this link interesting ( or perhaps not, but still :D ):

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

Eliot

09-28-2003, 03:08 AM

Snaga, I recommend you read the book Refuting Evolution. Radiometric dating doesn't work, just so you know. The above-mentioned book refuted ( ;) ) radiometric dating.

Lúthien Séregon

09-28-2003, 04:02 AM

Refuted? The link I posted addressed some of those claims that Radiometric Dating must be false:

Well, the first popular technique of creationists is to try to find examples of bad radiometric dates and offer these up as proof that radiometric dating is totally unreliable....

The simple fact is, Creationists have NO evidence that points to a 6 - 10 thousand year age for the earth! This belief is an article of faith for creationists and they have never found any significant scientific data to back it up. The best they can do is to try to find flaws in decades of mainstream research (by thousands of researchers) that indicate the effectiveness of radiometric dating and to try to come up with doubtful scenarios that put an "upper limit" on the age of the earth. As was shown above by multiple sources, these schemes do not work. To see just how bad the ceationist model is , see Creationist Geologic Time Scale: an attack strategy for the sciences by Don Wise.

Eriol

09-28-2003, 04:22 AM

Thanks for the link, Lúthien ;)

On this matter I am very much at your side. Radiometric dating is quite established, and so is the age of the Earth (the oldest rocks are about 4 billion years old; but of course there was an Earth for these rocks to become solid on some years before they were actually formed). My first post was just to preempt the claims of some Christians (like, apparently, Eliot) that Genesis demands a young Earth interpretation; it does not.

Also, if I remember well, this was Inderjit's question ;) -- does Christian dogma requires the young Earth? My answer is no.

Eliot, the link was posted by Lúthien, not by snaga... ;)

Eliot

09-28-2003, 04:59 AM

OK Luthien, for some reason, I didn't look at the username, just at the avatar. For some pathetic reason, I thought you were Snaga.

And seeing as Snaga supports Evolution, etc, I thought this was an article talking about how radiometric dating works. Sorry, I didn't even read the article. I didn't have time. Never mind....I'm pathetic.

I'm feeling amazingly stupid right now......

Athelas

09-28-2003, 05:01 AM

So how "young" is the Earth according to the Bible?

Lúthien Séregon

09-28-2003, 05:32 AM

Snaga

09-29-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Eriol
If you assume that Christ was unfortunately mistaken about the courses his Church would take, Snaga, you deny his divinity. He was not an ordinary Joe. He is God, all-knowing, and He knows the entire course of history from beginning to end. Unless you want to deny omniscience?Those quotes are NOT unambiguous assertions. You are blind Eriol. Jesus describes 'church', and you twist to 'Church'.... Jesus was talking about people gathered together to follow his teaching. You are talking about a monolithic institution. The fallibility of the Catholic Church can be amply demonstrated. Want me to start a thread about the war time record of the Catholic Church in WWII? Or perhaps about the Inquisition? I actually don't, because that would be hurtful to some, I suspect. But I find your closed mind disturbing...

Originally Posted by Eriol
Eliot has a signature pertaining to the infallibility of the Scriptures, if that's what you want; but I assumed in my post that the sentence "The Church affirms the infallibility of the Scriptures" was common knowledge. Is that what you are questioning? As for the "temporal constraints" in Christ's words, I suppose you did not read the quotes. Especially "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world". You are showing yourself to be very skilled at not reading the posts you comment, Snaga...

It is really sad to see intelligent people more worried about how to insult the other guy than to think about what was said. Par for the course for the two of you I fear... and unfortunately I can't really make more than I already did about it. You can either decide to take my words seriously, or to bash them; the choice remains with you. Which Church is that? There are many churches which do not believe every word of the Scriptures. Did you miss the Reformation?? Probably... Like you didnt read my post. Otherwise you would have replied to my points. But you can't. That would require you to think for yourself. Instead you squirm and twist and throw out nonsense. I am CERTAIN that the Catholic Church asserts the infallibility of the Scripture. But I am saying that Jesus said NOTHING about the subject. He said neither that the Bible (which did not exist) nor the Catholic Church (which did not exist) were infallible. You have to contort logic to find a tenuous statement to theoretically hint at the second part of that. And on that flimsy basis, you have to make a dogmatic assertion. Its all too silly.

Starflower

09-29-2003, 12:18 PM

I do agree with Snaga, Jesus talked about church as a group of his followers coming together, not as the institution we have today. He also did not say that the Bible infallible, as the Bible didn't exist, and anyway, the Bible is a collection of writings made by men, in no way can it be infallible, no matter how divine inspired it is , it is still written by people, not by God.

"I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world".
HOw does this mean to you that the Bible is literally true? All it means is that Jesus promises to eb with his followers, but it doesn't say in which way

Eliot

09-29-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Starflower
it is still written by people, not by God.

The words were inspired by God. God was telling the authors what to write.

Starflower

09-29-2003, 05:41 PM

God-inspired is a different thing than "God told them what to write". If indeed God told the writers of the books of the bible exactly what to write, then surely He would have had it mentioned somewhere, ie along the lines of " this has not been written by me X, but God told me the owrds and I put them down". No, the letters of Paul for example, they are just that, letters to his congregation. They are most certainly inspired by Paul's devotion to God, but they are written by Paul the man, not by God. In the OT God spoke directly to his prophets, but this was not his way in Jesus' time. And also, if God told them waht to write, why bother with humans at all? He could have just given the Scripture ready made from the Heavens, quite like the COmmandments. I still stand by my opinion, that all Scripture is God-inspired but the writers' own words

Eriol

09-29-2003, 06:29 PM

Please, start your threads about World War II and Inquisition. Perhaps you don't realize that this was already discussed here (the Inquisition). Who has a closed mind, snaga? Who is repeating blindly without reading the posts?

I'd LOVE to see the record of the Catholic Church in the World War II cleared here. I'd post quotes from Albert Einstein and Golda Meir saying that the only power that supported Jews in that conflict was the Catholic Church; but you wouldn't listen.

Gosh, you really need to take a break; and to study the subjects you like to preach about.

Let me put it clearly then:

1) the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals as I stated in my FIRST post in this thread. (perhaps you missed it). I'll make it even more closed-minded and disturbing :). The Catholic Church has no possibility of error in those matters. Assuming that there is any possibility of error would falsify those words of Jesus, and therefore deny his divinity.

2) This was stated by Jesus according to the quotes I posted. I know Protestants wouldn't agree -- but they at least would discuss instead of shouting. Or at least polite Protestants would.

3) I don't find your closed mind disturbing ;). Or at least I'm not disturbed by it as you seem to be by mine. I find it very, very amusing that a guy who professes to find absolute truth "nowhere" can be so definite about his beliefs, and even his data, like the nonsense you just said about World War II and the Catholic Church.

4) Jesus Christ founded ONE Church. The Catholic Church. And no other. Check the history books ;). Lutheran, Calvinist, etc. etc.

Starflower, the words "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" are pointed at the Church, because the guys listening to him would die in some years and therefore could not "teach all nations" until the consummation of the world. "You" in that sentence is therefore the Church; or it doesn't make sense. Christ is with the Church all days (of course I could post more quotes to that effect). The Church wrote the books of the New Testament and selected the canon; under the guidance of the Holy Ghost (as Jesus promised in that quote of John). I'd like to discuss that with you if you wish :).

Thorin

09-30-2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Starflower
I do agree with Snaga, Jesus talked about church as a group of his followers coming together, not as the institution we have today. He also did not say that the Bible infallible, as the Bible didn't exist, and anyway, the Bible is a collection of writings made by men, in no way can it be infallible, no matter how divine inspired it is , it is still written by people, not by God.
Okay lets clear up something here. The scriptures are infallible, not innerrant. Does that help? When it comes to salvation issues, the scriptures are infallible. God's salvation plan has been His guiding from beginning to end. However, the scriptures are not innerrant (without errors) because mankind has written them. Cultural perspectives and personal desires have been added in. Look at the Psalms. Most of the Psalms are David's personal thoughts, lamentings and desires. He is not necessarily speaking from God, though many of the ideas he expounds upon are direct inspiration from God. Nonetheless, God has inspired and guided the writing of the scriptures even while leaving the recording of it at the mercy of infallible humans. Lets look at the idea of innerrancy vs infallibility by an analogy

. Suppose we all were by the side of the road. An accident occurs where a person gets hit by a car. A policeman takes all our accounts and finds that one person said the car swerved to the left, another said it swerved to the right. One person says the man was wearing a brown windbreaker. Another said it was a brown pullover. Different accounts because of different human perspectives (errancy). None of these change the fact that a car swerved and nailed the poor guy crossing the road (infallibility).

The scriptures are the same. I do not agree with Eriol in the church being infallible in any fashion, however, unless those issues of faith and morals come straight from the scriptures. I thought this was a discussion on young/old earth? ;)

Eriol

10-01-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
I thought this was a discussion on young/old earth? ;)

I thought so too :). So, Thorin, I will say here what I think is the position agreed to by ALL Christians (i.e., people who believe that Jesus is God and died for our sins) regarding the Scriptures and the Young Earth... please correct me if you find any error.

1) The Scriptures are infallible;
2) Genesis is therefore correct; that means "free of error" ;);

2a) Some Christians think that this entails a "Young Earth" interpretation, in which the Earth doesn't have more than a few thousands of years (certainly not enough to reach, say, 20,000);
2b) Other Christians think that this is a too literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and that it can be interpreted as allowing an "Old Earth" (at least some million years old) without breaking the rules 1 and 2, agreed to by all Christians;

3) None of the above positions is clear enough for one side to say that the other is wrong in its interpretation; and honest error in this subject does not entail the conclusion that the mistaken person is not a Christian (as it would if the error touched the subject of Christ's divinity, or some other statements of faith directly related to the Christian faith).

Thorin

10-01-2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
2a) Some Christians think that this entails a "Young Earth" interpretation, in which the Earth doesn't have more than a few thousands of years (certainly not enough to reach, say, 20,000);
2b) Other Christians think that this is a too literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and that it can be interpreted as allowing an "Old Earth" (at least some million years old) without breaking the rules 1 and 2, agreed to by all Christians;

3) None of the above positions is clear enough for one side to say that the other is wrong in its interpretation; and honest error in this subject does not entail the conclusion that the mistaken person is not a Christian (as it would if the error touched the subject of Christ's divinity, or some other statements of faith directly related to the Christian faith).
I disagree with you Eriol. (why are we NOT surprised?:D

Taking into consideration the context and cultural perspective of the scriptures the way they were written supports a young earth created in 24 literal days. The only way that you can use Genesis to support an old earth is to say that God created the earth with its contents already aged from the start and even then you cannot find any direct conclusion of that from Genesis 1. Comparing the two of them, you cannot find evidence in an old earth as much as a young earth and definitely not any sort of theistic evolution. The context of the Hebrew 'yom' for day at the least makes one come to the conclusion that the Hebrews at the least thought that it was young.
The meaning is in the interpretation in the context that it was written. In other words, any reading into Genesis of an old earth is a modern, outside interpretation to reconcile scientific data with biblical reckoning. You cannot get an old earth out of seven 24 hour days. You can say that the Hebrews were wrong and misguided, but you cannot say that what they wrote supports modern thinking of a scientific old earth.

Eriol

10-01-2003, 06:07 PM

We have a big thread of our own for that :D. But note that I said that (2b) allows for an Old Earth interpretation; I think there is a subtle difference between "allowing" and "supporting" an interpretation.

What is really important, though, is statement (3): what do you think of that?

Goro Shimura

10-01-2003, 06:38 PM

Eriol,

This issue does touch on the subject of Christ's divinity, AND some other fundamental premises directly related to the Christian faith. To destroy a building, attack the foundation and the whole thing will come down. That's why anti-God/anti-Bible type people love to flaunt the old-earth theories so much. If they can even seem to win in this argument, then the whole Bible ends up looking ridiculous.

Maybe 'yom' could mean 'day', 'year', or 'era'. I can see that. But each time 'yom' is mentioned in Genesis 1, it's followed by the phrase 'And the evening and the morning were the Nth day.' By using that phrase, any room for loose interpretation is just about eliminated. (How can an era consist of a single evening and morning!!?)

But let's say that we're still confused-- in spite of the precise wording in Genesis 1.

Remember that God declared everything in Creation GOOD. There was no sin or death or killing when God said that. Death did not come into the world until AFTER the sin of Adam.

This is fundamental to New Testament doctrine. Christ is the 'second' Adam... who has come to fix the problems introduced by the first Adam.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

-- 1 Cor 15:21-22

And no, you cannot somehow separate Jesus from the Old Testament. According to Christ himself, those that reject the writings of Moses, will cannot even begin to accept the person of Jesus. Nevermind the fact that he refers to the people of the book of Genesis as if they had really existed!

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

-John 5:46-47

Thorin

10-01-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
What is really important, though, is statement (3): what do you think of that? I wouldn't say that anyone who believes in 'old earth' isn't a Christian, but their premise for being one is on shaky ground when comparing the scriptures. Goroshimura brought up some good points and some of which you haven't provided for a reasonable answer (speaking of the other thread this was hashed out on).

Here are the problems I have with the old earth theory (which gives way to theistic evolution) that have not been answered or properly explained:

1) It contradicts most of the New Testament that continually refer to creation Adam and Eve and the Sabbath day ('created' on the seventh 'yom' - literal day, of creation) and which specifically refers to creation week in the 4th commandment. It also negates Revelation 14 that says "Fear God and give Him glory for the hour of His judgement has come. And worship Him who made heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them". Now if you say that this could still mean God 'created' by using evolution, you are ignoring the context and perspective of the John the Revelator and the rest of the Bible who only understood creation as was recorded and referred to throughout the rest of scripture.

2) It completely negates the rest of the Old Testament writers who continually refer back to them being created and how the OT goes to umpteenth lengths to show that this special creation defines the relationship between God and man (we worship God and give Him glory because he created the heavens and earth - Revelation

3) It does not explain when sin came into the world and why there is even such a thing as sin if beings evolved. There is no reasonable explanation as to the accountability of man for his actions.

4) It negates the whole salvation process of why Christ had to come back (Goro's quote of 1 Corinthians 15 emphasises that. See also Romans 5). The Bible makes it quite plain that Christ had to come back because of Adam's sin that brought on death to the human race. Jesus was the second Adam to give back life. Because of the first sin, death entered into the world and the whole purpose of the salvation process is to restore back the world as God created it.

5) Though I don't believe in it anyway, but IF I DID, it doesn't explain how in the world man all of a sudden got a 'soul' that survives death? When did God all of a sudden put it in? If man is an evolved being over an old earth's time period, he is no different then any other species. He is only a higher evolved form. When and why did he become special in God's eyes to warrant salvation? Why did man 'sin' and not the animals? This takes away the overall theme and underlying thread of the scriptures that show that man IS special because God created him 'in His image' and because of man's free choice to sin, must be restored to that image He created.

Eriol

10-01-2003, 10:43 PM

First of all, I can't tell how glad I am to see Goroshimura posting here... I am a great fan of yours, Goroshimura, since my newbie days at the "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings" thread. You should post more often :).

As I said, there is one thread ("Question on the Bible") full of arguments pro and against the Old Earth / Young Earth debate. I don't think this is what was on Inderjit's mind when he opened this present thread... I think he wanted to know what is "the Christian position", if there is any. What would you both guys say? I know Thorin believes in a Young Earth, and it seems Goroshimura does also -- but does that mean that the Young Earth is "the Christian position" on that subject?

I don't think so. I don't think there is any definite answer to that question; just as many other questions, it is not central to Christianity. What is central is Jesus, and his role; as the good St. Thomas Aquinas said and I keep in my Deep Thoughts, we have faith in a Person -- not a treaty, not a system of logic, not a proposition or a series of those.

Posted by Goroshimura

This issue does touch on the subject of Christ's divinity, AND some other fundamental premises directly related to the Christian faith. To destroy a building, attack the foundation and the whole thing will come down. That's why anti-God/anti-Bible type people love to flaunt the old-earth theories so much. If they can even seem to win in this argument, then the whole Bible ends up looking ridiculous.

I know the anti-God/anti-Bible people believe in that; I know that for most of them the Young Earth argument is a great opprtunity to ridicule the Scriptures. But they are wrong :). Why should we follow them in their mistake? Even if they think that proving the Old Earth means disproving the Scriptures, why should I believe in them?

I am not a biblical scholar. In that "Question on the Bible" thread, I did not intend to prove that the Bible "supported" an old Earth, just that an old Earth interpretation is feasible. Do you know why I did that? Of course, a big argument is that my own training and studies in biology offer overwhelming (always that fateful word ;) ) support for Evolution, even if we disregard natural selection as its mechanism. Call that my personal reason. But there is another reason, the one that makes me a Catholic: I accept the magisterium of the Catholic Church as infallible. That's almost the definition of a Catholic. I've offered some reasons for that belief in the quotes above. If you want to argue the infallibility of the Church we can always open a thread ;).

The Catholic Church teaches that:

(1) Scripture has other senses besides the literal one;
(2) An Old Earth interpretation is not contradictory with Genesis; it is not proven by it, either. The Catholic position on that is that we can't really prove any position based on Scripture, we have to trust other sources for that (such as Science).

I don't think I should address your points on this thread, Thorin... I did that on that other thread; I think none of them are new. Forgive me if I'm wrong and take it there, so we can discuss it in detail. I'll post only a brief comment here: sin has nothing to do with man's biological nature, it was brought about by his spiritual failing, and only after the spirit sinned was Nature (all of creation) brought down with it. And "creation" of earth and heaven does not rule out an evolutionary process; God can create in many ways. What is certain is that He created it out of nothing. How he did it, we do not know: or rather, we have the Book of Genesis to enlighten us (and it does enlighten, even if you -- like me -- do not demand a literal reading of Genesis; I wish you'd read the Patristic authors and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Book of Genesis... at least you'd be criticizing people who knew much more about Genesis than I do ;) ).

I'll post a link to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas for you guys here. I call your attention to two articles, or rather one article and one series of articles:

I, I, 10: Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

And the Treaty on the Creation (Questions 65 to 74)

This is the link:

Summa (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm)

Malbeth

10-01-2003, 11:24 PM

Remember that God declared everything in Creation GOOD. There was no sin or death or killing when God said that. Death did not come into the world until AFTER the sin of Adam.

I was thinking about this... it is a good argument, but Genesis 2 (or 3, I am not sure) has God telling Adam "On the day you eat of the fruit of this tree, you shall surely die". But Adam did not die, he lived to a (very :) ) ripe old age. So, we have two choices

1- God was making a false threat;
This simply cannot be believed by a Christian.

2- Adam did die on the day he ate of the fruit.
But how can that be, if he was still alive? Simply, God did not mean physical death, but spiritual death, the "wages of sin".

Regarding animals... there is no evil relating to animals, so when an animal kills another that is not evil, and physical death itself cannot be considered an evil.

Consider it this way; if God created through evolution (and, unless you want to limit Him, you have to admit that He could have created this way), then (physical) death, being part of a process designed by God, would be good. Spiritual death, however, is definitly an evil since it is the result of an evil choice.

PS- Also, wasn't Adam supposed to, after suceeding in the trial, be able to eat of the Tree of Life? Doesn't this mean that Adam did not have immortality by nature, but would have it by grace?

Snaga

10-02-2003, 10:34 AM

Eriol, I'm glad I amuse you. I wish I could find you as entertaining. Thank you at least for drawing my attention to the problem with the tags in my previous post. Congratulations on the kindly patient tone that you achieved in doing so. You're a shining beacon for the whole forum.

Thank you also for your more qualified statement about infallibility. I often find that when pressed, your initial statements get quietly changed, whilst you insist that you havent moved at all. To that end, you should expect me to continue to harry you without notice. I'm glad this is an enjoyable experience for you.;)

More on topic...

I would like to understand from someone who believes in 'Young Earth' how you can dismiss the weight of scientific knowledge? Its not really an area of dispute and debate among scientists. I assume you are aware of this? I heard one theory that this was a test of faith... as though God 'planted evidence' that we need to disbelieve to prove our faith. Or is there another reason? I promise not to try to dissuade you from your strongly held conviction: it is genuinely bewildering to me that people could hold this view, and I'd be very interested in knowing how intelligent people could accept this position. Therefore, please don't post links to websites trying to persuade me of your view, since that's not of interest. I'd like to read a personal account if anyone is willing.:)

Eriol

10-02-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by snaga1
Eriol, I'm glad I amuse you. I wish I could find you as entertaining. Thank you at least for drawing my attention to the problem with the tags in my previous post. Congratulations on the kindly patient tone that you achieved in doing so. You're a shining beacon for the whole forum.

Well, you see snaga, I tried hard to interpret that as a problem with the tags -- but there was no hanging "/b]" around there... I really tried to give it a try. But I couldn't, in honesty, explain it away like that. Perhaps you could. Tell me how the little "/b]" danced around in your post and fell into the right position; I never saw a tag problem like that.

And again you fall into the same fault that you accuse me. Look at your own patient tone in that post with the "tags problem", and in the other posts, snaga...

When you keep on stating (as you did then) or implying (as you did now) that the "initial statements got changed", you are simply wrong, in this case. When you say that it is done out of malice, you are again wrong, but also insulting.

Preach what you practice. Use a patient tone. If you see me "switching statements", say it -- it's really simple. There is no need to climb the soapbox (or the pulpit ;) ).

Thank you also for your more qualified statement about infallibility. I often find that when pressed, your initial statements get quietly changed, whilst you insist that you havent moved at all. To that end, you should expect me to continue to harry you without notice. I'm glad this is an enjoyable experience for you.;)

Harry away, harry away... as I said, the "initial statement that got quietly changed" was in the FIRST post of mine at this thread. I really thank you when you get me speaking more than I should; it helps me to pay attention to my words. I am lazy when I am speaking with friends, and that is perhaps a fault.

Luckily, it did not happen in this thread. I have not moved at all. The statement was there from the beginning, as explicit as you could ask for. You see, harrying also should help YOU to pay attention to my words.

I only expect that your "harrying" will be as polite as this last post of yours was.

P.S. There is no stigma in moving away from one's statements, you know. This is not a court of law. This is a conversation, a friendly conversation. Didn't you ever clarify or modify a statement made in a conversation? For instance, you boasted about Inquisition and World War II. I will not take you to task for saying that...

Your efforts to criticize the person instead of the argument are amusing -- I'll always find them so. In the meanwhile, don't you think we should drop this by now? Next time you find an opportunity to harry, do so; this time it was a mistake, but next time it can be right.

Edit: Well, you editted the post with the tag problem. I'll edit mine then; and if you will edit the comment about the tag problem I'll edit the comment in this one too. To discuss tags is really odd.

Goro Shimura

10-02-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by snaga1

I would like to understand from someone who believes in 'Young Earth' how you can dismiss the weight of scientific knowledge? Its not really an area of dispute and debate among scientists. I assume you are aware of this? I heard one theory that this was a test of faith... as though God 'planted evidence' that we need to disbelieve to prove our faith. Or is there another reason? I promise not to try to dissuade you from your strongly held conviction: it is genuinely bewildering to me that people could hold this view, and I'd be very interested in knowing how intelligent people could accept this position. Therefore, please don't post links to websites trying to persuade me of your view, since that's not of interest. I'd like to read a personal account if anyone is willing.:)

I was an evolutionist and agnostic until after I graduated college.

[When I was in high school... there were people starving in Ethiopia. I remarked, "hey... we shouldn't send food over there. This is a good chance to clean out the gene pool!!" Sad, but true. I thought it was a clever argument what with evolution and all....]

After examining the evidence about Christ, I came to the conclusion that He actually was a real historical person, and that he came and said and did all that the New Testament says he did. (Lee Stroble outlines some of the evidence in his book The Case for Christ.)

At this point I was upset, because I did not think my mind could change. I believed the facts of Jesus presence in history, but I could not reconcile that with my evolution/agnostic beliefs. I did not think there was any way to make myself change how my mind work.

So I asked God to change my mind-- while not believing in Him and being absolutely sure he could not answer my prayer.

Weeks later, my mind was different. I just suddenly began to see everything though 'biblical' glasses.

Looking back, it seems to me that the issue isn't so much one of which side has the most evidence. Our ulterior motives have a great affect on how we interpret all of the evidence. It's really a matter of what we're going to give the benefit of the doubt. What do we trust more... the Bible or the scientific establishment?? We simply cannot test these theories about the origin the same way that we measure the speed of light. How can you devise an experiment to prove a process will work a certain way... if it takes billions of years for that process to work itself out?

But as far as the evidence goes... why do we have all of these billion year old fossils that look exactly like the creatures that exist today? Why do we keep finding creatures that were recently thought to be extinct for millions of years?

Darwin believed there would be a huge amount of intermediary forms unearthed over the past hundred years. There's just not a lot there. A few oddities-- and more than a few hoaxes.... It's not that difficult to believe that these fossils were, for the most part, caused by a catastrophic flood that occured a few thousand years ago.

The bottom line for me?

The bible contains reliable eyewitness accounts of things that actually happened. No scientist has observed the past... but in the bible we have the testimony of the One that created all things. If Jesus really came and really rose from the dead... then we have in the bible the testimony of someone who was actually present at the creation. What He said about these things carries the most weight for me.

Evolution is about as scientific as Marxism and Freudianism. It's a fashionable bit of creative speculation. The evidence for Christ's resurrection is much greater than any 'proof' we might have for evolution.

Snaga

10-02-2003, 11:37 PM

Thanks. Can I ask one further question to clarify, cos I'm not entirely sure I follow entirely.

I understand you feel that Darwins theory of evolution is questionable in terms of the process from getting from Pre-Cambrian micro-organism to what we see on Earth today is flawed. But you must actually also think that the fossils etc aren't what scientists claim, right? How do you account for them? Were you saying that they are just incorrectly dated?

Talierin

10-03-2003, 05:52 AM

I believe the fossils were created in Noah's Flood (worldwide, I believe, btw)... the flood also would have created all the strata layers as the waters receded and settled...

Snaga

10-03-2003, 09:20 AM

Eriol I missed your post but suffice to say that the tag problem arose from hitting 'quote' instead of 'reply' and then trying to insert my comments into the middle of the block quote of your post.

it was Jesus who claimed that you either believe in all the Bible or in none of itchanged toThe Infallibility of the Scriptures is asserted by the Church. The infallibility of the Church was asserted by Jesusand of course you insistI have not moved at all.Why is that so hard to admit to, when you say its not so bad to change, qualify or clarify statements? Ho hum... No doubt you have an argument for the infallibility of Eriol up your sleeve.;) *yawns*

Eriol

10-03-2003, 02:39 PM

And why don't you detect a little argument for the infallibility of Snaga in that reasoning (sort of) yours, then?

:D

"Suffice to say" that the two statements are equivalent. I don't think you need a course in logic, snaga... if The Jesus said that the Church is infallible, and the Church said that the Scriptures are infallible, then Jesus said that the Scriptures are infallible. It's not so complicated.

Perhaps you missed the little "I am with you all days", Snaga... non-believers have a great difficulty in grasping the concept that Jesus is NOT dead. He is alive, and with his Church, as he said he would be. To know this is not necessary to grasp the logic behind my statement, but it helps some.

Clarified enough?

;)

If you want to say that I moved, you might as well show it... and of course it would be no big deal. It would be much less an argument for Eriol's fallibility than this stubborness of yours argues for Snaga's fallibility; but we've seen other examples of that in other threads.

You should cool your head before posting. It makes for less mistakes. It seems you are doing that of late, and I'm glad.

P.S. I guess you were just unlucky then with the tags... The words "Originally posted by Eriol" in the second quote magically were not in Bold, even though they were supposed to be between the two "Bold" tags.

I told you I tried hard to explain it away like that... I was looking for this kind of details. But Snaga's infallibility wouldn't acknowledge his own shouting... but never mind, I can accept your amazing lack of luck with tags.

Snaga

10-03-2003, 03:03 PM

I can follow the logic that leads you to believe that the infallibility of the scripture has the authority of Jesus. But, perhaps because I am quite calm, I can also see that the second quote is you admitting that Jesus did NOT himself say that the Scripture was infallible.

Surely you can see the difference between what Jesus actually said (although I don't agree with your interpretation) and what the Church said, using his authority?

Perhaps you should take your own advice and cool off. You (a) are bewildering yourself in trying to cover your own tracks, and (b) seem to be incapable of posting without taking that snide tone. In your previous post you said you were going to drop this... but you don't seem to be able to. Addicted to having the last word, perhaps?;)

Eriol

10-03-2003, 03:40 PM

Ok, I'll try to be non-snide now. I don't know what is so bad about snide; I prefer it to insulting. I suppose this is a matter of preference; I've seen other people here preferring insulting to snide. To each his own.

First, the subject under discussion (which will take a very small part of the post :( ) -- no, I don't see the difference. Jesus said that the Church is infallible; The Church (who is therefore infallible) said that the Scriptures are infallible. Care to explain what is wrong? When the Church said that about the Scriptures, the Holy Ghost (God) was supervising it.

As you seem to agree... "I can follow the logic that leads you to believe that the infallibility of the Scripture has the authority of Jesus" ?? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if you can follow that logic, what is this whole discussion about?

The non-snide remarks now.

"Bewildering"... I don't quite get the meaning of that word. I am "bewildered"? It seems it is a fashionable word. Does it mean something?

In my previous post , I suggested that we should drop this. Par for the course (a great expression :D) for you, that you would not read the post. Since you did not drop it, I won't; it is only common sense to let the accused have the last word. If I ever went to a thread and accused you falsely, I would expect you to have the last word. And it is an accusation, and a slander; unfortunately for you, you picked the wrong fault to nag about. I have plenty (perhaps even an addiction to having the last word ;) ), but to not admit my mistakes is not one of them.

Now, snaga, is the time to put your money where your mouth is. (Is that snide?). You quietly dropped the World War II and Inquisition remarks... doing what you accuse me of doing, by the way. It is how you work: malicious remarks without any substance, and when you are challenged, you disappear (without admitting any mistake -- your idea of "infallibility" I suppose).

Well: show me ONE instance of mine in which I was proven wrong and did not admit it; one thread in which I did what you are doing in this thread (both in the shouting and in the argument itself about infallibility). I ask only for one. Shouldn't be too hard, since it is "par for the course". I won't even ask for a comparison with your own record... that record should be a matter for your conscience, not mine. You really should think about it.

At the end of it all is the great puzzle of motivation. Why, if it is "par for the course", did snaga the stalwart defender of intellectual integrity take so long to begin harrying away? Why now?

Ah, it's too silly, as you said before (I can use your words too :D). If you wish to pretend that you are playing such a role, be my guest. I guess I'll see you a lot in the threads I post, then; I might as well get used to the unsubstantiated claims... and always hoping to see some real input; in the end your role will be benign, though I don't think that is the intent behind it. That is my last word about your intellectual integrity; I'll simply answer to your claims from now on. And I'm only saying that because I want you to use the same harshness you are showing in this and in other threads with yourself. It's a valuable exercise.

Merry harrying then :).

P.S. I must thank you for your own change in tone :). I much prefer a polite and composed opponent, myself.

Eliot

10-03-2003, 04:08 PM

Both of you, this is quite stupid and immature. This argument will never end. Eriol thinks Snaga is mistaken and wrong, Snaga thinks Eriol is mistaken and wrong.

Have you guys even taken a look at the title of this thread? It's titled "The Earth: Young or Old." I'd like it if both of you got back on topic, and just SHUT UP about this (whatever you're arguing about, I don't understand :p).

No.....I'm not trying to act like a mod.......

Eriol

10-03-2003, 06:24 PM

Eliot: you are right, and I'm sorry. I only wish someone could have stepped in like you did before it got so far.

You'll never hear a word from me about that again.

As for the evidence about the Old/Young Earth, I don't have much to add to what I said in the "Question on the Bible" thread... I also had a thread about "Darwinism" in the GoP (I don't remember the exact title).

Snaga

10-03-2003, 10:27 PM

Hehe... this thread gets better all the time!:D That's hilarious Walter!:D Much fun!!!

Eliot

10-04-2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Walter
Well you see, it's pretty simple, God, the omniscient, omnipotent, created the earth on literally six days, the earth, trees, the birds and the bees, humanmankind - in his likeness, of course (male only?)-, etc., etc. - oh yes and it all was good.

Next "Lord God" (he'd been promoted meantime because of the success within the first 6 days, though his wages were cut down for the lazyness at the 7th) made Eden and Adam, the first man .... wait hadn't we mankind already? ... ummm .. never you mind, must be my dyslexic reading, can't be a contradiction in the bible ... and that dreaded apple-tree before he was doing the spare-rib-thingy with Adam and so Eve came into being. Ahh yes and that sneaky serpent creature. But that all wasn't so good anymore, no shoulder padding this time.

Well, then came Ad's veggie day and they got banned - it was all Eve's fault of course - because it had turned out the dreaded apple had been from that darned "tree of knowledge" (though he had told Eve more than once to get only biological food!!!). Ad "knew" his wife and thus came Cain and Abe into being, Cain got jealous and Abe killed, well you probably know the rest.

Then there's the thing with those sons of the Gods who ... ummm, ermmm .. well went into... umm, better .. "knew" (I think that's the proper term) the doughters of men... wait, no ... we're monotheistic .. well, we gotto skip that part it would take too long to explain that...

God (no longer Lord God, probably his promotion was reversed after the tree accident), the omniscient, omnipotent eventually realized he had made a mistake and decided to drop - or better drown - his experiment. He gave Noah a few clay tablets (the ones with the cuneyform texts of Atrahasis ark-building over in Mesopotamia) so he could learn how to make an ark. Unfortunately we have no account how Noah managed to get hold of all those animals from all over the world in such little time, but anyway, you get the bigger picture....

Next God let down the waters from above (which he had conveniently put into outer space at day 2 - or 3, I keep forgetting...- and covered the world's surface with a few dozen feet of water (hmmm...how many cubic-tons of water will we need for that ... anywayy you do the maths...)

Now comes the tricky part (which unfortunately isn't mentioned in the scriptures): God created a couple million fossiles (artefacts of a sort; incl. those neat fragments of Par-, Sahel-, Kenyanthropus, Ardi- and Australo-Pithecus, H. Rudolfensis, H. Habilis, H. erectus, etc. up to Homo sapiens finally) and spred 'em nicely over the sea.

Next he made the waters disappear again (dug a hole in the middle of the sea and - voilá - the Earth is dry again; you still can see the proof for that or what else do you think makes the vulcanos work, pretty much like a pressure-cooker, ain't it?)

The rest is known from the Bible so I need not mention it here except for the one bit you've probably all figured out already: C14 and all that bullsh.., not that it would be much reliable anyway, but God - of course foresaw that and did a little trick on physics: He slowed down radioactive decay, which had been pretty fast until that time. It's really all that simple: we - mankind, the children of God, were made in his likeness (not to mix up with those filthy neantherthals, let alone sahelanthropus, etc.) some 6000 years ago. Now when we learned to measure radioactive decay and get to the conclusion those early hominides date some 6 millions of years it's simply a setup we fall for, because of God's little decay trick.

Now, what I do not understand is why a there's still a few of those stupid disbelievers around after all those evidence in the scriptures and such (Besides there are hundreds of websites around which explain it all even better, just do a search on Creationism). All it takes is a little faith, it ain't that hard, really...

Believe that and you believe everything!

And after all that's what it's all about, you see, you gotta believe it, not understand it!

Unless...

...well unless you're one of those few lucky people who are able to prove the existence of God, rather than believe it, then you're even better off... ;)

Now, snaga, I hope I have been able to finally convince you with my post, after all you're an intelligent guy I'm sure you'll see my point ;)

----

Epilogue:
Monty Python's Quest of the Holy Grail - The bridge scene ... picture it:

both arms and a leg already gone, knight jumping around on one leg, attacking with his head...

"Right I'll do you for that!"
"Do What??"
"I'll Kill yer!"
"Kill me???What are you goin' to do? Bleed on me?"
"the Black knight always prevails!!!!"
*chop* ...other leg hewn off...
"Right... ummm... let's call it a Draw." ;)

Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Because it's actually pretty stupid. How is it that whenever a Christian is made fun of, people join in and think it's funny to make fun of other people's beliefs? BUT, when a Christian makes fun of a non-Christian's beliefs...BAM! Every non-Christian member is jumping on that member smacking him with warning points and telling him that he's a hypocrite, he's being cruel, being wicked, etc.

I can't really remember the last time I made fun of somebody else's beliefs very well, but I do know that I was probably massacred by the non-Christians. Now I know that making fun of somebody's beliefs is really mean, and immature, Walter. Now, most people know it's pretty normal to see a young kid (14) like me to get all angry when somebody attacks my beliefs, opinions, etc because we're naturally immature at our age. BUT, when a 20-something or other year-old (how old are you anyway, Walter?) guy makes fun of Christian's beliefs, I find that staggering, amazing. I've never met someone that immature, to just outright make fun of a religion.

*sigh*......the heathen will eventually know that there is one God, the Christian God, and he is real.......and so is Hell...... :(

Snaga

10-04-2003, 12:18 PM

Never met anyone who would outright make fun of a religion before, Eliot? You should get out more!:D

*sigh*......the heathen will eventually know that there is one God, the Christian God, and he is real.......and so is Hell...... Oooooo..... that's SO scary!!!! Also, Santa won't come to your house this Christmas, Walter!

Ancalagon

10-04-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by snaga1
Never met anyone who would outright make fun of a religion before, Eliot? You should get out more!:D

Surely Snaga1, Religion was designed to be made fun of, for the simple reason it is comical in itself.

Eliot

10-04-2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Walter
Well, however different you may see that, Elliot, the intention of my post was not to make fun of any religion, and not of Christianity in particular.

It sure looked like you were making fun of Christianity. Oh, and Walter, please spell my name correctly next time. :p :)

Originally posted by Walter
1) The Pentateuch - the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) which were - according to the bible - written by Moses, have been most probably written by several different redactors (authors or groups) with significant differences in style and content, and which are partly in discordance with each other.

Care to give an example of why you don't believe it was written by Moses?

Originally posted by Walter
2) The Genesis still shows some remnants of older polytheistic myths that have been woven into it.

How so? Explain your meaning.

Originally posted by Walter
3) In particular the account of the flood has probably been taken from the old Mesopotamian "Atrahasis" myth.

Walter, just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Walter
Furthermore there is no scientifical evidence of such a worldwide flood, rather - in the light of current knowledge it seems extremely unlikely.

It seemed extremely unlikely that the Earth was round. The very idea was absurd. The idea of a flood is absurd, right? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Walter
4) Continuous development of mankind can be traced back several millions of years, it seems the line of our ancestors diverged from the chimpaneeze line somewhen between 5 and 10 millions of years ago and there were several intermediate branches (the "missing links") in between, but only one (or maybe two) of which survived into our modern Homo Sapiens. However there has been sort of a leap in the development (with rather "sudden" improvements) which begun some 40,000 years ago.

You can't prove any of that though. I'm sure a flood that completely covered the Earth would've fossilized human beings pretty quickly. I'm not exactly sure how many of these "ape-men" some people have found, but how do you know that these "ape-men" weren't deformed humans who were fossilized in the flood?

Originally posted by Walter
Hence, scientifical evidence is all against such a "young earth" hypothesis, as well as against a direct creation of mankind by God "in his likeness."

Then why have I heard of evolutionists and anti-creationists who have become Christians? Please explain.

Originally posted by Walter
I cannot - and do not want to - consider myself a Christian anymore...

All right, that's your choice. But, do remember that you will be judged, and there will be consequences to your actions (I know you don't believe you'll be judged, so don't waste your finger muscles saying you don't believe you'll be judged).

Originally posted by Walter
Regarding your question about my age: I'm 45, married, one son (18) - is there more you would like to know?

Not really. Thanks. I was just curious how old you are.

Originally posted by Walter
As you have so aptly pointed out, I'm certainly immature at that - others have pointed that out to me too, occasionally - but this helps me preserve the feeling of a long gone youth and - furthermore - enables me to communicate a little better with my fellow Tolkienists here, who are in their teenage years or a little beyond... ;)

I believe I understand.

P.S. Do even believe in a god? God (the Christian one) is real. It's like the wind. You don't see it, sometimes people can be stubborn and say it's not really there, but when you're saved, you can actually feel God. It's a real feeling, to have God in your life. I can give examples if they are at all needed.

Dr. Ransom

10-08-2003, 09:37 AM

I have missed not having the time to join in these debates. But I wanted to say to Eriol that reading his posts is practically like reading my R.C Sproul textbook on philosophy or something. While I am not Roman Catholic, and disagree with most of your specifially catholic doctrines (and I'll throw in theistic macro evolution still), I am extremely impressed with your ability to rationally and most importantly patiently reason through the wild and wooly. In other words, even in some of the major areas I disagree with, your logic on the issues is at least refreshingly sane.

Ransom

Goro Shimura

10-08-2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by snaga1
Thanks. Can I ask one further question to clarify, cos I'm not entirely sure I follow entirely.

I understand you feel that Darwins theory of evolution is questionable in terms of the process from getting from Pre-Cambrian micro-organism to what we see on Earth today is flawed. But you must actually also think that the fossils etc aren't what scientists claim, right? How do you account for them? Were you saying that they are just incorrectly dated?

Okay... I'll try to clarify these things without getting off into a rabit trail.

Darwin's Theory is questionable from several angles:

1) Can it account for the change from a "pre-biotic soup" to life? Scientists do not in general have an answer for this. Some go so far as to speculate that life was seeded here by microbes sent from extraterrestrial civilisations!!!

2) Can it prove that one creature evolve into another? I'm not convinced of this. If you take all of the prize pigs from the county fair and let them run wild on a fenced property... within a few generations they would no longer be beautiful prize pigs.... They would become ugly, hairy, long-toothed monsters. They would revert back to their "kind". Yes... we can produce many breeds of dogs for example, but breeding does not produce new species. I'm skeptical of any claims that evolution has been observed and documented.

3) The fossils are real. They are not fakes. I believe there is some sort of problem with our dating systems. I believe that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does to believe that these fossils were caused relatively recently in a catastrophic world-wide flood.

4) People don't think critically on these issues and have for the most part only heard one sides of the issue. I believe that evolutionists tend to play the role of the religious zealots and defend their beliefs and institutions with the same closed mindedness that "fundamentalists" are so often accused of.

Snaga

10-10-2003, 12:58 AM

On those specific points I'm also not sure that the 'pre-biotic soup to life' transition is yet adequately explained. But to acknowledge gaps in scientific knowledge doesnt invalidate the scientific method. We are pushing back the boundaries of the unknown all the time, and I have some confidence that we will understand that process rather better in 20, 50, 100 years time.

The process by which evolution takes place is also a matter of scientific debate. Some theorise a slow and gradual change, other suggest that it goes in sudden leaps. Again, there is some uncertainty, but no reason to abandon our attempts to come to conclusions scientifically. It is indeed true that we can't observe evolution directly, because it doesnt happen 'before our eyes'. Moreover, the physical evidence is harder to obtain and interpret. None of this invalidates evolution.

The one part of the evidence that is unproblematic is the aging of the fossils. The process of carbon-dating is as well established as the fundamentals of physics and chemistry. Furthermore, you can use the stratification of rocks and sediments as further evidence of their age.

As for your final point, it is one that I must take issue with. Science doesnt not assert a body of 'truth'. It asserts that an appropriate method of reaching the truth is to make theories and then test them with emperical evidence. If the theory fits the facts then it can stand, but if it falls to do so then it has to go. That means there is no question of accepting things on faith. Anything can be questioned, anything can be disproved.