Jump to content


Photo

Question For Creationists


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 06:09 PM

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1:1 is "Yom" which literally means 24 hour period. I don't know of any Hebrew scholar who would dispute this definition.

View Post


If as Ron said, God dictated to Moses then perhaps it was in the context of Mose's time.

#42 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:58 PM

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1:1 is "Yom" which literally means 24 hour period. I don't know of any Hebrew scholar who would dispute this definition.

View Post


"The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis."

I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom1 has three literal  meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time. The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account.


This appears to be from an "Old Age Creation" site and claims that Yom needs to be defined in context, much the same way day must be defined in content when used in English.

Day as a "period"

Apparently some theologians do think the word is used for somthing other than a 24-hour day.

However, other theologians point to this same Hebrew word, "yom," being translated as "the day of God's wrath" in Job 20:28 -- apparently referring to a period of time of indeterminate length. Similarly, when translated from Greek, 2 Corinthians 6:2 refers to "the day of salvation" -- again a time interval that is apparently not equal to 24 hours.


Others, such as Augustine and Origen, interpreted the days figuratively or allegorically.


Yom definitions.

#43 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 12 February 2011 - 08:15 PM

This appears to be from an "Old Age Creation" site and claims that Yom needs to be defined in context, much the same way day must be defined in content when used in English.

Day as a "period"

Apparently some theologians do think the word is used for somthing other than a 24-hour day.
Yom definitions.

View Post

I'm aware of the old Earth Creationist's interpretation of yom, but I don't see why God would want us to have to rationalize the Creation of the Earth. If you hand The Bible to anyone off the street and have them read the first chapter of Genesis, they would say The Bible was created in six days.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like though. It is not as big of an issue to me as long as you agree that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven.

#44 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 February 2011 - 09:09 PM

I'm aware of the old Earth Creationist's interpretation of yom, but I don't see why God would want us to have to rationalize the Creation of the Earth. If you hand The Bible to anyone off the street and have them read the first chapter of Genesis, they would say The Bible was created in six days.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like though. It is not as big of an issue to me as long as you agree that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven.

View Post


Yes, Genesis refers to a six day creation and people on the street would for the most part say that this is correct. That was not the subject at hand, for some would go on to define what was meant by day. You gave only one definition, precisely defined, and implied that it was the only way it could be defined. I pointed out that others feel that definitions other than the one you gave are valid and still literal. This is not a matter of what I believe, just that scholars do not agree with your assertion that yom must be defined as a 24-hour period.

I do believe that Jesus Christ provides the way to Heaven, but this belief is sometimes not enough for those who hold to a Young Earth Creation who cilaim that to allow for an old earth means not holding to essential doctrine about death and atonement. It is a very big deal to some who post on this board, but thank you for saying otherwise.

#45 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:04 PM

I believe that there is only one context that makes sense in Genesis 1. Others are welcome to disagree but I believe if there was anything more to the Creation that The Bible would of mentioned it.

#46 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:15 PM

Hmmmm… Are you agreeing here that a day is a period of time, or are you disagreeing about a day being a period of time?
Or, are you just being sarcastic?
I need to ask, because you are not being very clear here.

You do understand the difference in literary styles here, do you not Bruce? One is a lyrical poetic type device, and one is not.  Word pictures can be literal and metaphorical. And it isn’t terribly difficult to understand the different devices when they are used.

View Post


A day for God is not the same as a day for us. God transcends time. He sees the beginning and the end. A day could be like a 1000 years for God.

Yes David was using a literary devise. But "God rested" on the 7th day is in the same creation narrative. God does not need rest, he is onmipotent. So God is using a word picture to illustrate a point when he stated that He rested.

If you read Genesis (with attempting to add you millions of years to it) it’s not hard to see that God’s words says “And there was evening, and there was morning” = one day. By the way, thanks for posting Genesis 1:1 - 5, because it actually serves to prove the point:

The flow from one through five is continuous with a beginning middle and end to the narrative. And, of course ending with “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” … Or the First Twenty-four period.

View Post


There is a flow and He did call each epoch a day. But it wasn't until the 4th day he created the sun and the moon. Which severed as signs to mark ... days and years.

Gen 1:14

Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times... days and years,


You don’t “know” what did or didn’t happen, as you were not there and have sketchy information at best. Therefore you are only guessing what may have happened and attempting to posit it as fact. And, at this point I‘ll listen to God on the subject until you can either verify or discredit what God had Moses write.

View Post



When I talk to atheist I sometimes use the following arguments:

1. Everything that is not eternal has a first cause;
2. Therefore, the first cause has to be eternal- either God or the Universes.
3. We know that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, God is the first cause.

I state that we know the universe had a beginning because:

1. The universe is winding down (entropy). Certain elements, like thorium and uranium, have half lives (entropy) which are a measurement of time.
2. Cosmic Radiation
shows that the universe had of a beginning.
3. Theory of Relativity.
4. The universe is expanding.

Well known Creationist use this argument.

The point: All these proofs of the big bang are also proofs that creation did not happen in a week. We should not state that creation happened in a week and then state proofs that show it took much longer than a week. We can not have it both ways.

The Bible is true. But I do not think a day to God is a literal day until the middle of Genesis 1.

#47 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:33 PM

This appears to be from an "Old Age Creation" site and claims that Yom needs to be defined in context, much the same way day must be defined in content when used in English.

Day as a "period"

Apparently some theologians do think the word is used for somthing other than a 24-hour day.
Yom definitions.

View Post


sa wa de cup

#48 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:39 PM

The Bible is true.  But I do not think a day to God is a literal day until the middle of Genesis 1.

So the term evening and morning are not be a literal day for the first 3 days and then the meaning changes after the sun and moon are made? That doesn't make sense to me. I would think that the meaning of day, evening and morning would stay the same throughout the creation account.

#49 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 13 February 2011 - 12:30 AM

sa wa de cup

View Post


sawadee khap

#50 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 February 2011 - 12:35 AM

Interesting comments.  Can I ask you, When you look into the eyes of a mole.  Do you also get chills?  Can you see humanity staring back at you?  When you look into the eyes of a fish?  How about when you look into the eyes of a microscope at at a bacteria cell?  Do you see humanity staring back at you?

Do you see where I am going?  Where is it, that you no longer see humanity?

Just some things to think about.

View Post

We have beluga whales at our zoo. There is a big tank and they swim right up to the glass. I think that they are the mermaids in history books. They are so beautiful, so intelligent, so "human"... I could stare at them all day.

#51 ModusTollens

ModusTollens

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • St. Louis, MO

Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:00 PM

Hi Modus,

Great posting.  I really enjoy how you speak from experience and first hand knowledge.  I do not have that luxury. I am engaging in the discussion, not so much to argue, but to learn.

I read a Creationist review an article called "Evolution of the Genus Homo"  by  Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz.

You talked about brain size as an important morphological distinction.  To me the difference between man and his predecessors is intelligence.  These authors make this point which I found interesting:
What these authors view as evidence for intelligence is cranial capacity:

homo erectus---> Homo neanderthalensis ---->Homo sapiens.

However, the authors also stated that there is no obvious connection between brain size and cognition:
This is so confusing to me.  How is that cranial size is used as evidence for evolution because it demonstrates increased intelligence over time, on one hand.  But on the other hand, they state there is no relationship between brain size and and major cognitive improvement?

View Post


Bruce,

As far as brain size goes, let me start with an important distinction: raw brain size means nothing (if it did, blue whales would be the smartest animals on the planet, as they have the biggest brains). Among modern animals, there is a pretty strong association (not correlation, but association) between the ratio of brain size vs body mass and the average intelligence of a creature. Humans have huge brains in relation to their body size, elephants have larger brains still, but their brains are smaller relative to their bodies.

Anyway, there is another important factor in intelligence that is left out by the fossil record: the organization of the brain. The human brain is organized in such a way that it is quite more efficient that other animals'; indeed, if we had a chimp-sized brain, but maintained our current brain organization, we'd still be smarter than chimps (though by a smaller margin). You need living animals and CAT scans to really get a good impression of organization (which has a lot to do with blood flow), however, and this cannot be done with fossils. So it is very correct to be somewhat guarded in any claims one makes about intelligence based solely on the cranial capacity of an organism.

However, we do feel we have reason to believe these creatures were getting smarter because we assume they are not atypical with regard to the brain size/body mass to intelligence relationship, though we will be quick to admit we don't have all the data and that we have no real way to get at the other half of the data. Essentially, it could boil down to the following sentiment: "we are pretty confident that intelligence was increasing during this time, and we are fairly confident it had something to do with communicative ability, but to really pin down the exact nature and rate of intellectual progress would be impossible, and any strong claims about the precise specifics of what happened would be foolhardy."

Finally, there are a few good reasons that are posited as to why there is not much concurrent technological advance associated with cranial development. The first is that after Homo habilis, it appears that most (not all, but most) cranial development occured in the regions built to handle verbal speech. We take it from this that it is likely that verbal communication was developing along with this increase of brain power, but talking by itself does not leave any physical traces behind, so we just have no evidence other than the fact that their bodies were becoming better suited to speech, and rapidly so. The second reason assumes that speech is the cause of the cranial increase. It goes along the lines that (as philosophers will tell you) expertise is really at its heart a collective, rather than individual endeavor. As we got better at talking, we got better at collective interaction, which led to better intellectual and technological expertise. This would have been a slow process, as the brain wasn't evolving to make us better at increasing our technology, but to make us better at communicating, which would (as a by-product) have improved our technological abilities. Consequently, one would expect a lag between brain development and technological improvement.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:33 PM


What about translation issues.

View Post

What translation issues?
Again, you'd have to be specific... All cultures have "figures of speech", but these have meaning as well.

View Post

I don't know and that's why I am asking you. I have read many times there are translation issues.

View Post


Again, you need to be specific about whatever difficulties you're having. There are many who attempt to bring up “issues” with translations. The vast majority of which are not even plausible; and a few of which could be plausible, but are not credible due to a lack of foundation and such. But, without any specificity, your question is way too vague.
So, again, I ask “What translation issues?”

#53 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:36 AM

My belief is the "starting points" were far greater in number and much earlier. I know it is over simplifying but I don't agree with fish>amphibian>reptile>mammal. I believe if we had a magic videa that we could play backwards that these animals would have their own video which would play back to the beginning.


You didn't seem to agree with the person who said this would indicate huge scale convergent evolution.

However, I think he had a great point. When exactly do you think "back to the beginning would be?" Single cell bacteria? If that's the case, then you would have huge scale convergent evolution with each line of animals independently evolving from simple creatures.

Evolutionists have a hard enough time explaining the mechanics and chemistry of eye evolution in one linear progression. Yet, you think a better alternative is for that linear progression to have happened multiple times independently?

Lastly, in response to your critique that the intelligent designer was "drunk" to come up with this world - I think it is based on the faulty assumption that if God has the power to do anything, that he is logically restricted to acting in a specific way.

The question is whether or not God would have a reason for creating a world where death was involved in nutrient exchange. Also, when you look at death in nature, I think you read into it a human understanding of morality and suffering. I think animals are amoral creatures, so when an anteater eats an ant, this isn't a moral evil. I think you jump the gun by calling carnivorous behavior "evil."

I think death is an essential part in the circle of life and nutrient exchange. Without nutrient exchange, life would cease. The only alternative would be if all creatures ate plants (which I know is a young earth position, but I don't think logically works) or if all creatures were photosynthetic.

It seems to me that limiting all creatures to these two methods of gathering nutrients would severely limit the type of creatures that God could create - and as we know, it is the intense diversity in creation that keeps the circle of life going.

#54 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:54 AM

So, again, I ask “What translation issues?”

View Post


Two I remember reading about a long time ago was "dragon" and "cedar", the latter in connection with Job and the Behemoth.

#55 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2011 - 10:40 AM

You didn't seem to agree with the person who said this would indicate huge scale convergent evolution. 

However, I think he had a great point.  When exactly do you think "back to the beginning would be?"  Single cell bacteria?  If that's the case, then you would have huge scale convergent evolution with each line of animals independently evolving from simple creatures. 


Certainly not that far back. but just recently venom evolution has been moved back before split in to lizard and snake.

As a side note I don't see convergent evolution as much of a factor. I think evolution rolls lot and lots of dice and some of those results will be similar and thus gravitate to an evironment they do well in.

Evolutionists have a hard enough time explaining the mechanics and chemistry of eye evolution in one linear progression.  Yet, you think a better alternative is for that linear progression to have happened multiple times independently?


I do but with a couple of differences. As I mentioned above I think lots of dice are rolled. Also, if starting points are greater in number and further back then there is no need for the major transitions.

I don't believe in evolution "as preached" but I also don't believe God created each animal.

Lastly, in response to your critique that the intelligent designer was "drunk" to come up with this world - I think it is based on the faulty assumption that if God has the power to do anything, that he is logically restricted to acting in a specific way.


Perhaps the answer is God or god or gods created the natural laws and let nature take its course.

I think you jump the gun by calling carnivorous behavior "evil."


Are you sure I said that?

The only alternative would be if all creatures ate plants (which I know is a young earth position, but I don't think logically works) or if all creatures were photosynthetic. 


At the start were animals such as reptiles, dogs, cats etc. not created.

Let me ask you a question since you are a creationist. Let's take an existing animal, say a salt water crocodile. Do you see a situation whereby God created that animal as it appears or perhaps with some minor differences. Or do you think that crocodile evolved from another animal God previously created and that animal was very different to todays salt water crocodile.

#56 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 February 2011 - 02:47 PM

I really don't understand your opinion about a limited God.  But I think you are saying that God would do it differently if he were all powerful.

Stating that "God would not need parables and the like to convey a message."

I believe that God wants our heart which involves both the spirit and intellect.  A parable makes us think and work through the issues.  IMO when we work through issues they stick, while something that is just given to us for free has little value.  So parables may not be a fast way to learn,  but they do engage us on both the intellectual and spiritual level.

God made us free where we can choose to accept him or reject him.  A more effective way to communicate to us is limit our choices or make us like robots where we have no choice.  But God wants our heart and this has to be given freely.  The process of gaining our hearts may not be efficient from our POV but it is done without coercion.

IMHO the process he chose to communicate to us does not speak to Gods being limited, rather to him being compassionate and wanting our choice to accept Him to be freely given.

View Post

Great posts Bruce. Jesus showed us exactly how God uses power. He showed a tremendous amount of power to us, but in other situations he did it differently. Look at all of the different ways he healed people. In some cases he commanded them to be healed, told them their sins were forgiven, healed them from a distance, by touching them, by them touching him... by taking them away from the crowd and explaining things to them, by instantaneously healing them and by slowly healing them. Why the variety? He could have thought about healing all of the people and it be done. The variety was always for their benefit. To consider their feelings, to build their faith, etc. Not due to a lack on God's part.


I don't know and that's why I am asking you. I have read many times there are translation issues.

View Post



Two I remember reading about a long time ago was "dragon" and "cedar", the latter in connection with Job and the Behemoth.

View Post


If an issue is important to teach us who God is or how we are to gain salvation then it is easily discernable in the Bible. Words like dragon and cedar are not important in the grand scheme of things.

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 February 2011 - 07:59 PM

I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth.  I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age.  It sounds deceptive.

View Post


Why would it be deceptive? I hear people make this claim all the time but yet have one explain why.

#58 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:10 PM

I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth.  I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age.  It sounds deceptive.

View Post

Well, let's see. Adam was created as an adult. Plants and animals were created as adults, and who knows how many... so when old earthers claim that covering the earth with plants would have taken long stretches of time, we have that covered.

Let's look at the earth itself.

We have a current thread showing how floods can cause layers of sediment and massive erosion, both of which are considered signs of age.

We have a thread on radiometric dating which presents accurate alternative dating methods that give different dates, and a hypothesis as to why the radioactive decay would be altered as a result of the flood. See also this link: http://www.angelfire...rbondating.html

So I don't believe that God created the earth with the appearance of age (deceptively)... I believe that things have happened that make people assume age... and a lack of understanding (like in quantum physics and the so-called starlight problem) makes people assume age.

But I also think that the stars (and some of the rocks) could be older than 6-10 thousand years... In those cases both theories are just as plausible and biblical.

#59 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:23 PM

Well, let's see. Adam was created as an adult. Plants and animals were created as adults, and who knows how many... so when old earthers claim that covering the earth with plants would have taken long stretches of time, we have that covered.

Let's look at the earth itself.


We have a current thread showing how floods can cause layers of sediment and massive erosion, both of which are considered signs of age.

We have a thread on radiometric dating which presents accurate alternative dating methods that give different dates, and a hypothesis as to why the radioactive decay would be altered as a result of the flood. See also this link: http://www.angelfire...rbondating.html

So I don't believe that God created the earth with the appearance of age (deceptively)... I believe that things have happened that make people assume age... and a lack of understanding (like in quantum physics and the so-called starlight problem) makes people assume age.

But I also think that the stars (and some of the rocks) could be older than 6-10 thousand years... In those cases both theories are just as plausible and biblical.

View Post


Way to fo MamaElephant!

Job 38:4 Were you there when I made the world? If you know so much, tell me about it. --GNB Translation

It is so grandiose to make the the statement that the earth looks old. It looks the way it does! The "old" comes from us deciding for ourselves what constitites age. Without being God we do not have a reference point for age. I liked it when God asked Job where he (Job)was when He (God) laid the foundation of the world, Our SR has no end. :)

#60 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:44 PM

Way to fo MamaElephant!

Job 38:4  Were you there when I made the world? If you know so much, tell me about it. --GNB Translation

It is so grandiose to make the the statement that the earth looks old. It looks the way it does! The "old"  comes from us deciding for ourselves what constitites age. Without being God we do not have a reference point for age. I liked it when God asked Job where he (Job)was when He (God) laid the foundation of the world, Our SR has no end.  :)

View Post

Perfect conclusion. I am not so good at writing those myself. Thanks!

I like the wording of that translation there. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users