Logic dictates that there is a God!

[DangerBoy]

Don't forget all those creationist idiots that pioneered various scientific fields before Darwin. It might not have actually been coined as the term Creationism, but their worldview was not that of evolution.

Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Mather, and the list is a lot longer

What a bunch of morons!

[pimpdave]

Yeah, cause all those guys lived after Darwin first published his theory.

[ViperOverLord]

The very nature of God dictates that he not be here in a full capacity. He is the ultimate good and part of that essence is the understanding that men must have their agency to choose good and evil and not be compelled only to do good. Without that choice there is no growth. It's pretty fundamental. Only the fool thinks that the tides miraculously ebb and flow, the Earth spins and a regulated massive thermonuclear device magically powers this planet at optimal temperatures. If the Earth's orbit were only some thousand(s) miles closer or farther from the sun there would be no mortal condition as we know it. Only fools disregard the likely concept that there is a divinity. On that note, I can respect the agnostic persuasion. But the atheist is clearly the fool. The notion of not accepting something because it is not in front of your face is childish. That is not a good enough reason on a number of matters let alone the highest concept and order of the universe.

[jonesthecurl]

The very nature of God dictates that he not be here in a full capacity. He is the ultimate good and part of that essence is the understanding that men must have their agency to choose good and evil and not be compelled only to do good. Without that choice there is no growth. It's pretty fundamental. Only the fool thinks that the tides miraculously ebb and flow, the Earth spins and a regulated massive thermonuclear device magically powers this planet at optimal temperatures. If the Earth's orbit were only some thousand(s) miles closer or farther from the sun there would be no mortal condition as we know it. Only fools disregard the likely concept that there is a divinity. On that note, I can respect the agnostic persuasion. But the atheist is clearly the fool. The notion of not accepting something because it is not in front of your face is childish. That is not a good enough reason on a number of matters let alone the highest concept and order of the universe.

If you can find a course in Semantics 101, please take it.

[DangerBoy]

Yeah, cause all those guys lived after Darwin first published his theory.

You didn't even read my post correctly. I shall now imitate joecoolfrog's only contribution to this thread:


Jay is stupid and doesn't understand

[pimpdave]

I should have quoted your post... you snuck an edit in there between the time I opened the thread and deigned to even respond to you.

Anyway, don't you have some kiddy diddlers to go cover for, or cultures to rape and steal their riches to build your fancy cathedrals?

[DangerBoy]

I should have quoted your post... you snuck an edit in there between the time I opened the thread and deigned to even respond to you.

Anyway, don't you have some kiddy diddlers to go cover for, or cultures to rape and steal their riches to build your fancy cathedrals?

I didn't sneak an edit in there. If you REALLY understood my post (to quote Player's tactic) you wouldn't have responded to it as such. I don't think you REALLY understand creationism. If you REALLY did then you might not be so hostile towards people who believe in God.

A vast majority of Jewish people actually believe in anti-Semitism. Why can't people like Jay understand this basic fact!

[pimpdave]

Are you drunk/high right now?

Quantify "vast majority" for me. Also, please provide a source for your claim.

Please explain the post that kicked off our little skirmish... if you were being ironic, you didn't do a very good job, if you were being serious then what I posted in reply makes sense.

[DangerBoy]

Are you drunk/high right now?

Quantify "vast majority" for me. Also, please provide a source for your claim.

Please explain the post that kicked off our little skirmish... if you were being ironic, you didn't do a very good job, if you were being serious then what I posted in reply makes sense.

What is so difficult to understand? An overwhelming majority of atheists actually believe in heaven and hell or some other form of an afterlife. Unfortunately, people like Jay just can't grasp this basic concept.

[jonesthecurl]

Are you drunk/high right now?

Quantify "vast majority" for me. Also, please provide a source for your claim.

Please explain the post that kicked off our little skirmish... if you were being ironic, you didn't do a very good job, if you were being serious then what I posted in reply makes sense.

What is so difficult to understand? An overwhelming majority of atheists actually believe in heaven and hell or some other form of an afterlife. Unfortunately, people like Jay just can't grasp this basic concept.

um, atheists believe in heaven and hell?
What are you on, and can I have some?

[joecoolfrog]

Don't forget all those creationist idiots that pioneered various scientific fields before Darwin. It might not have actually been coined as the term Creationism, but their worldview was not that of evolution.

Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Mather, and the list is a lot longer

What a bunch of morons!

500 years ago it was understandable if one believed the Earth to be 5 or 6,000 years old , now it is plainly a stupid stance which is why the scientists of today reject it almost without exception.
Creationism within the framework of evolution is a reasonable faith orientated argument, but a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

PS Atheists do not believe in Gods, heaven or hell

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, and those guys that didn't believe in evolution probably wouldn't have thought an atom bomb was possible.

[DangerBoy]

500 years ago it was understandable if one believed the Earth to be 5 or 6,000 years old , now it is plainly a stupid stance which is why the scientists of today reject it almost without exception.

Plainly, because Darwin had to be the smartest man who has ever existed. Anyone who would arrive a different conclusion than him just has to be stupid. I mean, everyone should just totally conform to Darwinian thinking.

Creationism within the framework of evolution is a reasonable faith orientated argument, but a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

Of course it is. If people believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis they might actually think that they're accountable to their Creator. We can't have that at all.

PS Atheists do not believe in Gods, heaven or hell

P.S. An overwhelming number of Christians do not believe in evolution. Theists masquerading as Christians do, but not true Christians.

[PLAYER57832]

Don't forget all those creationist idiots that pioneered various scientific fields before Darwin. It might not have actually been coined as the term Creationism, but their worldview was not that of evolution.

Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Mather, and the list is a lot longer

What a bunch of morons!

Thinking evolution might be false isn't what makes young earthers moronic, its ignoring the factual evidence that has been discovered long since all those folks. What make the so-called scientists (but not all that listen to them) liars and truly UNChristian is that they put forward false information as if it were true.

And, lest you try to pretend differently, many within the church very much did dispute them back then on the grounds that they, too were committing blasphemy.

[jonesthecurl]

500 years ago it was understandable if one believed the Earth to be 5 or 6,000 years old , now it is plainly a stupid stance which is why the scientists of today reject it almost without exception.

Plainly, because Darwin had to be the smartest man who has ever existed. Anyone who would arrive a different conclusion than him just has to be stupid. I mean, everyone should just totally conform to Darwinian thinking.

Creationism within the framework of evolution is a reasonable faith orientated argument, but a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

Of course it is. If people believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis they might actually think that they're accountable to their Creator. We can't have that at all.

PS Atheists do not believe in Gods, heaven or hell

P.S. An overwhelming number of Christians do not believe in evolution. Theists masquerading as Christians do, but not true Christians.

So: your defintion of "Christian" includes "not believing in evolution"?

Then, yes, "most" christians don't believe in evolution.

I'd like to see you define a christian that does believe in evolution then.

Oh, and sign up for that "semantics 101" I was suggesting a while ago too.

[joecoolfrog]

500 years ago it was understandable if one believed the Earth to be 5 or 6,000 years old , now it is plainly a stupid stance which is why the scientists of today reject it almost without exception.

Plainly, because Darwin had to be the smartest man who has ever existed. Anyone who would arrive a different conclusion than him just has to be stupid. I mean, everyone should just totally conform to Darwinian thinking.

Creationism within the framework of evolution is a reasonable faith orientated argument, but a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

Of course it is. If people believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis they might actually think that they're accountable to their Creator. We can't have that at all.

PS Atheists do not believe in Gods, heaven or hell

P.S. An overwhelming number of Christians do not believe in evolution. Theists masquerading as Christians do, but not true Christians.

Being a fundamentalist does not make you correct, just close minded

[PLAYER57832]

500 years ago it was understandable if one believed the Earth to be 5 or 6,000 years old , now it is plainly a stupid stance which is why the scientists of today reject it almost without exception.

Plainly, because Darwin had to be the smartest man who has ever existed. Anyone who would arrive a different conclusion than him just has to be stupid. I mean, everyone should just totally conform to Darwinian thinking.

Except even most modern evolutionists don't really "conform to Darwinian thinking". Again, what you show is your ignorance of evolution, not knowledge.

Creationism within the framework of evolution is a reasonable faith orientated argument, but a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

Of course it is. If people believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis they might actually think that they're accountable to their Creator. We can't have that at all.

This has very little to do with a literal interpretation of Genesis. It has to do with truth versus fiction. Too much of what young earth creationists put forward as "truth" is flat out false. Your assumption that evolution means "agreeing fully with Darwin" is just one of the many things they get wrong. In fact, he got a whole lot wrong. Other issues -- pretending that for a transition species to be real, its predecessors must have disappeared. Pretending that the only types of transition fossils that exist are the fakes and mis-steps (yes, there have been many of those, but also very much verified fossils).

What is wrong with young earth creationism is not that they challenge the "norm", its that it is simply not true. People who have God on their side don't need to lie. These people do, therefore they do NOT have God on their side!

PS Atheists do not believe in Gods, heaven or hell

P.S. An overwhelming number of Christians do not believe in evolution. Theists masquerading as Christians do, but not true Christians.

Even setting aside the evidence that absolutely disproves the young earth ideas, this really gets down to one word -- "yom".
The truth is that there are very few scholars who seem to think they and they alone understand the definition of "yom", even though the vast majority of scholars, including most historic Jewish Scholars say otherwise. I realize this is NOT what young earth creationist sites claim, but do the research, REAL research and you find it is the truth.

The Bible itself proves young earth ideas wrong, because the references to time frams are actually NOT the narrow ones you have been taught.

here is a more scholarly explanation:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

Also:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Links to several other articles, including an audio interview, are found here:
http://www.answersincreation.org/yom_hebrew.htm

and a discussion:
http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a ... ic214.html

[PLAYER57832]

More specifically on young earth definitions of "yom" or "day"

excerpted from the following link: http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a ... dy_yom.htm

Common Young Earth Arguments
To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years, young earth theorists have come up with several arguments, none of which is supported by common Hebrew grammatical rules according to Hebrew experts (such as Dr. Walter Kaiser). These rules were created by Hebrew language experts who are young earth creationists to begin with, thus their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective.

Ordinals/Cardinals
Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. However, this is not true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, the "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link).

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1

What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.


Evening/Morning Construction
In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.

We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.

Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted! Don't fall into the trap of following the teachings of our church fathers. For more, read Church Fathers.



Literal/Figurative Argument
This argument says that you cannot use a word figuratively until after you have used it literally (see this Answers in Genesis article). The author gives two examples, which appear to be correct and follow this rule. However, is this rule valid? I see no reason to suppose that it is. You have to be careful with young earth claims about biblical interpretation methods. Again, they will invent rules that support their cause, when there is no basis for their rule in Hebrew.

In this case, it makes no difference which order the word Yom appears in, i.e. literal before figurative or vice versa. Yes, these are the first words of the Bible, but they are not the first words of mankind. All the time from Adam to Moses, men were speaking in their own languages, thus the literal interpretation via spoken language would already have been established. There was no need to suppose a literal/figurative structure.



If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...
If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.

When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"

When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!

One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.

The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.



Conclusion
With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda.

Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God's concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines.

Just to verify:
On Dr Walter Kaiser, from wikki:
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (born 1933) is an American evangelical Old Testament scholar, writer, public speaker, and educator. Kaiser is the Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament and former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, retired June 30, 2006. He was succeeded by James Emery White.

[pimpdave]

So, when exactly did Christianity become autistic, anyway? This whole inability to grasp that the Bible could be anything other than completely literal doesn't jive with the religion I was raised in.

[tzor]

um, atheists believe in heaven and hell?
What are you on, and can I have some?

If they know their geography. Both Hell and Paradise are in the state of Michigan.

How to go from Hell to Paradise, courtesy of Google - It's 5 hours and 58 minutes by the way.

[PLAYER57832]

a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

I disagree. The real problem is that young earth creationism is NOT a true literal interpretation, at least not the only interpretation possible.

Another, more scholarly explanation, along with links to various other articles on just about any claim made by young earth creationists.
http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm

[DangerBoy]

Being a fundamentalist does not make you correct, just close minded

Calling Jay stupid and posting smilies doesn't make you smart, it just means that you hide behind Player's posts, cheering, and almost never provide citations of your own.

[DangerBoy]

Thinking evolution might be false isn't what makes young earthers moronic, its ignoring the factual evidence that has been discovered long since all those folks.

What is laughable about this is that you personally pm'd me once and accused me of believing the earth was young. Even though I specifically told you I didn't know you still persist in this accusation. Not all creationists believe in a young earth. This is what's so sad. You are on a personal crusade against young earth creationists that is purely driven by hatred. You are not a Christian. You are a theist.

I await another accusation about how evil Dr. Morris is now, probably followed by a bunch of cheering in the background from joecoolfrog and smilies.

[joecoolfrog]

Being a fundamentalist does not make you correct, just close minded

Calling Jay stupid and posting smilies doesn't make you smart, it just means that you hide behind Player's posts, cheering, and almost never provide citations of your own.

If you think that Player and I are in total agreement on the question of religion then you are even more retarded than I thought. Do you think I require citations to guage my opinion of Jays beliefs , do you not think it possible to reach conclusions based on the evidence displayed in his many posts and even greater number of evasions
Do I need citations to recognise a Junkie who finds he needs to take his high to ever increasing extremes , to recognise an evangelist who thinks rigid acceptance of dogma makes him superior.
to judge a blinkered fool who only sees what he wants to see.....nope!
Despite your smug assertion , adherence to Young Earth Creationism is not a tenant of Christianity, being pragmatic is a virtue , being dogmatic is not.

[jay_a2j]

I think this would be a good time to define some terms:



As seen by non-Christians:


Christian- A person who attends church in one of the many denominations of the Christian faith. A person that "believes" in the God of the Bible.

Fundamental Christian- A crazy, off the wall individual who believes many things that are simply impossible!

Heaven/Hell- Mythical places conjured up by fundamentalists.



As seen by (true) Christians:

Christian- A person who has a personal relationship with Christ. A born again believer.

Fundamental Christian- A person who has a personal relationship with Christ. A born again believer. As opposed to a person who simply attends church.

Heaven/Hell- Literal places. Where all men will spend the afterlife.