6 days Creation

[Zoltan777]

2 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

The light from the sun, moon and stars were turned off when God destroyed the Earth after Lucifers rebellion. God took one day to complete solar regulation in connection with the restored earth, but He evidently used a much longer period to originally bring into existence and from with His own hands the vast heavens and all the suns, moons, stars, and planets that are without number;

  Psalm 8:3, When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

In other words, if God took six days to restore one little planet to a habitable state and form new inhabitants for the Earth, He would naturally take a much longer time to originally create and form the vast universe with all its innumerable suns and planets.

I like the way you are thinking...?

[HAZARD]

11 minutes ago, Zoltan777 said:

I like the way you are thinking...?

Have you read my post regarding the two great floods, Lucifers flood and Noahs flood, which God caused upon the Earth, both because of sin and rebellion and the difference between them? If not I have it in my documents and will put it up here for you now.

[Zoltan777]

7 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Have you read my post regarding the two great floods, Lucifers flood and Noahs flood, which God caused upon the Earth, both because of sin and rebellion and the difference between them? If not I have it in my documents and will put it up here for you now.

Not yet sir but would love to see it.

[HAZARD]

7 minutes ago, Zoltan777 said:

Not yet sir but would love to see it.

 

7 minutes ago, Zoltan777 said:

Not yet sir but would love to see it.

 

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/203626-stars/?page=7

 

Here it is, I kept it in my documents. The link above should take you to the page where I posted this and other references to the floods and creation and re-creation.

 

There were two great floods on the Earth. The first where God destroyed His original creation because of Lucifers rebellion, and the second, Noah's flood because of mans rebellion.

Lucifers flood, everything was destroyed, all life, no light, the earth made empty and void.

Noah's flood, all life was not destroyed. Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives were left alive, plus all animals and the sun and moon was not prevented from giving light.

Here are all the Scriptures proving this occurred, read them for yourself then believe them or not??

Noahs flood which I will post as . 'N.F.' Lucifers flood, L.F.

L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Earth not made waste (Gen. 8:11-12, 22 ; Heb. 11:7 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23).
N.F. Earth not made empty (Gen. 6:18-22 ; 8:16).

L.F. Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2-5 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-22)

L.F. No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22).

L.F. No day and night (Gen. 1:2-5).
N.F. Day and night (Gen. 8:1-22).

L.F. All vegetation destroyed Gen. 1:2 ; 2:5-6 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Vegetation not destroyed (Gen. 8:11, 21 ; 9:3, 20).

L.F. No continued abating of the waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Continued abating of the waters from the earth by evaporation (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. Waters taken off the earth in one day (Gen. 1:10).
N.F. Months of waters abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. God supernaturally takes waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Natural work of evaporation of the waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. No rebuke or miraculous work in fled away (Gen. 1:6-12 ; Ps. 104:7).
N.F. No rebuke or miraculous work is taking waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. The waters on earth in Gen. 1:2, hasted away when rebuked (Gen. 1:6-2 ; Ps. 104:9).
N.F. The bounds already eternally set for waters in Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. All fish were totally destroyed in flood of Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. No fish were destroyed of created again after Noah's flood (Gen. 1:20-23 ; 6:18-22).

L.F. No Fowls left on the earth after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Fowls were left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:7-17).

L.F. No animals left after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Some of all animals kept alive (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:17 ; 9:2-4, 10-16).

L.F. No man left on earth in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Eight men and women left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:18 ; 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No social system left at all in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. A social system left after Noah's flood (Gen. 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No ark made to save men in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. An ark made to save men and animals alive (Gen. 6:8-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16 ; Heb. 11:7).

L.F. Cause: fall of Lucifer, now Satan (Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17 ; Luke 10:18).
N.F. Cause: wickedness of men (Gen. 6:5-13) ; and fallen angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 6-7 ; 2 Pet. 2:4).

L.F. Result: became necessary to make new life on earth (Gen. 1:3-2 : 25 ; Isa. 45:18 ; Eph. 3:11).
N.F. Results: no new creation made, for all men and animals were not destroyed (Gen. 6:18-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16).

The original creations of God include the heavens and the Earth and all things therein as first brought into being. This period is summed up in Gen. 1:1. thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven [Hebrew, heavens] and the earth." This refers to the dateless past, and takes in only a part of the creative ages, that is, from the beginning of creation until the chaotic period of Gen. 1:2 when the Earth and its first inhabitants were destroyed by the first flood. Notice during Noahs flood not all inhabitants , vegetation, animals, day, night were destroyed.

There are many other passages in Scripture that refer to that period (Job. 38; Ps. 8:3-8; 19:1-6; Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:3,10; Acts 17:24-26; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-12; 11:3; Rev. 4:11).

In Scripture, all instances of obscuring the sun and bringing darkness are the result of judgment, not creation-which is also true of the two universal floods (Genesis 6:8-8:22; Exodus 10:21-23; Isaiah 5:30; Jeremiah 4:23-26).

All predictions of future darkness depict judgment (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 24:29-31; Rev. 6:12-17; Rev. 8:12; Rev. 9:2; Rev. 16:10; Isaiah 13:10; Joel 2:30-3:16; Amos 5:18-20).

Could we say that Genesis 1:2 is the only place in Scripture where darkness and a universal flood are not an act of judgment? If it isn't an option, then Genesis 1:2 proves that there was a pre-Adamite world destroyed by darkness and flood.

No one questions that Noah's flood was an act of judgment, or doubts the existence of free moral agents before the flood actually came. Why then doubt the existence of a pre-Adamite world which was destroyed by the darkness and flood of Genesis 1:2?

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I'm not appealing to majority opinion...

Hi again Kevin,

You said, “I'm not appealing to majority opinion... you're missing the point. I'm not demonstrating logical fallacy here via authority either.”

The "point" is, you are asking me to accept your assertions based on “overwhelming scientific opinion” – which is the epitome of the fallacies I described.

 

“I see religions appealing to authority in fact..ie a particular religious book says x therefore x is true.”

Did I make such an argument to you? I am not claiming that creationists are immune from fallacious arguments. But I am only prepared to account for my own arguments.

I also consider this characterisation to be a rank oversimplification of how Christians come to belief. I consider the Bible to be true because, having considered several beliefs systems (including secular beliefs), I have found the Bible to contain the model of reality which is, by far, the most consistent with the reality I experience and observe. That is, a large part of my confidence in the Bible is based on consistency between the Bible and the facts.

 

“Science or one person ..isnt authority”

You used the term “scientific” to give authoritative weight to the “opinion” you were advocating. Therefore you used “science” as an authority – The same way you used “a particular religious book” to criticize Christian arguments. That is, your inclusion of the word “scientific” was intended to imply that because it is “scientific opinion”, it means more (i.e. carries more weight of authority) than regular opinion.

 

“.he would b need to demonstrate it and others review and repeat any experiments etc”

And if you had presented an argument based on review and repeated experiments, I would have no basis upon which to point out your use of fallacy. But you instead to expected readers to accept your assertions based on an unsupported claim of “overwhelming scientific opinion”.

 

“it needs to be demonstrably demonstrated and subject to peer review for scrutiny. Does a religion do this?  I suggest no.”

I think you misunderstand the point of “peer review”. Peer review itself is a subjective process, and is, ironically, highly criticised in peer reviewed literature (including for conformation bias – see http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=MjIzMQ%3D%3D&journal=86 ). Peer review only examines the soundness of the methodology, not the truth of the conclusions. Scientific logic makes no provision for claiming absolutes such as 'truth' or 'proof' – only mathematical/statistical confidence in claims. All scientific claims remain subject to scrutiny because we don’t know what we don’t know (i.e. there always remains the possibility that some future discovery could undermine what we think we know today).

“I suggest” that the Bible is the most thoroughly and heavily scrutinised text in all of history.

 

“Interesting that you think demonstrable evidence can be interpreted as various truths based on faith bias.”

“Demonstrable evidence” is not a thing. There are facts (observations; i.e. recorded data, mechanical measurements etc.) and evidence (facts that have been interpreted to support a particular claim – i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that claim). The facts themselves are neutral with regard to everything but their own existence. Since evidence incorporates interpretation, it is subject to the biases of the interpreter. It would be more “interesting” if you think that only the evidence which supports your preferred position is objective.

 

“That's not how my world view works. I'll have confidence in theory based upon evidence and scrutiny again.”

If you are claiming scientific “confidence”, your confidence should be based on mathematical analysis of the facts. And if you are claiming objectivity, you should also consider how well the facts line up against your non-preferred models. Because if facts can be interpreted to fit more than one model, than none can be claimed to be more scientifically (or logically) valid than the others.

“There is no faith here in the same way as you refer to as as theist”

I consider this to be incredibly naïve. Everyone has a world view. Everyone has beliefs and biases. Your suggestion that only theists are subject to bias, but secularists are somehow immune from allowing their biases to influence their conclusions, implicates your own bias. The ideal may be that everyone involved is completely objective, but as we are dealing with humans, that is not a plausible reality. Do you honestly believe that secularist scientists even give passing consideration to the creationist model when they write up their conclusions?

As we are explicitly dealing with claims of the unobserved past, it may be an appropriate time in the conversation to deal with the scope of the scientific method – which is, to attribute confidence to current, natural phenomena. Since we cannot repeat the past, or make experiments in the past, or observations of the past, claims about the past fall technically beyond the scope of the scientific method. Some might therefore conclude that investigations of the past are in fact, not scientific (as fellow member Enoch aggressively argues).

With claims of the unobserved past, there is no logical way to know what constitutes appropriate experimental controls against which to generate mathematical confidence in one model over another. Therefore, such investigations require a departure from the robustness of the scientific method. The best we can do is compare our stories/models for consistency to the available facts. But even if all the facts only fitted one story, that doesn’t mean that’s how history actually unfolded. There could simply be unknowns in the other stories, or possibly an as-yet unimagined story could be the actual truth. Therefore, claiming 'scientific' confidence in past claims commits the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. We can have person confidence in past claims, but that relies on faith bias, rather than scientifically generated confidence.

 

“Faith and religion to me therefore is totally irrelevant and of no use in discovering the truth of the natural world.”

The Bible makes many thousands of temporal, historical claims. It therefore provides a model of reality against which we can compare the facts. Only secular bias would cause someone to arbitrarily exclude it from consideration in preference for secular models.

 

“I've published here somewhere before how the genome is changed and added to and how that's been demonstrated”

I am happy to take a look and respond if you can point me to the relevant paper(s).

 

“We've also code to make egg yolks for example which is a "broken" link from our reptilian heritage”

Again, I am happy to consider the relevant science. But I in the mean-time suggest that the conclusion of our alleged “reptilian heritage” is not a fact, but an interpretation based on the secular assumption of Common Ancestry.

 

“Francis Collins head of the genome project and others in the field have shown that genome alone proves common ancestry”

Is it true because he said it? Here you have delved again into Appeal to Expertise. And should I accept it just because you wrote it? The last few sentences I addressed were unsupported Assertions. I addressed the issue of proof earlier – it is a logically impossible scientific standard; which any professional scientist should know (assuming you are characterising his position correctly).

 

“we've neandathol Dna in our genome”

More accurately, we have DNA in common with Neanderthal. Again, your bias is betrayed in characterising the DNA as “neandathol Dna”. If the DNA is in humans, it is human DNA.

You have also demonstrated here that you have not considered the creationist position. Informed creationists consider Neanderthal to be a variant of human (likewise others in the homo genus). Neanderthals co-existed with “modern humans” and even interbred with our ancestors (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v530/n7591/full/nature16544.html). So ultimately your claim suggests that modern humans share DNA with ancient humans – which does not logically support the Common Ancestry of all life on earth.

 

“please read the studies”

What studies? Is it now my job to make your argument as well as mine?.

 

“please falisfy and publish for review”

“Falsify” what? You can’t logically verify or falsify claims about the unobserved past without a time machine. So your challenge here is meaningless. It is therefore not my aim to do the logically impossible, but to demonstrate that the Biblical model of reality is equally valid to the secular model in terms of the facts – and therefore true objectivity warrants its sincere consideration.

 

“on top of evidence in embryology..speciation.. fossil record...vestigial dna and traits”

All of which I’d be happy to discuss if you decide to provide an argument. My position is that all of the facts can individually and collectively be interpreted to support the Biblical (including creationist) model of reality.

For starters, the whole concept of vestigiality relies on the assumption that if we don’t know the function for something, it must not have a function – and therefore be some evolutionary leftover. This secular assumption has been demonstrated to be incorrect over and over again. It raises the question - Why would you be prepared to accept such an inherently flawed argument?

I also have no issue with speciation. There are no logical inconsistencies between the concept of speciation and the Biblical model.

 

“Apparently to be loyal to the bible you should believe we live on a flat surface under a dome that's all standing on columns too. Ergo the sun must also be a flat disk.. you'll need to throw out it being a burning ball of hydrogen and Einsteinian gravity too. Or you're happy to not do this. The bible also says stars are angels... do you think that if so please demonstrate?”

And yet no Biblical community in history has ever believed these things. Could it be that your intent to portray the Bible in a negative light (i.e. your bias) has tainted your interpretation of the text. The Bible is communication – and therefore conveys its message using grammatical mechanisms such as simile and metaphor etc. (as determined by context). The intended audience, i.e. believers - highly motivated to ascertain the Author’s true intent, are more likely to consider the text in its appropriate context – and come to more reasonable conclusions concerning its meaning.

 

“I've no faith bias and will change my mind upon new peer reviewed corroberative evidence to support a different theory”

You say you have “no faith bias”, but you don’t seem to have even considered the creationist position.

 

“if you believe in some micro evolution notion but stop when it conflicts your particular religious view”

I steer away from the macro vs micro terminology, because it falsely implies that the issue is large vs small changes – whereas they actually represent completely different kinds of change.

 

“you still need to demonstrate demonstrably biblical stuff...floods ...6 000 year old earth etc”

There is evidence of massive flooding all over the earth. The issue is not a lack of facts, but the way those facts are interpreted – i.e. as local catastrophes occurring throughout geological time. It’s a big conversation, but I’m happy to go there if you are sincerely interested (maybe big enough for a new thread). Likewise, there are measures by which we can calculate a young earth, but they rely on the same types of assumptions (e.g. uniformitarianism) as secularists use to determine their dates – methods which I consider to be inherently untrustworthy.

 

“In terms of an alternate the best creationism stuff I've heard is just assertion... arguement from ignorance fallacy...or an argument from analogy...ie we were intelligently created as it can't come about by accident ..my car is designed and so we look to be.”

Did I make that argument? In any large group you will find people who are better informed than others. I am therefore only prepared to be responsible for arguments I have presented.

 

“faith has been irrelevant to 400 ish years of scientific understanding”

Science thrived under the Christian paradigm but stalled under previous cultures (e.g. Greek and Chinese) because the Christian paradigm provides justification for a rationally ordered universe made by a rational Creator – such that the laws which govern the natural universe can be assumed to be consistent across time and space – without which, experimentation (and repeated experimentation) would be meaningless. The earliest scientific institutions were funded by the church, and most of the so-called “fathers” of scientific disciplines were explicitly devout Christians.

The secular paradigm provides no justification for a rationally ordered universe – save extreme good fortune. The assumption of a rationally ordered universe remains fundamentally important to scientific logic, despite the foundational premise being largely rejected. Until Darwin proposed an alternative model of reality (closer to 150 years ago), scientific investigation had the goal of glorifying God through discovering how He ordered the universe.

 

[Kevinb]

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

The "point" is, you are asking me to accept your assertions based on “overwhelming scientific opinion” – which is the epitome of the fallacies I described.

Okay.. I'll try again. The scientific view doesn't work on assertion....we need evidence. You could accuse me of appealing to populism fallacy or authority if I support the germ theory of disease right?  Again this theory and stance isn't assertion...or because one person said..its based on evidence...via other scientists and other labs. If it wasn't I'd have little or no trust in it. 

Biblical texts are assertions/statements. You must believe on faith or provide evidence to substantiate. Evidence for Genesis or Adam and eve? 

Not sure how serious you really are here...surely you see the dinstinction. 

You accuse me of bias..Absolutely I've considered the biblical interpretation and i came to this site having faith in fact... not devote but I was expecting to strengthen after joining however I realised I had to no good reason or evidence. Other than it was how and where I was brought up and when in human history. That's of no relevance to what's true of course.

If the scientific community swayed or tweaked the theory of gravity...germ theory of disease..evolution or anything else based upon new evidence that was scrutinised by the scientific community and upheld I'd have to change my world view. This is how progress is made..this is our best model for progress. Has faith or the bible given a better process for progress and understanding of the natural world? I see you admit bias. My bias is to evidence. Please demonstrate evidence for Genesis and Adam and eve. We've day and night appearing on day 1 before the sun on day 4 if memory serves? Evidence? Evidence for any of it even..intelligent design..is it falsifiable? Pick something? 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

And yet no Biblical community in history has ever believed these things

This being flat earth and associated. Absolutely wrong... there are those here who believe in a flat earth as per the bible..columns..firmanent the works. Even quoting passages. See other threads in science folder. Not all do. This is all part of why there are so many denominations of Christianity.. can't even agree on 1 book.

 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

Science thrived under the Christian paradigm

Correct born and funded initially but totally irrelevant to content and scientific progress. Let's not forget how religion then persecuted those scientists who proposed views against doctrine in the early days. 

 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

Did I make that argument? In any large group you will find people who are better informed than others. I am therefore only prepared to be responsible for arguments I have presented.

Make the argument. Convince me on creationism and genesis. 

 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is evidence of massive flooding all over the earth. The issue is not a lack of facts, but the way those facts are interpreted – i.e. as local catastrophes occurring throughout geological time. It’s a big conversation, but I’m happy to go there if you are sincerely interested

I'm always interested in any new ideas if based on evidence. However there is another thread for this. There are masses of problems with a global thread. One I cited was why did the Egyptians and other civilisations exist before and after without reference and they didn't even seem to notice in fact. Then you've problems of how the animals got to the ark. Some needing precise conditions and diets. Animals travelling huge distance that can't swim or fly. So much more besides. Maybe read the flood thread. 

It's still bizarre to me you accept micro evolution but not smaller changes can't add up to bigger ones..i guess that's the bias you mentioned as it will be problematic for biblical beliefs.

In terms of vestigial... I'll pick one.. why do whales and dolphins have vestigial pelvis and hind leg remnants buried in their bodies?  An easy one to both agree on is there..we've all seen pics and gone to museums right. So in this instance there's nothing showing externally. Evolution will point to common ancestry with animals breathing air... running on land in a spinal up and down motion as spines of dolphins still move in water. We've a fossil record. Dna evidence points to hippos being a close relation etc etc.  Anyways why would God create dolphins with hind leg remnants buried in their bodies? Then how do you demonstrate he did?  Best I've got so far as the evolution alternate is "his pleasure ". Mmm kinda not enough for me. 

If you don't like the peer review process. Essentially someone publishes their data/theory then other experts in the relevant field try to repeat their experiments to corroberative or falsify. What's the better alternative? 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Kevinb

[one.opinion]

I'd like to bring up a model combining Tristen's belief in the Bible with Kevin's confidence in the process of scientific discovery. I believe that God created through evolution. There is a tremendous amount of evidence in astronomy, geology, and biology that point to an earth much older than 6,000 years. At the same time, I don't believe that the scientific evidence discredits Christian faith. The Christian faith is not built on Adam, but on Jesus Christ. There is sufficient evidence that even atheists routinely conclude that there was a teacher with a considerable following about 2000 years ago named Jesus. Of course, Christians go beyond that to believe He came to earth to die as a replacement for the sins of humanity and rose victoriously over death, enabling those who commit to Him to have "new life". The acceptance of the science  of evolution does not detract in the least from what Jesus has done on our behalf.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

18 hours ago, Zoltan777 said:

I like the way you are thinking...?

I like the way HAZARD thinks also.  One difference he and I would have is concerning the 4th day of creation.  I would say the sun, moon and stars were already created in Genesis 1:1.  They were still operating at the same manner in the days up to Day 4, but the atmosphere was so thick their light was hidden.

Quote

Genesis 1:14 - Day 4

And God said, “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, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So God's activity in Day 4 culminated in the visible sun, moon and stars to shine upon earth and the plant life God created in Day 3.  So the question often comes up, what made the plants grow in Day 3?  Why the light of God's presence which was already noted in Genesis 1:3.  This was God's own light, it cannot be anything else.

[da_man1974]

Not sure if this has been spoken of yet.  But if there are stars that are light years away, how did the light get here in such a  short amount of time?

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:

Not sure if this has been spoken of yet.  But if there are stars that are light years away, how did the light get here in such a  short amount of time?

This is one of the reasons we can be extremely confident that the earth is billions (and not thousands) of years old.