Arguments Creationists Should Stop Using

[CrowCross]

I never claimed that. You assumed. Evolutionary biology does not make theological claims.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"--Rom 3.23

Would the all include the population that existed when Adam and Eve were in the garden before and after the fall?

 

[TB2]

Would the all include the population that existed when Adam and Eve were in the garden before and after the fall?

Who claimed that?

I will copy-paste my same reply to you on the other thread:

What existing population? The Bible says nothing about an existing population. Sounds like you are trying to read modern science into Scripture (or saying that I am doing so), when I've said that would be a mistake and anachronism. Scripture and modern science are largely apples and oranges and speak to different questions.

 

[CrowCross]

Who claimed that?

I will copy-paste my same reply to you on the other thread:

What existing population? The Bible says nothing about an existing population. Sounds like you are trying to read modern science into Scripture (or saying that I am doing so), when I've said that would be a mistake and anachronism. Scripture and modern science are largely apples and oranges and speak to different questions.

Are you now dropping your Genesis is poetic and didn't happen per Genesis view?

 

[TB2]

Are you now dropping your Genesis is poetic and didn't happen per Genesis view?

I never said such a thing to begin with. You keep making assumptions about me. And Genesis is neither poetry nor prose, but a combination of both.

As I've said, I do not believe Genesis speaks to matters of modern science. See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation" for clarification of my views.

 

[CrowCross]

I never said such a thing to begin with. You keep making assumptions about me. And Genesis is neither poetry nor prose, but a combination of both.

Despite the historical literal nature of the passage as confirmed by the other authors of the bible.

But, we've gone over that.

Then you pushed the evo-old earth models...trying to show mankind evolved from lesser primates and so on...Now what? Adam was created from the dust?

As I said...cryptic.

As I've said, I do not believe Genesis speaks to matters of modern science. See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation" for clarification of my views.

 

[TB2]

Despite the historical literal nature of the passage as confirmed by the other authors of the bible.

But, we've gone over that.

Then you pushed the evo-old earth models...trying to show mankind evolved from lesser primates and so on...Now what? Adam was created from the dust?

As I said...cryptic.

Nope. Been saying the same thing from day 1. Genesis and modern science are speaking to different questions and have little to none to do with each other. I believe all attempts to read modern science back into Genesis 1 commit the error of anachronism and end up distorting the true teaching of Scripture; whether it be Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Framework Hypothesis, Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, or even trying to read evolutionary biology back into Genesis 1. All attempts to harmonize Genesis 1 with modern science usually end up doing 'violence' to the biblical text.

See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation" for clarification of my views.

 

[CrowCross]

Nope. Been saying the same thing from day 1. Genesis and modern science are speaking to different questions and have little to none to do with each other. I believe all attempts to read modern science back into Genesis 1 commit the error of anachronism and end up distorting the true teaching of Scripture; whether it be Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Framework Hypothesis, Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, or even trying to read evolutionary biology back into Genesis 1. All attempts to harmonize Genesis 1 with modern science usually end up doing 'violence' to the biblical text.

See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation" for clarification of my views.

Yes, modern science stays away from Eve being formed from Adams rib.....and the resurrection.

 

[TB2]

Yes, modern science stays away from Eve being formed from Adams rib.....and the resurrection.

And yet that's not what I said nor was that my point nor is modern science 'evil.' God gave us our minds to think and reason too.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."--- Galileo

 

[TB2]

@CrowCross again, I recommend you read my "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation" post for a clarification of my views

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross again, I recommend you read my "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation" post for a clarification of my views

I did. I disagree. I don't think the bible is as complicated as you make it.

 

[TB2]

I did. I disagree. I don't think the bible is as complicated as you make it.

Some parts are complicated, some parts aren't. Most important though is proper interpretation (on this, hopefully, we both agree).

For example, the evidence for old ages is well established and confirmed by multiple *independent* lines of evidence. But I still agree with you that a "day" in Genesis 1 is a normal, 24-hour day. I may not know how to solve that apparent conflict, but that does not give anyone the right to change what Scripture says to try to force it to fit with modern science (on this we both agree!). But there is also no *reasonable* basis on which to dispute the scientific evidence. So, that leaves us with a conflict between science and Scripture. How do we solve that? Worst case scenario is we simply don't know at this time how to solve it. Or, it could be that Genesis does not intend to teach us modern science, so there is no conflict.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that "day" in Genesis 1 is meant to be understood as a regular, 24-hour day (on this we agree! So that's at least something we agree on!)

 

[CrowCross]

Some parts are complicated, some parts aren't. Most important though is proper interpretation (on this, hopefully, we both agree).

For example, the evidence for old ages is well established and confirmed by multiple *independent* lines of evidence. But I still agree with you that a "day" in Genesis 1 is a normal, 24-hour day. I may not know how to solve that apparent conflict, but that does not give anyone the right to change what Scripture says to try to force it to fit with modern science (on this we both agree!). But there is also no *reasonable* basis on which to dispute the scientific evidence. So, that leaves us with a conflict between science and Scripture. How do we solve that? Worst case scenario is we simply don't know at this time how to solve it. Or, it could be that Genesis does not intend to teach us modern science, so there is no conflict.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that "day" in Genesis 1 is meant to be understood as a regular, 24-hour day (on this we agree! So that's at least something we agree on!)

Day when called a ...day...bracketed with morning and evening....as well as mentioned in the 10 commandments as the normal reading of the word day....clearly indicates it was a 24 hour long time period. As they say, scripture interprets scripture.

But, there are some who try to make it fit with "eons"...to force scripture to conform to Old Earth views.

 

[TB2]

Day when called a ...day...bracketed with morning and evening....as well as mentioned in the 10 commandments as the normal reading of the word day....clearly indicates it was a 24 hour long time period. As they say, scripture interprets scripture.

But, there are some who try to make it fit with "eons"...to force scripture to conform to Old Earth views.

Agreed

 

[Rella]

We're already fools for Christ (which I'm okay with). There's no need to be fools for foolishness sake. There's so much misinformation flying around the internet, making it so easy to succumb to sensationalistic hype, hoaxes, and false claims. Creationists have unfortunately contributed to this, but even they will tell you a lot of these claims are false. So creationists, please at least listen to what arguments even the lead creationist ministries and organizations say you should avoid (like ICR, Answers in Genesis, International Creation Ministries).

Arguments creationists should not use:

International Creation Ministries page

Answers in Genesis page

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use​

Table of contents​

• Which arguments should definitely not be used?
  ​

  • Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe

Not to hijack this thread... I just saw this yesterday and with this... from the list above....

• Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe

Just thought I would share....

from: Ancient Origens

The Perfectly Preserved Yuka Wooly Mammoth Mummy (Video)​

The Perfectly Preserved Yuka Wooly Mammoth Mummy (Video)

The perfectly preserved mummified Yuka Mammoth Mummy is a remarkable archaeological discovery that has captivated the world with its exceptional state of preservation.

www.ancient-origins.net

The perfectly preserved mummified Yuka Mammoth Mummy is a remarkable archaeological discovery that has captivated the world with its exceptional state of preservation. Unearthed from the permafrost of Siberia, this ancient creature offers a unique glimpse into the distant past. Dating back over 39,000 years, the mummified Yuka mammoth mummy has provided scientists with an extraordinary opportunity to study the anatomy, behavior, and environment of a long-extinct species. The exceptional preservation of the Yuka mammoth mummy is attributed to the natural deep freeze it experienced upon its death. The extreme cold of the Siberian tundra effectively halted decomposition, safeguarding its skin, muscles, and even its internal organs.

A 39,000 year frozen Wooly Mammouth is a far cry from Noah's flood.

 

[CrowCross]

A 39,000 year frozen Wooly Mammouth is a far cry from Noah's flood.

How were the wooly mammoth dated?

 

[Rella]

How were the wooly mammoth dated?

I have no idea.

That entire page in the link looks to be from archaeologist discoveries in the area.

I suppose one would need to deep dive into them to find out.

I may try that a little later.

But this is interesting (not saying I believe)

Woolly Mammoths—Flood or Ice Age?

There is plenty of evidence that the woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon and almost all other surficial sites in the Northern Hemisphere died after the Flood.

answersingenesis.org

There is plenty of evidence that the woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon and almost all other surficial sites in the Northern Hemisphere died after the Flood.

 

[CrowCross]

I have no idea.

That entire page in the link looks to be from archaeologist discoveries in the area.

I suppose one would need to deep dive into them to find out.

I may try that a little later.

But this is interesting (not saying I believe)

Woolly Mammoths—Flood or Ice Age?

There is plenty of evidence that the woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon and almost all other surficial sites in the Northern Hemisphere died after the Flood.

answersingenesis.org

My point is that any carbon dating used from pre-flood material as well as post-flood material....until the C14 to C12 ratios have reached an equilibrium are not a true representation of age.

 

[Rella]

My point is that any carbon dating used from pre-flood material as well as post-flood material....until the C14 to C12 ratios have reached an equilibrium are not a true representation of age.

I defer to your knowledge as I have not always thought carbon dating to be true.

My point is that any carbon dating used from pre-flood material as well as post-flood material....until the C14 to C12 ratios have reached an equilibrium are not a true representation of age.

All I have found

The yedoma consists of ice-rich silts and silty sand penetrated by large ice wedges, resulting from sedimentation and syngenetic freezing. AMS-dating of a fragment of Yuka's rib from these deposits yielded a radiocarbon date of 34,300+260/−240 14C (GrA-53289).

Yuka (mammoth) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wiki... is the only mention of carbonating that I brief search shows.

 

[TB2]

Not to hijack this thread... I just saw this yesterday and with this... from the list above....

• Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe

Just thought I would share....

from: Ancient Origens

The Perfectly Preserved Yuka Wooly Mammoth Mummy (Video)​

The Perfectly Preserved Yuka Wooly Mammoth Mummy (Video)

The perfectly preserved mummified Yuka Mammoth Mummy is a remarkable archaeological discovery that has captivated the world with its exceptional state of preservation.

www.ancient-origins.net

A 39,000 year frozen Wooly Mammouth is a far cry from Noah's flood.

Very true. Thank you for your contribution. You might be interested in this thread "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due to Noah's Flood" & "Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective" (& speaking of carbon dating earlier this week I had the opportunity to speak with Barrie Schwortz on the now debunked carbon-14 dating results on the Shroud of Turin: "Update on the Shroud of Turin."

Blessings

 

[Rella]

Very true. Thank you for your contribution. You might be interested in this thread "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due to Noah's Flood" & "Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective" (& speaking of carbon dating earlier this week I had the opportunity to speak with Barrie Schwortz on the now debunked carbon-14 dating results on the Shroud of Turin: "Update on the Shroud of Turin."

Blessings

Thank you for these links as well