Ark encounter

[crochet1949]

BYW -- I'll look at the Ark Encounter web site.

[Katabole]

Katabole: Minorities should never automatically considered false. However, one of the reasons for becoming a minority is that a view has been carefully considered and found wanting. Gap Theory, like other Creationist theories, depends primarily on belief in a literal interpretation of the bible, a belief I do not hold. I don't think Gap Theory is any wronger than any of the others, nor that any of the others are more correct.

Regarding Genesis 2, I do not believe this is intended to be taken literally, and in fact, it is now to be rejected, in line with Crotchet's views about laws above, as no longer applicable. It was written to illustrate woman's proper subservience to, and dependence on, man, which had some social and evolutionary relevance 6000 years ago, but is no longer acceptable.

Regarding Hebrews 11, St Paul was bang on. Most scientists today do consider that the Universe derived from the invisible. The development of life, which Paul was not referring to, derived from what was there already. It still does.

Thanks for the response Hugh. I'll do a writeup on Gap creationism in the next few weeks, including dealing with its criticisms, as I believe many do not understand it and I'll post it up on the Creation Talk section of Evidence for God.

[abelcainsbrother]

Thank you all for your recent replies.

Crotchet: My information about the 1500 kinds of animals in the ark comes from the Ark Encounter website, a group of Young Earth Creationists like yourself. And your rather convoluted explanation of why the laws of the Old Testament do not apply to us, even though Jesus personally announced that he wasn't going to change any of it, is an interesting interpretation - indeed, it is not far from my own interpretation - but it is an interpretation directly contradictory to the actual words of Jesus. It is interesting that interpretations contradicting the exact words of the bible are permitted to you, but not to me.

Katabole: Minorities should never automatically considered false. However, one of the reasons for becoming a minority is that a view has been carefully considered and found wanting. Gap Theory, like other Creationist theories, depends primarily on belief in a literal interpretation of the bible, a belief I do not hold. I don't think Gap Theory is any wronger than any of the others, nor that any of the others are more correct.

Regarding Genesis 2, I do not believe this is intended to be taken literally, and in fact, it is now to be rejected, in line with Crotchet's views about laws above, as no longer applicable. It was written to illustrate woman's proper subservience to, and dependence on, man, which had some social and evolutionary relevance 6000 years ago, but is no longer acceptable.

Regarding Hebrews 11, St Paul was bang on. Most scientists today do consider that the Universe derived from the invisible. The development of life, which Paul was not referring to, derived from what was there already. It still does.

Abelcainsbrother: You are simply making the same unsubstantiated assertions as before. You think that the evidence supports gap theory better than evolution. I disagree. You think that the fossil record doesn't demonstrate evolution. I disagree. You claim there is other evidence for the gap theory. I disagree. You believe that if gap theory was given a fair hearing it would be seen as more believable and appealing than evolution. I think it has been given a fair hearing and I disagree. The only evidence for any of your assertions you have given is related to a 'world wide drought. The only place I have been able to examine this evidence is at kjvbible.org, but I have examined the evidence presented and find it unsatisfactory.

What all these responses to my comment illustrate best is that no-one should be certain that their own personal interpretation of the bible is correct, or even reasonable. The greatest differences between different interpretations are not between Creationist and Evolutionist views, but among Creationists themselves. Whereas evolutionists, and cosmogenists, all believe roughly the same thing, the various Creationist views are wholly incompatible with each other. By their own words in these last few weeks, even those creationists who adhere most closely to the original theme of this site have demonstrated that there can be no literal reading of the words of the bible, and that therefore, any recourse to the truth merely from the literal words alone cannot be justified.

I'm responding to your comment to me.There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

2nd Peter 3:5-7 " For this they willingly are ignorant of,that by the word of God the heavens( cosmos) were of old,and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the WORLD that then WAS,being overflowed with water perished:
But the Heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW,by the same word are kept in store,reserved unto fire against the day of perdition of ungodly men.

We have a lost world that has been overlooked that perished and the fossils show us the kinds of life that lived in it.

[crochet1949]

The Ten Commandments given in the Old Testament were given to Moses by God. In the New Testament , Jesus Christ is challenged as to which of the commandments is More important. And they are told that it Is More important to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and our neighbor as ourselves Because as a result we'll be less likely To commit those various sins.
In the Old Testament the Sabbath was kept -- Saturday worship -- that changed when Jesus Christ rose on the 1st day of the week. The Lord's Day being Sunday. And there are those who Still follow the Ten Commandments and continue to worship on Saturday because that's what Had been. And they are determined to Keep on that way. As long as they don't base their salvation on Doing that. Because that would be a 'works' salvation. And our salvation is NOT based on our works.

[hughfarey]

There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.

Actually, fossil progression is one of the clearest evidences for evolution and in practice does convince people that it must be correct.

Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Trilobites, being marine, are particularly well fossilised, and show almost every aspect of evolution very well. Divergence into many different species, sporadic extinction, adaptation to different environments, and changes in morphology over a period of 300 million years or so are well demonstrated. These all coordinate well with the tectonic changes on the earth over the same time scale, and help to show that continuous change, not "a lost world that perished" has typified earth history.

Crotchet: Your interpretation of which bits of the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments, it seems) are valid today in the light of Christ is interesting, and very divergent from any literal reading. My interpretation is also very divergent from literalism, especially when dealing with the cosmology and biology. My interpretation is supported by copious paleontological and scientific evidence. What supports your interpretation?

[abelcainsbrother]

There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.

Actually, fossil progression is one of the clearest evidences for evolution and in practice does convince people that it must be correct.

Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Trilobites, being marine, are particularly well fossilised, and show almost every aspect of evolution very well. Divergence into many different species, sporadic extinction, adaptation to different environments, and changes in morphology over a period of 300 million years or so are well demonstrated. These all coordinate well with the tectonic changes on the earth over the same time scale, and help to show that continuous change, not "a lost world that perished" has typified earth history.

Crotchet: Your interpretation of which bits of the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments, it seems) are valid today in the light of Christ is interesting, and very divergent from any literal reading. My interpretation is also very divergent from literalism, especially when dealing with the cosmology and biology. My interpretation is supported by copious paleontological and scientific evidence. What supports your interpretation?

Really? Here look at a trilobite and please explain what makes you say it was evolving.And yes there are different species of trilobite's but they were fully formed,had eyes,a nervous system and digestive system. A former world fits the evidence better, and this applies to any fossils found also.There is nothing about any of them that would lead a person to think it was evolving.There is no way to tell by looking at the many trilobite fossils and coming to the conclusion they were evolving..

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... MGUIPS-304

Here look at these pictures of dinosaurs and its the same thing.There is Noway you can look at one and claim it shows evidence it was evolving.You are using evolution imagination. A former world with different kind of life in it fits the evidence much better.

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... Pm96Ne4t5g

[hughfarey]

Really? Here look at a trilobite and please explain what makes you say it was evolving.

No. Look at a hundred trilobites from successive strata, and notice how each level shows trilobites with slight differences from the one above and the one below.

And yes there are different species of trilobite's but they were fully formed,had eyes,a nervous system and digestive system.

You really don't understand what is meant by a transitional stage, do you? Of course every animal is fully formed. I do not understand what you imagine a transitional stage might look like.

A former world fits the evidence better, and this applies to any fossils found also.

So you keep saying, but it's not true.

There is nothing about any of them that would lead a person to think it was evolving.There is no way to tell by looking at the many trilobite fossils and coming to the conclusion they were evolving.

You're fighting a lone corner here, abelcainsbrother, and good for you. You are unlikely to win me, or indeed any of your fellow literalists, to your point of view by your style of argument, but it's good to have the courage of one's convictions.

[abelcainsbrother]

Really? Here look at a trilobite and please explain what makes you say it was evolving.

No. Look at a hundred trilobites from successive strata, and notice how each level shows trilobites with slight differences from the one above and the one below.

And yes there are different species of trilobite's but they were fully formed,had eyes,a nervous system and digestive system.

You really don't understand what is meant by a transitional stage, do you? Of course every animal is fully formed. I do not understand what you imagine a transitional stage might look like.

A former world fits the evidence better, and this applies to any fossils found also.

So you keep saying, but it's not true.

There is nothing about any of them that would lead a person to think it was evolving.There is no way to tell by looking at the many trilobite fossils and coming to the conclusion they were evolving.

You're fighting a lone corner here, abelcainsbrother, and good for you. You are unlikely to win me, or indeed any of your fellow literalists, to your point of view by your style of argument, but it's good to have the courage of one's convictions.

I'm just presenting this hypothesis and then giving evidence and I've only been using fossils for evidence and you agree the fossils all show fully formed creatures,just as I said so therefore you cannot use any fossil for evidence for evolution. And a former lost world with different life in it fits the fossil evidence better. You are just ignoring evidence that better confirms a former world and you must use evolution imagination when looking at the fossils because no fossils found show any evidence this life was evolving. I have not had to get into other evidence either and I've already given more evidence than you have or can. Because any fossil we look at will show the same thing,no reason to believe they were evolving and regardless of how evolutionists have grouped them together with evolution imagination to make it seem like they were evolving.

I just removed all of the fossil evidence away from evolution and am just teaching the very same thing William Buckland believed and taught as a geologist/ paleontologist.This is what William Buckland taught at Oxford in the early 1800' s.He rejected evolution too.This is why the Gap Theory became so popular in the church and why it was revived by Thomas Chalmers,because the scientific evidence confirmed it and it still does today if you look at the evidence from a former world perspective instead of an evolution perspective. Try it, remove evolution from your mind and then look at the evidence from a former lost world perspective instead.

[crochet1949]

There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.

Actually, fossil progression is one of the clearest evidences for evolution and in practice does convince people that it must be correct.

Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Trilobites, being marine, are particularly well fossilised, and show almost every aspect of evolution very well. Divergence into many different species, sporadic extinction, adaptation to different environments, and changes in morphology over a period of 300 million years or so are well demonstrated. These all coordinate well with the tectonic changes on the earth over the same time scale, and help to show that continuous change, not "a lost world that perished" has typified earth history.

Crotchet: Your interpretation of which bits of the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments, it seems) are valid today in the light of Christ is interesting, and very divergent from any literal reading. My interpretation is also very divergent from literalism, especially when dealing with the cosmology and biology. My interpretation is supported by copious paleontological and scientific evidence. What supports your interpretation?

My 'interpretation' is based on Matthew 5 and 22:36 - 41.

[hughfarey]

I'm just presenting this hypothesis and then giving evidence

No, you haven't given any evidence; you simply made statements without any justification.

and I've only been using fossils for evidence and you agree the fossils all show fully formed creatures,just as I said so therefore you cannot use any fossil for evidence for evolution.

You don't understand the nature of transition at all. Transitional organisms are all fully formed creatures. Being a fully formed creature does not mean that it is not a transitional form. In many ways, all creatures, including those on earth today, including humans, are transitional animals. Organisms do not set off to become something else. As circumstances change, offspring that fit those environments better tend to leave more offspring of their own. This process is extremely gradual.

A former lost world with different life in it fits the fossil evidence better. You are just ignoring evidence that better confirms a former world and you must use evolution imagination when looking at the fossils because no fossils found show any evidence this life was evolving.

Absolutely not. The gradual succession of different morphologies through millions of years of geological strata show continuous gradual change over different periods and different geographical areas.

I have not had to get into other evidence either and I've already given more evidence than you have or can.

Is there any?

Because any fossil we look at will show the same thing,no reason to believe they were evolving and regardless of how evolutionists have grouped them together with evolution imagination to make it seem like they were evolving.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid, abelcainsbrother.

I just removed all of the fossil evidence away from evolution and am just teaching the very same thing William Buckland believed and taught as a geologist/ paleontologist.This is what William Buckland taught at Oxford in the early 1800' s.He rejected evolution too.This is why the Gap Theory became so popular in the church and why it was revived by Thomas Chalmers,because the scientific evidence confirmed it and it still does today if you look at the evidence from a former world perspective instead of an evolution perspective. Try it, remove evolution from your mind and then look at the evidence from a former lost world perspective instead.

No. The fossil evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution.

My 'interpretation' is based on Matthew 5 and 22:36 - 41.

And mine on Matthew 5:17-20. Matthew 22:33-41 does not contradict it, it merely augments it. I think you misinterpret the Gospels just as you misinterpret the Old Testament.

[crochet1949]

We ARE to teach our kids right from wrong. In the Ten Commandments we have 'thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, slander our neighbor, worship Only the Lord God Almighty (none of the 'god' from the Old Testament), commit adultery. But obeying those will NOT secure our salvation.

How do I misinterpret the Gospels and the Old Testament?

[hughfarey]

We ARE to teach our kids right from wrong.

Well, naturally. But what is right and what is wrong? Are we to teach are kids they must not eat shrimp as well as they must not steal? Why is the one different from the other? How did you decide? Jesus would no more have eaten pork than he would have made a graven image. And he specifically mentioned that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Was he wrong?

But obeying those [the ten commandments] will NOT secure our salvation.

No? What about Matthew 19:17, "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Was that wrong?

[crochet1949]

hughfarey
Read the rest of the passage -- the next verse he asks 'which ones' -- then Jesus proceeds to list several commandments and the young man says he has been doing those things from his youth -- then he's told to sell what he has and give to the poor so then you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me. But the young man left sad because he had many possessions that he didn't want to give up -- vs 33 says that it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven vs 25 ' then who Can enter heaven. vs 26 with men, this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
A person Can live a pretty good life --but it's Not what We are doing that makes the eternal difference. It's what God is doing / has done For us that makes our salvation possible.

[crochet1949]

As for eating the shrimp -- it might depend on where a person lives and who they are - the culture involved. I don't eat shrimp -- never been interested in eating it. For one thing, I think it's expensive. I think shrimp is considered unclean but don't know why. In New Testament, somewhere, a sheet of meat is presented to Peter? and he questions what he's being given and he's told what he's given is okay to eat? So -- it might be like those who feel it's still important to worship on Saturday rather than Sunday. It depends on the Why's of it. Is it considered a 'good work' to worship on a particular day? or worship for the sake of worshipping God. Is eating shrimp a problem for people -- then don't eat it -- if it Isn't then Do eat it. But don't have people over to your house and serve shrimp when you know they don't believe it's right for them to do so.

[hughfarey]

Well all that's very practical and a sensible interpretation of the fact that bits of the bible applied to scientifically illiterate nomads in the years BC, but simply don't apply to us any more. Pork, prawns and clothes of mixed materials - banned for the Jews but OK for us. Thou Shalt Not Kill, Steal and Tell Lies; that's for us too. And it's an interesting if illogical idea that having been specifically told to keep the commandments, sell what he owns, give to the poor and follow Jesus, you think that it's not what we do that makes a difference. What happened to the young man? Did it matter whether he did anything or not? But what I really don't understand is why you think it OK to reinterpret Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the limits of their intelligibility, but you don't think it OK to do the same for Genesis. Or why you think that your authority to do so is somehow greater than mine.