Posted on 09/28/2009 8:12:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Your conclusions.
I didn’t ask about my conclusions. I asked about the rules of hermaneutics. Are you a politician because you dance all around the questions! ;)
So you believe God made some organisms the same except when He didn't. Can't help you with that.
I ALSO DON’T HAVE A SABER TOOTH TIGER AT MY LOCAL ZOO BECAUSE SOME ANIMALS GO EXTINCT. A RODHOCETUS IS CLAIMED BY EVOLUTIONISTS TO BE AN EARLY ANCESTOR OF THE WHALE. I BELIEVE IT WAS MAMMAL THAT WENT EXTINCT. SAME EVIDENCE(A FOSSIL) DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
You ducked my point. You claim these animals still exist. They don't. I give you credit for your answer on Rodhocetus though. I would have said extinct mammal too. But I would have added that it has characteristics of whales and of Pakicetus, in other words, a transition between species.
DOES IT SHOW THEM TRANSITIONING FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER? NO. THERE ARE ALOT OF DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES THAT ARE ALIVE AND LIVING TOGETHER ON EARTH TODAY. TAKE SHARKS FOR EXAMPLE. THERE ARE SOME VERY DISTINCT DIFFERENCES BUT THEY ARE ALL STILL SHARKS.
See above.
IF DATING METHODS ARE SO RELIABLE WHY HAVE ROCKS THAT HAVE FORMED DURING RECENT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY BEEN DATED AT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
They haven't. Again we have different facts. Incorrect use of a test means the result is incorrect. Only a creationists would find value in such a flawed exercise.
WHY DON’T YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS WHEN DISCUSSING HOW ONE SPECIES OF ANIMAL EVOLVES INTO ANOTHER. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS AN OBSERVABLE PROCESS.
I knew you meant "micro-evolution". You're ducking behind "kinds", as in "they're still birds". I'll ask again, what "kind" is Rodhocetus?
THINK AGAIN. THE LADY BELOW ISOLATED THE TISSUE AND IT WAS TRANSPARENT, PLIABLE AND EVEN HAD CELLS STILL PRESENT.
No. If you look at her published articles, her claim is that it seems like tissue and cells. And she found what looks like organic molecules. Unfortunately she destroyed her samples in acid to get her results, so it will take some time to confirm what she's found because paleontologists don't like destroying their eveidence. Especially when only a few examples of some species have been found. I personally hope her results are confirmed. But for a creationist to jump on a preliminary result while ignoring millions of repetitive, consistent results of tests performed over several decades is certainly dishonest. From another article,
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
I am not a politician because I have actually read the bill.
So you believe God made some organisms the same except when He didn’t. Can’t help you with that.
WHAT IS SO WEIRD ABOUT THAT. MAMMALS SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS, REPTILES SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS, FISH SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS ETC. THERE IS ORDER TO IT AND WE CAN CLASSIFY ANIMALS BASED ON THESE CHARACTERISTICS. ORDER DOESN’T COME FROM CHAOS AND BLIND CHANCE. GOD CREATED ALL THE ANIMALS AND HE GAVE EACH TYPE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS.
You ducked my point. You claim these animals still exist.
I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THOSE ANIMALS STILL EXIST. SOME ANIMALS THAT EXIST TODAY ARE VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED FROM THEIR FOSSILIZED ANCESTORS IE LIVING FOSSILS. THE ONES THAT DON’T EXIST TODAY WENT EXTINCT.
They don’t. I give you credit for your answer on Rodhocetus though. I would have said extinct mammal too. But I would have added that it has characteristics of whales and of Pakicetus, in other words, a transition between species.
THAT IS A CONJECTURE. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS CHARACTERISTICS OF WHALES DOESN’T MEAN IT WAS A TRANSITION. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MAMMAL OR A TYPE OF WHALE WITH UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WENT EXTINCT. FOR EXAMPLE IF WE ONLY SAW HAMMERHEAD SHARKS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, WE COULD ASSUME THAT THIS WAS AN EARLY ANCESTOR TO THE MODERN SHARK OR THAT IT WAS A KIND OF SHARK THAT JUST HAPPENED TO GO EXTINCT. BOTH ARE JUST CONJECTURE.
They haven’t. Again we have different facts. Incorrect use of a test means the result is incorrect. Only a creationists would find value in such a flawed exercise.
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT DATING CAN HAVE INCORRECT OR FLAWED CONCLUSIONS? ;) EVEN DISCOUNTING THIS, RADIOMETRIC DATING STILL HAS UNIFORMITARIAN ASSUMPTIONS. ASSUMPTION BASED ON WORLDVIEW.
WHY DON’T YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS WHEN DISCUSSING HOW ONE SPECIES OF ANIMAL EVOLVES INTO ANOTHER. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS AN OBSERVABLE PROCESS.
I knew you meant “micro-evolution”. You’re ducking behind “kinds”, as in “they’re still birds”. I’ll ask again, what “kind” is Rodhocetus? MAYBE IT WAS ITS OWN KIND OR MAYBE IT WAS A DISTINCT TYPE OF WHALE. I DON’T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU.
No. If you look at her published articles, her claim is that it seems like tissue and cells. And she found what looks like organic molecules. Unfortunately she destroyed her samples in acid to get her results, so it will take some time to confirm what she’s found because paleontologists don’t like destroying their eveidence. Especially when only a few examples of some species have been found. I personally hope her results are confirmed. But for a creationist to jump on a preliminary result while ignoring millions of repetitive, consistent results of tests performed over several decades is certainly dishonest. I DIDN’T JUMP ON ANYTHING, I SOURCED AN ARTICLE THAT BY THE WAY WAS NOT FROM A CREATIONIST PERSPECTIVE. THE ARTICLE SAID SOFT TISSUE HAD BEEN FOUND. I ONLY QUOTED THE SOURCE. I DIDN’T CHANGE OR INTERPRET HER WORK OR WORDS IN ANY WAY. HOW IS THAT BEING DISHONEST?
From another article,Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists
NOONE HIJACKED HER RESEARCH, WE ONLY COMMENTED ON IT OR PRESENTED OUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. SHE PRESENTED HER INTERPRETATION.
I AM ENJOYING OUR EXCHANGE IMMENSELY!
I said that the bullet points were an overview. The basic premise remains. In the same scripture passage, two exact phrases cannot mean different things. Exodus 20. It refers specifically to Genesis 1. Please address this.
There is nothing in any of your published rules that says they can't mean different things, especially if the language is incapable of differentiating. The passage refers to six cycles called Yom for God and six cycles for man. It doesn't say anywhere that the cycles are the same. An analogy would be that both a miniature chihuahua and a bull mastiff are dogs. A passage that said that Jose carried his 6 oz dog (Chihuahua) to school isn't the same thing as saying that Philip carried his 230 lb dog (mastiff) to school. It would be especially difficult if the language did not have different words for different types of dogs.
so we are to work six day because God created in six unspecified periods of time. OKAY!
No, you are to work six light / dark cycles because God created the universe in six light dark cycles. You have plenty of empirical data to support that your light / dark cycle is approximately 24 hours, but you have no direct or indirect evidence as to the duration of the light / dark cycles of Creation.
Your analogy doesn’t really make sense. Take your passage and add something else: Philip carried his six pound dog to school. Philip bought his six pound dog from a friend.
We are not going to say that the six pound dog is one dog and the second six pound dog he bought is another. The plain reading of the passage would tell us that he bought the six pound dog from a friend and then he carried the same six pound dog to school. In fact you could even leave out the exact phrase the second time and still understand the meaning. Philip carried his six pound dog to school. Philip bought his dog from a friend.
If the passage wanted us to know it was another dog then it would have to state that. Philip carried his six pound dog to school. Philip bought his 230 lb dog from a friend.
In Exodus we are told to complete our work in six days because God created in six days. It doesn’t use two different words. It doesn’t introduce the second six days as GOD time and not earth time. The plain meaning is clear and you are jumping through hoops to explain it away.
You didn’t get this phrasing light/dark cycles from the Bible. You ignore plain reading for made up phrases. I don’t need evidence direct or indirect. I have the scripture which clearly states that there were six days. It would seem that the scriptures go out of the way to make this fact clear by using not only numbers with the word day but also the phrase evening and morning. Again, every other place that the word day is used with evening and morning or with a number it means a literal day. But you are arguing that in this case when it uses BOTH a number and the phrase evening and morning that it only means an unspecified amount of time that has a light/dark cycle.
Although all 24 hour periods might be yoms, all yoms are not necessarily 24 hour periods. Anyone who has ever been a party to a custody dispute, rental agreement or labor negotiation knows that you can't even arrive at a plain meaning of the word day in English, let alone ancient Hebrew. When referring to the word day do you mean:
1) a legal day as defined as the period between midnight and midnight
2)An astronomical day as defined the period between noon and noon
3) The day light hours only
4)the period of rotation of a planet or a moon on its axis
5) a specified day or date (the day of the hearing)
6) a specified time or period : age (in grandfather's day)
7) the conflict or contention of the day (fought hard and won the day)
8) the time established by usage or law for work, school, or business
9) an unspecified past or future time (one day)
10) one'd life time (to spend one's days)
Mornings and evenings of a “yom” before the Sun had been created? Why that simply HAS to be a 24 hour period. Nothing else could possibly make sense!/s
Do you think perhaps that there might be a deeper meaning, perhaps that God didn't do everything in an instant, but took his time, rolled up HIS metaphorical sleeves, and worked what would be the equivalent of a human being working for six days, and then rested?
The Bible instructs us to pay particular attention to the fact that “a day unto the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day.”
And for the thinking impaired, I don't for a ‘yom’ suspect that this poetic language is somehow a direct proportionality.
This one is of particular significance with respect to the passage you cited. In Creation a yom is the light and the dark period, in general ancient Hebrew language a yom is the day light hours only. Surely you cannot imply that God wishes that we toil for six full days (144 consecutive hours) uninterrupted as He did. If you are referring to man only having to toil the daylight hours then even the duration of this varies with the seasons as Israel is 32 degrees north of the equator. The hours of daylight vary from 10:14 in December to 14:04 in June.
when taken in context the meaning is clear. You refuse to see it in context.
Do you supposed it took God all day to make the plants? Of course not. He spoke and they were. But He did this on one day. Then He waited until the next to create the next thing. Same for us. We do our work for one day and then wait for the next to do the rest. No where did I suggest or does the Bible suggest that we must work the ENTIRE day. Just that we have six days to get it done. I have been up late into the night getting things done because I didn’t get them done in the daytime. Some people work night shift. This doesn’t in any way have anything to do with the whether or not the day was a day or a period of time. You are still deflecting and since you wont actually answer my legitimate points, I see no use in continuing the discussion. Have a good day (pun intended)! ;)
Ive been all through this with natural law. If you want to know my view go back through the old posts. I am finished with the discussion because natural law refuses to debate valid points and keeps deflecting.
“But I fail to see how it is either necessary or even logical to do so.”
I am sure you do.
But then you cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.
A young earth is simply not a reasonable position. It is one based upon faith... faith in ones own ability to correctly interpret scripture despite a mountain of contrary data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.