WARNING: Very long post ahead. I've tried to make it interesting,
but unfortunately what I think is the best stuff is way on down
toward the end.
> Rick Hartzog:
> Thank you for your intelligent and mature response.
You are welcome. I had hoped for the same from you in return,
but as I read down through your post last night I realized I
had been overly optimistic. It was very late and it had been
a long day, so I thought I would just let it slide, but the
farther I got into it the more I realized a reply was in order,
just to let you know I'm on to you.
> While I appreciate that you opened with compliments, quite
> frankly it doesn't matter to me who else does what, what they
> claim or how far they get in apologetics.
This isn't about who else, this is about you. When you first
posted here I saw that you were very confused about logic, as
most newcomers are, and I offered you encouragement. I said,
"Logic isn't a trick; it's a very useful tool, handy for
debates but even more useful for examining your own reasoning."
I now see that you are not interested in logic itself, or in
making application of it to your own reasoning; you only want
to *appear* that you know logic and think you can get away with
misusing logical terms and nobody will know the difference.
Sorry. When I said logic isn't a trick you should have paid
attention to that.
> I only concern myself with being honest and reading people's
> words in a natural and straight forward manner and responding
> in kind.
I'm afraid in this case your response does not indicate that
you really mean that.
Let me illustrate:
> > "Do you really agree that no evidence can be valid if it
> > contradicts your interpretation of Scripture?"
And you replied:
> First, I made the mistake, for ease of response, of committing
> the logical fallacy of reification.
> For that I apologize.
> Evidence doesn't agree or disagree with anything.
> It simply exists.
> Conclusions agree or disagree.
> Thus, the proper way to rewrite that statement is as follows.
> "No evidentiary conclusion can be valid if it contradicts your
> interpretation of Scripture."
> With that in mind; in response to your question
> -- Yes.
OK. In the first place, your use of "reification" is misguided.
Evidence is concrete and observable. In science, an interpretation
of evidence that has "predictive validity" is also concrete and
observable. For example, if I look out and see frost on my
windshield (evidence) I can interpret that evidence to predict
that it's cold outside. Whether my prediction is true or false
is immaterial -- I have made a prediction based on interpretation
of an observation and can test my prediction by stepping outside.
There is no reification going on in this anywhere.
So enough of that. Let's get to the second place:
You say no interpretation of evidence can be valid if it
contradicts your interpretation of Scripture.
But then you say:
> You're making two mistakes.
> First, I'm not concerned with my "interpretation."
> My sole concern is proper interpretation.
How can you possibly arrive at "proper" interpretation if there
can be no valid interpretation of evidence that contradicts *your*
interpretation of Scripture?
> I have changed many beliefs through the course of time
> and in the past 5 or so years; I have gone through a major
> paradigmatic transformation in my understanding of Scripture.
So according to what you've just said above, this "transformation"
to *your present interpretation* of Scripture was just arbitrary and
willy-nilly, and not the result of any evidence that contradicted
*your former interpretation* of Scripture.
> Second, you're assuming I'm not open to evidence proving otherwise.
How can it be my assumption? I'm just taking you at your word.
You just got through saying that no interpretation of evidence
that contradicts your interpretation of Scripture can be valid.
> I'm totally open to it.
And now you are saying exactly the opposite of what you just got
> To this point I've seen nothing to convince me.
How can you see something that doesn't exist?
In other words -- your words: There exists no valid interpretation
of evidence that can contradict your interpretation of Scripture.
> I know that to you, this seems ridiculous.
> I don't blame you.
Does that mean that it seems ridiculous to you, too?
> Everyone believes they are the only person who actually
> lives in reality.
Do they? How do you know?
How can someone take seriously what it says in Isaiah 55:8,9 or
1 Corinthians 13:12 and think that they actually know what
> I rest everything on a natural and straight forward reading
> of the Bible because I believe the Bible to be a close
> rendition to God's immutable and infallible eternal Word.
Regardless of your beliefs about the Bible, you have not
justified your reliance on what you keep calling a "natural
and straight forward" reading, and I don't think that you
can justify it without referring to extra-Biblical evidence,
and I think when you do attempt to refer to extra-Biblical
evidence you will have to misinterpret that evidence in
order to make it fit your predetermined belief.
And once you do start misinterpreting extra-Biblical evidence
you are not going to be able to retreat back to the Bible
in order to justify your misinterpretation of the evidence.
> I don't stand by just one translation.
> I have a working knowledge of biblical Hebrew and Greek
> as well.
So let's hear your natural and straightforward interpretation
of Matthew 23:24.
> Thus, my way of articulating that statement is
> "No evidentiary conclusion can be valid if it contradicts
> a natural and straight forward reading of Scripture."
So you are arguing in a circle with no way out. You can't
appeal to the external world because it is full of
evidentiary conclusions that you can neither accept nor
> To verify a natural and straight forward reading of Scripture,
> all one needs to do is have an 8 year old who has not been
> indoctrinated for or against religion read a section of Scripture
> and ask them to put it in their own words.
Please ask your eight-year-old to interpret this verse for me:
| When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood
| as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became
| a man, I put away childish things. (1 Corinthians 13:11)
> That's the only way I know of to come by an unadulterated
> Would I build doctrine on that?
You are contradicting yourself here -- *again*. You just got
through saying that the way to "verify a natural and straight
forward reading" was to have an eight-year-old do it.
*Are you* or *are you not* building your doctrine on a "natural and
straight forward" reading?
> But I have yet to see an adult as trustworthy as a child
> in interpreting Scripture in a natural and straight forward
Then Paul erred in telling Timothy to study. He should have
told Timothy to get a child to explain it to him. And Peter
erred in saying that some of Paul's epistles are hard to
understand. He could have just told the believers to get a
child to explain Paul's letters.
> I said
> I perceive your interpretation
> of this to assert that I simply
> dismiss any and all claims contrary.
> I don't.
> Rather, I seek empirical evidence
> that leads to logical and rational
> - - And you responded:
> > "This is in contradiction to your indicated agreement with
> > the statement above that says no evidence can be valid if
> > it contradicts your interpretation of Scripture."
> Reread my correction of this statement.
Your correction doesn't change anything, Cliff. You are
simply saying that no interpretation of evidence that
contradicts a natural and straightforward reading of
Scripture is valid.
So insects have four legs and bats are birds. (Leviticus 11)
No, that's all right! No need to explain! Your "natural
and straight forward" reading says it all! What we can
clearly observe in the natural world has no bearing on
your interpretation of Scripture. I get that!
> With that in mind, yours is a false dichotomy founded
> in the deep time paradigm.
> That dichotomy is evidence vs. the Bible.
OK, first the misunderstanding of "reification" and now a
misunderstanding of "false dichotomy."
Have you ever heard of the "fallacy fallacy"? No? Well,
let me explain it to you.
In rhetorical confrontations, it is the tactic of accusing the
opposing party of committing a logical fallacy when in fact the
opposing party has committed no such fallacy.
This puts an unnecessary and unproductive burden on the opposing
party to stop in the middle of everything and explain why the
accusation is false.
In other words, it is a dishonest rhetorical strategy.
That's OK. It's not like I had anything else to do today, like
go over to the garden and pick the peas or go down below the
pond and cut some firewood for this winter. I'll just sit
right here and mollycoddle you.
This isn't a matter of evidence versus the Bible. It is a
matter of science's interpretation of the evidence (e.g., the
Earth is old) versus Cliff's interpretation of the Bible
(e.g., the Earth is young). Now, that *is* a dichotomy --
they can't both be right. But it isn't a *false* dichotomy,
it is a real live dichotomy -- the two interpretations are
mutually exclusive, UNLESS Cliff is going to opt for the
"apparent age" solution, which is an option I have already
offered him and which he has apparently rejected, preferring
instead to continue on with his claims that the dating methods
are all wrong.
Therefore, the false accusation on his part.
> Again, evidence doesn't speak or "say" anything.
> It must be interpreted.
> Your mistake is the assumption that evidence
> contradicts Scripture.
And now a false charge against me. I have "assumed" no such
thing. Somehow you forget that we're not talking about
Scripture, we're talking about your *interpretation* of
Scripture. I'm not saying the Scripture is wrong, I'm saying
your interpretation of it is wrong.
Your interpretation, Cliff, is not the word of God. You keep
trying to conflate the two, but they are two different things.
And that in itself is the fallacy of equivocation.
> Your conclusions definitely contradict Scripture.
If "evidence" was a reification fallacy, as you said at the
beginning of this post, then "Scripture" is a reification
fallacy. Both have to be interpreted. Don't you get that?
But no matter -- you were wrong anyway. I'm just pointing
out the inconsistency of your thinking.
But science's conclusions don't contradict *my* interpretation of
Scripture, they contradict *your* interpretation of Scripture.
I can take anything and everything science legitimately concludes
and my interpretation of Scripture can readily absorb it. You,
on the other hand, must be continually at odds with science.
But the thing is, you can offer no alternate interpretation of
the scientific evidence that will be coherent, consistent, and
comprehensive -- none. It isn't possible -- UNLESS, as I said
in the last post, God just made everything look old. But if that's
the kind of God we're dealing with, who's to say He didn't just
poof the Bible into existence 5 minutes before you were born?
> But please explain how the forensic examination of a
> static environment like the fossil record is evidence
> contradicting Scripture.
I didn't say it was. I say it is evidence contradicting
*your interpretation* of Scripture, and I say again that you
are attempting to conflate your interpretation of Scripture
with Scripture itself. Cliff's word is not God's word, Cliff.
> The only thing the static record proves is that those
> creatures existed.
How do you know they existed? How do you know God didn't
just put them in the rocks when he made the rocks?
Two can play the presuppositional logic nonsense game!
> The rest is conclusion. I come to a different conclusion
> than you. That doesn't mean the evidence is proof. It only
> means your interpretive method differs from mine.
Yes, your interpretive method is to ignore any evidence
that contradicts your interpretation. Your method is
neither externally applicable nor internally consistent.
And any conclusion you want to offer about those fossils will
be falsified by the body of empirical evidence that surrounds
> We have to decide whose interpretive method is right.
From your demonstration, we know whose method is *not*
right. Lack of internal consistency is a dead giveaway,
lack of external applicability makes one wonder why you
even bother. What good is an interpretation that doesn't
apply to the real world?
> I said
> Instead, what I find with deep
> timers is a universal acceptance
> of non-provable assumptions as
> The very foundational assumptions
> are never questioned.
> Why not?
> You asked
> > "Do you have any evidence that they should be?"
> I really don't understand this inquiry.
Well, let me put it to you this way, then: Can you
think of any way to falsify an axiom?
> Aren't all facets of science continually questioned?
No. The physical world is what it is. We can hardly
question that and remain in the realm of rationality.
> I am inundated with people who claim that.
I think you are trying too hard to not understand them.
> Are you not of the same persuasion?
> Notice that I'm not assuming you are; I'm asking so
> I know for certain.
Yes, scientific theories are falsifiable. Scientific conclusions
are tentative and potentially falsifiable. But axioms are another
matter. They are self-evident without proof and yet science does not
have a way to falsify them, either.
> Why would assumptions that are considered axiomatic
> not be questioned?
Because science has no way of questioning nonsensical
statements such as "The physical world is not the physical
> How can any assumption be considered axiomatic? How could
> anyone who claims to be a logician, scientist, scientific
> minded or a student of any discipline, accept an assumption
> as axiomatic? That is illogical.
So says Cliff. But, Cliff, your pretense at logic is just that:
pretense. You have allowed presuppositional nonsense to cloud
People were doing science for a long time before any philosophers
ever came by and asked, "Hey, what do you guys think you're doing?"
Even way back in Genesis they had metallurgy and agriculture. They
learned by trial and error. They didn't stop to think about axioms
or underlying assumptions. They just figured out that if they did
the same thing under the same conditions they would get the same
results, time after time. They tested hypotheses and refined their
methodologies, progressing from clay to ceramics, from bronze to iron,
from mud-and-stick huts to Roman arches, all without even knowing
they were operating under any axioms.
Philosopher: "Hey, what do you guys think you're doing?"
Scientists: "We're digging a canal to irrigate this field."
Philosopher: "But you're relying on unproven assumptions!"
Scientists: "So what? It still works."
> You said
> > "If, as you say above, you seek empirical evidence that
> > leads to logical and rational conclusions, to logically
> > and rationally conclude that the underlying axioms of
> > science are faulty you need empirical evidence to support
> > that conclusion."
> This is skirting the issue.
You're trying to make an issue where none exists.
> An axiom needs no support; it's axiomatic. I speak
> of assumptions that enjoy axiomatic status. Again,
> how can any assumption ever be considered axiomatic?
> That's illogical.
So what? It still works.
> I stated
> I already asked several questions
> concerning how we know conditions
> that supposedly transpired millions
> of years ago.
> In return you asked
> > "Do you really want to know, or do you just want somebody
> > to jump through a bunch of hoops for you so that at the
> > end you can say you're still not convinced?"
> You're right: It's a rhetorical question.
That's what I thought. You are not being sincere.
> The answer is that we cannot know. I know that people
> who believe in deep time would post all kinds of "proof."
> It's all conjecture based on interpretation of evidence.
> It's all simply more conclusions passed off as fact and
> scientific proof.
Yet you can offer no alternate explanations that will come
anywhere close to the explanations we already have. And
on top of that, you can make no predictions based on whatever
paltry, untested explanations you might happen to dream up,
nor do you dare actually test those explanations.
> In reality, it's all conjecture founded on the best of
> human intellect and wisdom. I've noticed the marked
> tendency for otherwise intelligent, rational and logical
> people to throw it all out the window when it comes to
> their personal paradigm. Why?
Oh, I don't know. My best guess is that it is because you:
1) don't understand logical and rational thinking,
2) don't recognize it when you see it,
3) don't have any interest in learning it, and
4) prefer instead to try to bamboozle people by misusing
terms like "reification," "false dichotomy," and "axiomatic," and
5) automatically assume that anything that conflicts with
your own paradigm is "illogical."
But that's just a guess...
> As opposed to repeating Dr. Wiens quote any more, I'll
> simply respond to one you posted.
> You said
> > "Wiens speaks of several radioisotopes that no longer exist
> > in nature because their half-lives are so short that they
> > have all decayed away to nothing."
> This is a prime example of my point.
> "half-lives are so short..."
> We cannot know the starting conditions, thus this inclusion,
> matching other dating methods, is nothing more than more
> internal comparison, as well as once again begging the question.
See, you're wrong here on a number of counts.
1) We don't have to know anything about "starting conditions"
to measure the half-lives of radioisotopes. You simply use
a Geiger counter to count the rate of decays.
2) Matching radiometric dating methods to NON-radiometric methods
is NOT "internal comparison."
3) The suggestion that this is "begging the question" is yet
another instance of the "fallacy fallacy".
> The very question is: Is the world/universe thousands or
> millions of years old? In order to arrive at your conclusion
> that half-lives prove deep time you have to assume deep time.
That is false. Either you don't know what you are talking about
or you don't care whether what you say is true or not. I will
explain this below, under your non-response to my questions about
> The only way to prove deep time is to know the starting
We *do* know the "starting conditions," based on *multiple
independent lines of evidence*. Either the Earth is old,
or God just made it to *look* old, as I explained in my
previous post. And, as I said before, if God just made it
look that way, you have no grounds for criticizing scientists
for saying that it *does* look that way.
> Think of it like this.
> Two men are in a diving bell. They are at 11,000 ft.
> Within that bell exists atmospheric conditions that
> easily support life. There is no way for the divers
> to see outside the bell and someone tells them they
> can't step outside or they'll die.
> What if they have no previous experience and don't
> understand the danger?
> What evidence is there to believe the man on the radio?
> If the divers only know they hate being enclosed in a
> tiny prison, there is none. Everything they know for
> certain is consistent with the healthy support of human
> life. What if one was a very self willed and spunky man?
> He hit the "Open Door" lever and hydraulic presses
> slammed the door open. Oops! Yet, how was he to know that?
> He had no way other than someone proclaiming it a foolish move.
> Nope: Internal consistency is no guarantee of reality.
Well, we agreed in my last post that internal consistency
is insufficient evidence that an interpretation is correct,
And I don't think your analogy is very good, but rather
than just tell you it's the fallacy of "argument by false
analogy" I'll try to play along with you:
The diving bell is the young-earth interpretation of
Scripture. The two men inside are you and me (yes, I
grew up believing in a young Earth myself). The voice
on the radio telling us we can't step outside or we'll
die is the voice of our religious leaders, the sadists,
who locked us up in this thing to begin with.
I'll be the spunky one, OK? I hit the "Open Door" lever
and outside it's a beautiful sunny day on the beach. We're
not 11,000 feet under water at all. And lined up all down
the beach I see thousands of other diving bells just like
the one I've been confined in, with their radio antennas
all receiving the same threats you and I have been getting.
They've been lying to us all along.
Do you want me to hold the door open for you, or are you
going to sit in there and keep believing you're 11,000 feet
under the ocean with no way out?
> At that, there is no such thing as a consistent dating method.
As I stated in my last post, it is intellectually irresponsible
of you to say things like this. I could put that a little
more bluntly if you wish, but 95% reliability is pretty darned
consistent, whether you like it or not.
> If anyone is honest, they will admit that.
Baloney. If you were wanting to be honest you wouldn't be
trying to argue against established science with analogies
instead of evidence.
> Arrived at dates that disagree with expected results are
> routinely discarded as contaminated without evidence that
> they are.
Who says? Unexpected results are reported in the literature
just like everything else. Unexpected results point the way
for further research. What caused this unexpected result?
If it is contamination, how can we guard against it happening
in subsequent research?
It was "unexpected results" that led to refinement of C-14
dating, and now we not only get more accurate results but we
also know a lot more about past fluctuations of atmospheric C-14
and the lag time between atmospheric and marine fluctuations.
Not to mention a much better understanding of ancient Egypt...
tee hee hee...
> Why should I believe dating methods that are very inconsistent
> and have at their core, mere assumptions?
You shouldn't. But what you are describing is not scientific
dating methods, it is creationist dating methods. Creationists
don't know if all the fossils are from the Flood, or if just
some of them are from the Flood, or if God just put the fossils
in the rocks when He made the Earth.
> I remain unconvinced.
> In that you are right.
Shall I just close the door of your diving bell back for you
and leave you in peace? Oh, I see you've already snatched it
back shut yourself.
> I notice a definite difference in approach by otherwise
> logical and rational people. They demand I prove each and
> every jot and tittle of the Bible to their personal
> satisfaction before they'll so much as consider any of it
> as accurate. This, of course, is an impossible task. No one
> can convince someone who won't be convinced.
Well, as I said above, I used to be a young-earth creationist
myself. You don't have to try proving anything about your
interpretation of the Bible to me -- I know what it is already.
There is no way I'm getting back in that diving bell with you.
But now that I'm out, you don't mind if I go tapping on the
doors of these other diving bells and letting folks know it's
OK to come out, do you?
> Simultaneously those people accept assumptions as axiomatic
> in their chosen paradigm.
I think you've heard the word "axiom" somewhere and just liked
the way it sounded -- kinda like "reification."
I seriously doubt you could describe for me what are the
axioms of science. But give it a try -- they're not that
At any rate, as I described earlier, people were doing science
long before there were any axioms. In reality, the axioms and
even the supposed "scientific method" are just retrospective
attempts to codify and describe why science works as well as
> Are you aware that archaeologists have begun using the
> Bible as their roadmap to finding biblical sites? Yup:
> They have finally wised up. Contrary to the claims we
> hear everywhere today, the Bible is more and more being
> proven infallible and immutable; not the other way around.
In other words, because Jericho exists your interpretion
of Scripture is infallible and immutable.
Boy, that's an interesting piece of logic...
You say, "Yup: They have finally wised up."
Ha, ha. Biblical archaeology has been going on for well
over a hundred years. The lower levels of Jericho are over
10,000 years old. And those levels sit atop massive sedimentary
formations. And those formations have caves in them, in which
Neanderthal fossils have been found and dated at over 40,000
years. And the slime pits in the Valley of Siddim (Genesis 14)
are tar pits from fossil hydrocarbons that are millions of years
old, which slime is not only what they used for mortar between
the mud bricks of the post-Flood Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) but
is also the "pitch" used for caulking Noah's ark (Genesis 6).
The Ishtar Gate is pretty interesting, too.
It's a pity young-earth creationists have to reject almost
everything Biblical archaeologists have discovered, just
because it contradicts their "natural and straight forward"
reading of the Bible.
> I choose a natural and straight forward reading of the
So you keep saying.
What is the natural and straightforward reading of this
| For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city,
| and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole
| land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes
| thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the
| people of the land. (Jeremiah 1:18)
Did God turn Jeremiah into an iron pillar? Please answer
without appealing to extra-Biblical assumptions...
> You said and asked:
> > "For example, Calcium-41 is a radionuclide with a half-life of
> > 130,000 years. If the Earth is only about 6,000 years old,
> > you should have no problem at all locating some Ca-41.
> > Where is it?
> > Aluminum-26 is a radionuclide with a half-life of 700,000
> > years. If the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, you
> > should have no problem at all locating some Al-26.
> > Where is it?"
> All of these are begging the question and resting on the
> assumptions that are considered axiomatic.
"Begging the question," huh? Here you are, committing another
"fallacy fallacy." And here you are, making another verifiably
false claim about assumptions and axioms.
> The assumption is that deep time is proven, thus axiomatic.
No, deep time is not an axiom. Even time itself is not an
> The next assumption is that we know the starting conditions.
We don't have to know "starting conditions" to measure half-life,
as I explained above. All we have to do is take a known number
of atoms of the radioisotope and count the decays over a
period of time.
> If those assumptions are true, you're right, this is
> very simple.
> How do we know the assumptions are true?
We don't use those assumptions to measure decay rates and
determine half-lives. It's a direct observation. So, yes,
it *is* very simple: short-lived radionuclides such as Ca-41
and Al-26 have all decayed away to nothing, and the creationist
has no rational answer for this, so we are treated to such
impenetrable obtuseness as what you display above.
I further note that you have neglected to address the
observations that spectral analysis of supernovae and the
fact that the Earth is not molten put the lie to the
creationist contention that decay rates may have been
different in the past.
That's OK. It just makes it that much easier for me to
wholly discredit your objections.
> I am responding to the rest of the posts in this comment.
> Shortly it will become clear as to why.
> Immediately I notice a couple of things in the responses to me.
> People read between the lines rather than just reading my words
> in a natural and straight forward manner.
The natural and straightforward reading of your words leads to
so many self-contradicting assertions that you *force* your readers
to "read between the lines" to try to make any sense out of it at all.
And then it is quite easy for you to say that you have been
misunderstood. Welcome to presuppositionalism, folks! This is
exactly how they operate. It's all a bunch of deliberate
> My responses are interpreted through the strawman edifice of
> creationism rather than through the true creationist's belief
This statement is belied by your use of the same old tired
and false criticisms of radiometric dating that the "edifice
of creationism" has been using for decades, promoted by
"creation science" organizations and uncomprehendingly picked
up and regurgitated by young-earthers such as yourself who
don't understand the subject matter enough to know that it
does not require speculative assumptions about "deep time" or
"starting conditions" to determine half-lives -- AND the
deliberate dismissal of correction about these things AND the
dishonest repetition of the same false claims after you have
Regardless of what you want to claim the "true creationist's
belief system" is -- well, ye shall know them by their fruit.
Whatever their axioms are, their science doesn't work.
Which makes all their griping about unproven assumptions pretty
> I have neither the time nor the inclination to straighten out
> every misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my words.
Apparently neither do you have the time or inclination to get
your story straight before you go posting long, garbled-up
non-responses to plain questions. This is very like the tactic
used by not only presuppositionalists Jason Petersen and
Sye Ten Bruggencate, but creationists in general. Normal people
get so confused trying to wade through all the meaningless and
irrational diversionary blather that they walk away in disgust.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not normal. I saw through the
creationist facade many years ago. You are not really about a
defense of the gospel at all -- you *are* the "strawman", Cliff.
That's why the atheists love you so much. You're an easy
takedown of "Christianity".
> I will correct only a couple showing why they are false.
Sure you will. Keep reading:
> I was asked how I know that a natural and straight forward
> reading of the Scripture is the way to properly interpret it.
> In no uncertain terms the Bible tells us that very thing.
Then it shouldn't be any problem for you to point us to
those verses. Yet you don't.
> God inspired and preserved his word, not just the concepts.
Doesn't mean He meant for you to misrepresent radioactive decay
in order for you to stick to your "natural and straight forward"
> For the sake of commentary flow; rather than typing out all
> the Scriptures I'll post a few biblical references at the end
> of this comment.
And yet you didn't. You put them in another message.
Careless, careless! But I have to keep asking myself, is this
just a matter of carelessness or is it just more deliberate confusion
Forgive my suspicion, but you are not the first creationist I've
dealt with, and it appears to me that you have neglected to explain
to me how you know that a "natural and straight forward" reading
of Scripture is the correct approach, and I don't think you
are capable of justifying your hermeneutical "axiom".
> I was asked what
> "A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a
> thousand years is like a day." means to me.
> It means exactly what it says when interpreted in a
> natural and straight forward manner. It means that to God,
> there is no difference.
Is that what I asked you? Maybe you'd better go back and
read the question again.
> Think of a time traveler. He can be with the dinosaurs
> just as easily as he can be in current time or with those
> in the Star Trek era of temporal existence. Now, consider
> that same traveler only he can be all those places at once.
> That is God: He's omnipresent.
> He knows "the end from the beginning." Isaiah 46:10
While God does know the end from the beginning, that is
not what Isaiah 46:10 says.
There is a difference, Cliff, between knowing something and
declaring something. Do you recognize the distinction?
> People seldom, if ever, take that Scripture in context.
Since you just misrepresented it, I think your concerns about
context are premature. First you need to know what the verse
says, and apparently you either don't, or you don't want to
accept the "natural and straight forward" reading.
> Peter is talking to believers about the end days and those
> who will scoff about the Return of Jesus.
I'm pretty sure Peter isn't the author of Psalm 90.
> Here are sentences in order that bring out the context.
> "I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers
> will come, mocking the truth and following their own
> desires...A day is like a thousand years to the Lord,
> and a thousand years is like a day. The Lord isn't really
> being slow about his promise, as some people think. No,
> he is being patient for your sake. He does not want
> anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.
> But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as
> a thief."
> To God, it's just like one day. But to us, Jesus' return
> will come as a thief. God already knows the end. He knows
> what will happen. He's giving every one of us the opportunity
> to respond.
While Jesus does say he will return like a thief in the
night, and that no one knows exactly when that return will
be, Peter does say that he will not have us be ignorant.
The bridegroom comes at midnight. See Matthew 25.
> This has nothing to do with creation taking eons.
How do you know?
It seems to me that your evasion of Psalm 90 could be deliberate,
and that you jumped over to Peter's reference to that verse to
*separate it from* its original context.
I will say to you that Psalm 90 is a very solid and even not so
subtle hint as to how we should treat those Genesis "days".
> I am assuming the intent of this challenge is to bolster
> the paradigm of deep time by saying that God could
> just as easily mean eons of time during the creation account.
> That's not true because God's omnipresence has nothing to do
> with temporal creation.
No, the intent of my asking was for you to give me your "natural
and straight forward" interpretation of that verse in Psalms.
Apparently your "natural and straight forward" reading of my
question, in plain English, was very wide of the mark of what I
was asking, since you didn't refer to Psalm 90 at all.
This does not bolster my confidence in your "natural and straight
forward" reading skills, Cliff, or in your sincerity.
> I already posted a long dissertation as to why the Genesis
> creation account is 6 normal length days.
> Please reread that.
Your "dissertation" is no such thing. It is simply a jumble
of baseless assertions and unstructured reasoning. There is
no concern for truth or even consistency. We don't arrive at
a conclusion by way of your rational argumentation; rather you
just throw your presuppositional conclusion in there and make
a pretense that you have supported it.
From your very first two sentences I knew it was evil -- if
the Genesis days are not ordinary days the whole Bible is
You really should reconsider that.
> It's an arbitrary assumption that II Peter chapter 3 is
> evidence for an unnatural interpretation of the creation
> account. In return I ask: How do you know it is applicable?
> What is the logical reasoning that led you to that conclusion?
> I've given mine. Let's compare.
I'm afraid you have not yet shown yourself worthy to receive
those pearls of wisdom. If you wish to apply yourself, I'll
give you a hint: Cast your unfounded presuppositions aside
and go back to Psalm 90 and look for keywords to mark your
place in time. If you are able to figure this out, I think
you will find that 2 Peter 3 makes a lot more sense, in a
whole new light.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism