A reply to creationist arguments from "ALLAN PORCHETTA"

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 25, 2009 at 6:15pm

Gary

I find it interesting how you take two short sentences over five pages from Calvin's commentary on Genesis and ignore this from the previous page:

The first day. Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men. Commentary on Genesis, John Calvin BoT edition p78

Martin

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gary Hurd on May 28, 2009 at 4:31pm

Then Plougboy, read on:

I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honoured who have expended useful labour on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. Calvin J., Genesis, Vol. I, Part 3

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 28, 2009 at 7:05pm

Gary

So when have I ever said that science was a bad thing or that it was not to be followed. Indeed I consider science to be a very good thing. However the foolishness of men needs to be taken into account and it is clear that in the belief in Evolution and the belief in an age for the Earth of millions of years men are being very foolish. The Bible is there to teach us of how God created and we neglect it's teaching at our peril.

Martin

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 28, 2009 at 8:17pm

Michael

So tell me, who has observed Evolution in action or counted the years the Earth has lasted.

No, I'm afraid they are not empirical science, they are just the opinions of men.

Martin

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gary Hurd on May 29, 2009 at 3:20am

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think." Unfairly demeans the intellect of whores when contrasted to certain "frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them" to quote John Calvin.

I cannot think of a single evolutionary principle, or evidence for an ancient earth and universe that has not been sustained by direct observation.

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 29, 2009 at 6:27pm

Peter H

>When we look at the fossil record we see evolution in action.<

Not seen many fossils moving.

Actually what you have in fossils is data, you can either interpret that data as being evidence of Evolution or evidence of the Flood and Creation in six days. In neither case is it empirical science.

>If we look at the night sky we see the past, not the present. In fact we can see billions of years into the past, not just a few thousand years.<

However that is, at best, only an indirect measure of the age of the Earth. Remember time is not a constant.

Martin

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 29, 2009 at 6:29pm

Gary

>I cannot think of a single evolutionary principle, or evidence for an ancient earth and universe that has not been sustained by direct observation.<

I didn't know you were that old. So tell me, do you remember dinosaurs roaming the Earth?

Martin

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 30, 2009 at 1:34pm

Peter H

Well it was Gary who spoke about 'direct observation' so I'd have thought he had observed Evolution personally.

Martin

Permalink Reply by Lee on May 31, 2009 at 1:54am

Hi Martin

However the foolishness of men needs to be taken into account

Indeed, so why trust the bible which was, after all, written by men in an age not known for it technological achievements, not when compared to the last 100 years :-)

The Bible is there to teach us of how God created

So surely then what is written down in the bible should match what is observed?

If it doesn't match what is observed, what are we to do?

Blame reality for not being correct according to a 2,000 year old book.

Or, maybe, just maybe say the "foolishness of men needs to be taken into account " and think that the bible writers did not have a clue about how the Earth formed.

I mean, the Sun, Moon and ALL the stars on day 4 - you have to laugh it is so wrong. (Then there that business about the flat earth and the stars falling like figs, it is just so silly.)

At best Gen1 is a story about how some folk thought their god created the universe - there is nothing in the account to think they knew what they were talking about.

"In the beginning..." was a good but unimaginative start (“Once upon a time...” works just as well in many children’s story), it then went downhill from there...

We can discuss it further if you like.

Take care

Lee

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on May 31, 2009 at 2:52pm

Lee

>so why trust the bible which was, after all, written by men in an age not known for it technological achievements, not when compared to the last 100 years :-)<

Because they were inspired by God in what they wrote.

>So surely then what is written down in the bible should match what is observed?<

It does.

I mean, the Sun, Moon and ALL the stars on day 4 - you have to laugh it is so wrong.<

Why is it wrong.

Then there that business about the flat earth<

Nothing in my Bible about a flat Earth.

>the stars falling like figs, it is just so silly.<

Where do you get that?

Martin

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gary Hurd on May 21, 2009 at 6:20pm

I have picked up a copy of McGrath's "A Fine-Tuned Universe" but haven't started reading it yet. I also bought copies of Rabbi Natan Slifkin's main books,

2006/2008 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

_____
2007 “Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

I have started the latter and it is very good so far.

Permalink Reply by Andy S on May 10, 2009 at 10:59pm

Was Augustine the hippo evolving into a rhinocerous ?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• …
• 24
• Next ›
• Page