Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Journalist wonders, why Creation Museum inspires rage, whole foods scams don’t (sky fell last night too, by the way)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Michael Schulson
Michael Schulson

It feels odd. There is now one other hack on the planet (at Daily Beast) who asks questions like this:

If you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It’s like a Law of Journalism. The museum has inspired hundreds of book chapters and articles (some of them, admittedly, mine) since it opened up in 2007. The place is like media magnet. And our nation’s liberal, coastal journalists are so many piles of iron fillings.

But you don’t have to schlep all the way to Kentucky in order to visit America’s greatest shrine to pseudoscience. In fact, that shrine is a 15-minute trip away from most American urbanites.

(Update: My goodness, 441 comments as of 11:28 am EST. So far as I got, reading, Whole Foods is a conservative plot. … [Fetch the IRS?] )

I’m talking, of course, about Whole Foods Market. From the probiotics aisle to the vaguely ridiculous Organic Integrity outreach effort (more on that later), Whole Foods has all the ingredients necessary to give Richard Dawkins nightmares. And if you want a sense of how weird, and how fraught, the relationship between science, politics, and commerce is in our modern world, then there’s really no better place to go. Because anti-science isn’t just a religious, conservative phenomenon—and the way in which it crosses cultural lines can tell us a lot about why places like the Creation Museum inspire so much rage, while places like Whole Foods don’t.

Michael Shulson’s definitely worth a read, though he doesn’t seem to see that there is no True Centre of science. On the contrary, there are many questions that few ask because they are afraid of the financial, career, or philosophical consequences of trafficking in evidence that does not support the establishment view on a given question. And the “rage vs. stage” phenomenon Shulson notes is known elsewhere as corrupt journalism. But we all knew that.

The unasked questions are of course the interesting ones, and quite often the ones that advance science. This is certainly true in fields Uncommon Descent covers (see, for example, The Science Fictions series at your fingertips).

It is doubtless also true of questions around food. That is, there may be lots of French-for-fertilizer in the whole foods movement, but only the dominance of Big Pharma in medicine could create a situation where more attention is paid to a few doses of a single drug, when treating illness, than to the outcome of four decades of eating large quantities of specific substances several times a day. it would therefore be useful to know whether, on the whole, people who strive to follow a balanced diet (which sometimes results in getting scammed) have worse or better health than people who live on the best-selling fast food choices. I’ll pay attention to any well-conducted research in the area, otherwise the jury is out around here on whole foods. – O’Leary for News*

See also: Our moral and intellectual superiors ask, should creationists be (allowed to be) scientists (The creationist was the only guy who even wondered what exactly was in a given, nearly incomprehensible chart, advancing the current received opinion, and guess ruddy what?)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

* For the record: I try to follow the Canada Food Guide and do not make efforts to find whole foods.

Comments
I enjoyed David Snokes book on YEC/OEC. I recommend it highly.Splatter
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Ken Ham has been a lightening rod for controversy all of his life. Secularists mock him. Old Earthers are usually condescending. I suspect some of his abrasiveness is a reflection of the environment he has become accustomed to. This does not dismiss anything, but I think he deserves a little more credit within the Christian community. I agree that YEC funding is best spent on research, but theme parks/museums drive funding. I think the Creation Museum is a valuable icon, but I dont have much use for the Ark Park either.bevets
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
lifepsy: The manic, unnatural hoops that opponents have to jump through to try and get around it speaks for itself.
Maybe Yahweh Elohim wanted mankind to have a body of writings such that that the main point of human existence, rebellion and redemption could be understood by any normal eight year old living in the bronze age. How much contortion and hoops did the preceding paragraph require?CentralScrutinizer
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
JGuy, interesting about the Biblical "phone number" pattern, and yes I definitely see the light to dark pattern... It seems to me every major narrative in the Bible is about God's people rejecting and failing him, falling into darkness, only to be rescued again by faith.. On the subject of codes.. something Missler pointed out in the Torah (first 5 books of the OT) He has a theory on a code of 7's being found everywhere in the Bible. (7th letters, and multiples of 7's revealing additional information within the overt text) He has tons of other examples of this, but here is a particularly interesting one... In the Torah, in the beginning of the original Hebrew books of Genesis and Exodus, every 49th letter (first sequence of four) translates to TORH (Torah) In Leviticus, the same pattern spells YHWH (Yahweh) In Numbers and Deuteronomy the same pattern spells HROT (Torah backwards) Thus, within the Torah, you have: TORH - TORH - YHWH - HROT -HROT Which could be interpreted as a statement about scripture in general, that reading it forwards or backwards always points back to God, the real author.lifepsy
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
JGuy: But geocentrism doesn’t seem to lead to any doctrinal issues or compromises
How does OEC lead to doctrinal compromises? Adam/Eve, sin, death, redemption? None of those are compromised by an OEC view any more than the geocentrist view does, because the core theme of the OT is that A) some rebellion occurred, B) a proxy needs to pay the price for this rebellion. That Jesus seemed to support the literal Adam/Eve/sin notion, literal flood, whatever else, is entirely beside the point. Jesus was admittedly IGNORANT of some things, namely, when he would return to earth. ("No man knows the day or the hour, not even the son of man, by the Father only") He may have had (like YECs) a kindergarten view of creation and human history, while at the same time, understanding the core point which is the central theme of the OT: A) some rebellion occurred at some time on some level of reality, and B) Jesus was the one to pay the penalty for it. Other than that, love your neighbor as yourself. You can hang the law and prophets on that one.CentralScrutinizer
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
JGuy, on Geocentrism and Coriolis (and other phenomena) you might find this paper interesting written by two distinguished physicists. The authors developed a rudimentary theory working on Mach's Principle (that local physics are governed by the large scale structure of the universe) and basically demonstrated that the same local physical phenomena would manifest whether or not there was a rotating local body within a fixed cosmic shell (heliocentrism), or the cosmic shell was rotating around a fixed local body. (geocentrism) http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/barbour.htm “Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework” Julian Barbour and Bruno Bertotti 1977 p.95 "...If local dynamics is subjected to a transformation corresponding to an accelerated and rotating frame of reference, the usual apparent forces show up in the equations of motion. Since, however, [the equation] is derived from a relative configuration dynamics, just the same forces are obtained if one starts from an accelerated and rotating mass shell. The Machian origin of apparent forces is now clear and explicit... Thus, according to this model, the bulk of the matter of the Universe is receding from us, or approaching us... " I am certainly no expert on this subject matter, but things like this indicate to me that alleged irrefutable scientific proofs of a moving Earth might not be the case...lifepsy
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
That it seems that speaking of the old age creation view, in a general sense, as a compromise might be admissible or tolerable if it could be shown (perhaps by survey) to be the majority reason behind the view is to abandon a strong case for natural reading in lieu of scientific consensus
I'm sorry but I take serious offense to this because that means you'd be labeling me compromiser especially in light of the fact I was deprived of an opportunity to study at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor under Dr. Marks because of Darwinists persecutions and that it is a matter of public record that Darwinist cronies were plotting at Pandas Thumb and Wes Elsberry's ATBC to have me tossed from JHU. The insinuation is that someone doubts YEC because he's kissing up to mainstream beliefs and not thinking for himself. I don't like my character being publicly trashed in this way, and I don't like seeing the character of other ID participants here at UD and in the ID community being trashed that way either. Whatever happened to "follow the evidence wherever it leads", instead I hear the mantra, "label Christians who follow their conscience as compromisers if they disagree with YEC or are mistaken, we'll ignore the evidence, pretend there aren't serious problems with YEC that might make a believer or non-believer have a different view. And by the way, we'll get on Sal's case for upholding the reputation of a widow and criticize Sal for highlighting the truly ethical compromising behavior of Ken Ham because Ham gets his YEC right even though Ham gets his ethics wrong." I accept YEC today because I think that is where the evidence leads, but it is not without some serious problems. Personally, when I think of the Creation Museum, I feel disgust like I would to the empires of some televangelists.scordova
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Scordova, yes I still more or less hold to that interpretation. (You might want to look into Machian Physics by the way) I believe Genesis strongly implies Geocentrism, and that additional verses allude to it as well. While that is my personal view, I accept that I could be misinterpreting it. I do not believe the issue compares with YEC - non-YEC, as it does not involve directly contradicting chapter upon chapter of historically written narrative and testimony throughout the entire Bible. I never said my view was infallible. When I first became a creationist, I believed in an old Earth, so of course I recognize that my view is fallible. Scordova, omni-skepticism or playing devil's advocate doesn't necessarily make your position more reasonable. Anyone can go around saying "Yea, well maybe you're wrong about that." Maybe the whole Bible is just a book of fairy-tales like some atheists say, right? We can't say they're wrong, can we? Our opinions are fallible after all. From where I sit, the apologetics for Young Earth Creation, being expanded upon for decades, (Biblically speaking), is overwhelming and I have yet to see the opposition put a chink in its armor. The manic, unnatural hoops that opponents have to jump through to try and get around it speaks for itself.lifepsy
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Creationist physicist and cosmologist, John Hartnett, has an interesting post THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND GEOCENTRISM that discusses geocentrism from both a science and scripture perspective. He is not a 'geocentrist' but rather has a developing cosmology that is 'galactocentric' or 'near-galactocentric' (his words). Included in his blog are scriptures used to support geocentrism as well as some that contradict it. I'd never noticed the anti-geocentric verses before as I've never given this subject serious study. In particular as some scriptures contradicting the notion that the earth is immovable. At any rate, it's a blog well worth the reading.RWalk
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
In the above list of the structure, it might be better to replace "Main" with "Major". But I guess the connotation is the similar enough.JGuy
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
lifepsy @ 46 I agree on hints of a fractal nature. Such large patterns in the bible are very interesting to me. I enjoy seeing them as it reveals a thread of harmony. On your side note. I agree on your observation. This is reminiscent of something I have come to find myself repeating over time as I learn or perceive more... God is not acting arbitrarily. The bible has a large scale structure. Let me describe what may be a lesser known structural feature. Oent hat can even help you in bible studies :) One case of nice symmetry, imo: Here is the Old Testament "phone number" :P: 593(5)593 5 - Main Historical Books 9 - Pre-Exile Historical Books 3 - Post Exile Historical Books - 5 - Inner Life books. (i.e. poetic & inward thinking) - 5 - Main Prophecy Books 9 - Pre-Exile Prophecy Books 3 - Post Exile Prophecy Books Now you can know if you have a bible study in the book of Haggai (the 37th book), for example, that it is a post-exile prophecy book. So, you then know what to expect better what you start reading from it. By the way, if you didn't notice, even the Old Testament has the fractal pattern of light to dark. History(past/gloom/dark)-then-Prophecy(future/hope/light). There is also a structure to the New Testament. But I forgot how it was exactly.... It was something like "Manifestation" (i.e. the Gospels), "Proclamation", "Application"(?)..and one or two more more major categories.JGuy
February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Joe @ 44
JGuy- FYI there are Orthodox Jews who say the “days” of the Creation week were not 24 hour days. See here
I'm not disagreeing with that. I was referring to how a 24 hours day is defined or delimited - especially on a day to day basis today. i.e. The day starts with evening and ends with morning. Whether a Jew has an old earth or young earth view is irrelevant to that basic structure - they would only differ on the DURATION of the days of creation week, not the overall structure of evening then morning (dark then light).JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
correction: "in lieu of scientific consensus" more accurately would be: "for reason of scientific consensus"JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
Sal
Yes, I believe the Bible teaches Young Universe, Young Earth. That is the natural reading, but I wouldn’t treat my interpretation as Gospel and label other Christians as compromisers for seeing things differently.
I agree, and think the accusations should be toned down when speaking regarding specific people(s) - unless the case is a provable intentional compromise. I should verify more myself when speaking with people to avoid this issue more. Perhaps, at best, one can expect that a particular view will be statistically more likely the result of compromise. That brings up this point again. That it seems that speaking of the old age creation view, in a general sense, as a compromise might be admissible or tolerable if it could be shown (perhaps by survey) to be the majority reason behind the view is to abandon a strong case for natural reading in lieu of scientific consensus (I'm tentative on that usage but it's generic exceptions can still be expected). This is probably why I don't have such a serious issue with it talks about compromise - i.e. I don't usually see it as very personal attack. And if a person reacted that it wasn't based on compromise, I'd accept that and drill down for answers - I'd expect it likely though to find at the root a compromise.... Even if one was taught old earth creation & metaphors from their youth because of teachers compromise, it would be an inherited compromised view. That's not to say that person is intentionally compromising... but the view is still a compromised one (i.e. even if unwittingly). That doesn't necessarily mean that person compromised, but their position/view could still be at least an unwitting compromise. But there are other cases that could make it more complicated as an issue. So, again, it seems it should be used more carefully. I'm open for correction either way.JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
I don't think a plain reading of scripture lead one clearly to any kind of geocentric view. It seems to me that it could have a kind of aesthetic appeal for some. But in that sense, saying X is created special, and therefore it being in the center has as aesthetic is a bit too subjective. For example, I described earlier something I felt was persuasive to me about how the day was also a model or type when defined as darkness then light, but I don't promote it as a lesson to take from scripture as the intention of scripture, but prefer to preface my description of the pattern as an bias or opinion of mine. But if I were to want to consider things aesthetically, a heliocentric one would be arguably more appealing for a couple quick poetic/appealing/aesthetic reasons in scripture: Because the earth going around the sun, where teh sun might act as a type for Jesus being the center of our lives (mankind on the earth)...or..Because being geocentric in the center of the universe would feel like being stuck in one tight corner - I'd rather think I was flying through space and not trapped in a single point :P (like I said, it's just arguments of what is aesthetically appealing) - though admittedly having a central reference point would be cool if we ever mastered deep space travel (but I doubt that will ever come to pass). Another aesthetic issue is such symmetry isn't something I see in scripture usually, because often it seems things God makes is more interesting... arguably a bit off centered... for example, Jesus appearing, doesn't happen until the 40th out of 66 books - I realize one could argue all scripture points to Jesus, but this is arguably the most critical manifestations in time. So, why not the manifestation being in the center? Perhaps the end of the 33 book or beginning of the 34th?...More lack of symmetry is where we see the Israelites camped in a cross shaped pattern around the tabernacle, even though it is orderly and even oriented north-south-east-west, it is not symmetrical numbers of peoples per camp. Seems more interesting (aesthetically) not being perfectly symmetrical.... And another reason is that geocentrism wouldn't be much different than helio-centrism because it's just a frame of view difference - though it would seem far more complicated to think about planetary orbits with this view. But geocentrism doesn't seem to lead to any doctrinal issues or compromises. I don't think it can be proven. But I find a cople of their experiments as interesting. My biggest issue, form a physcis point of view, is the observation of the Coriolis effect. Not to get too tangential... but seems to me that the yec starlight problem would be childs play compared to explaining the observation of the Coriolis effect on earth if it was a geocentric universe AND the earth was non-rotating earth. I suppose the obvious fix is for the earth to rotate...but then that means the stars etc are not moving around the earth... then the fix is a combination of both rotating? Anyway... what am I talking about this for I forgot.JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Let me point out something regarding geocentrism. Suppose a child was raised up in a home that insisted on geocentrism as being what the Bible declares as true, and thus the implication is, if the child discovers evidence to the contrary, he will lose his faith. He then learns about central forces in simple examples like spinning objects and then orbital mechanics and celestial mechanics. He then realizes, the Solar system is heliocentric according to principles of gravity which can be measured in the lab and the physics of central forces. The Sun's gravitational field exerts a central force on the Earth and thus the Earth orbits the sun. The now grown child concludes, "the Bible is wrong because it taught geocentrism, and the Solar system is clearly heliocentric." The natural reading of Genesis is young earth, but as LifePsy pointed out, so is geocentrism the natural reading of the Bible. God gave us minds and the ability to explore the Earth and parts of the heavens to help us interpret his word correctly. And it seems a geocentric interpretation of his word is the wrong interpretation. Goes to show how much trust we should lend to theological hermeneutics versus actually examining physical evidence. :roll: Yes, I believe the Bible teaches Young Universe, Young Earth. That is the natural reading, but I wouldn't treat my interpretation as Gospel and label other Christians as compromisers for seeing things differently. I had a dear friend, Dr. Caroline Crocker. She is ambivalent to the age of the Earth question. She was dismissed from her position at George Mason for dissenting from Darwin. She is married to an Episcopalian minister and has been a professing Christian for years. She has suffered for speaking her consciences and defending the truth of ID. I find it disgusting she gets labeled a compromiser, especially by believers who have suffered one fraction the persecution she's suffered for the sake of truth.scordova
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Scordova, yes I personally believe scripture is alluding to Geocentrism, but I don’t think it’s something the Bible says enough about either way to be an issue of compromise, and so I will not accuse anyone of compromising for accepting heliocentrism.
Apparently you are softening your stance, and I commend you for that because on August 13, 2013 you said:
This subject and research is very related to Geocentrism. I believe the Earth is stationary, because I think the Bible is pretty clear about it (most notably in Genesis). The surprising thing is that once you go looking for proof that the Earth is in motion, you come up empty handed. Copernicanism has always been rooted in a great deal of philosophy, and Heliocentrism, though perhaps an elegant theory, is not the irrefutable fact that it is made out to be. https://uncommondescent.com/physics/vodka-the-return-of-the-aether/#comment-468386
and
A plain reading of Genesis tells us that the Earth is special in a physical sense.. The firmament (heavens) was created around it, the Sun, Moon, Stars(planets) were created for it. Earth was created before the Sun, no hint of ever being ‘set in motion’. I think part of understanding God’s Word is reading it the way it is written.
and
I know I won’t be winning any popularity contests, but I feel justified in interpreting Geocentrism from Genesis. I don’t see how a heliocentric model can be salvaged from a plain reading of the creation of the heavens and the Earth. This is additionally supported by sixty or so Biblical verses that say the Sun is in motion, or that the Earth is does not move. You can argue that these are written from the perspective of someone on Earth, but they still support the clear geocentric implications found in Genesis. And in the Bible, there is not a single mention of any kind of motion or ‘procession’ or ‘course’ of the Earth. We are told the Earth “hangs on nothing” (Job 26:7), so God is in fact giving us scientific facts about the Earth’s relationship to the cosmos.
If you are now softening your stance in light of your previous comments 192 days ago, that's a good thing and I commend you for that. Heliocentrism proceeds from straight forward application of mechanics of central motion which can be applied to as simple a system as the slingshots used in Biblical times. I don't see why we have to prejudice our basic empirical observations by our potentially fallible reading and interpretation of the Bible. I would think, maybe God gave us eyes and minds to explore nature as it is, and that exploration will lead us to the correct interpretation of scripture on matters such as heliocentricism, the flood, or age of the universe. Even Jesus gave us a formula for believing his words by studying his works first if we don't believe his words. That tells me the Lord has high regard for the abilities he's given us to investigate empirically the world around us. You were apparently convinced of your infallible understanding of the scriptures regarding geocentrism. I'm just pointing out, we do our best, we hold to certain beliefs, but no one except God is infallible in understanding his words. If the meaning of God's word was occasionally hidden to his own prophets and apostles, how much more so we in the present day should be on guard in presuming our understanding is infallible. What you were so certain as being a clear interpretation you apparently don't feel is quite so clear today. I appreciate you changing your mind, but it goes to show, maybe it's not such a good idea to go around insisting your understanding is clear and correct and that you are not possibly mistaken. I have my beliefs, but I surely don't go around insisting my understanding of the Bible or reality is infallible so much so that I call others compromisers.scordova
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
JGuy, your last post reminded me a lot of Chuck Missler's teachings which I find fascinating. He talks about how every book and sometimes even chapters and verses in the Bible contain references to the whole, both in terms of prophecy and referencing past scripture, and how this amazing integration can be seen as a type of self-authentication code that it is beyond human design. Kind of like a fractal design. Chuck Missler - How We Got Our Bible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7fnqPpWMA On a side note... this made me think about how this kind of pattern relates to living things, how we can start from one point in biodiversity and find connection points that lead across the whole spectrum. (and how such a phenomena can be misconstrued as the product of common descent) This would be in stark contrast to some caricatures of Creation, which say God should have created life completely unique from other life just because he had the ability to.lifepsy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Scordova, yes I personally believe scripture is alluding to Geocentrism, but I don't think it's something the Bible says enough about either way to be an issue of compromise, and so I will not accuse anyone of compromising for accepting heliocentrism. On the other hand, to accept millions of years of successive stages of life leading up to humans, and to deny the global flood, leads directly to the compromising of whole chapters in Genesis and numerous direct references contained throughout the rest of the Bible including the testimony of Jesus Christ. The Bible could not be any clearer about Creation being six literal Earth days, Man being around since the beginning of that Creation, and about the reality of the worldwide flood/the Ark of Noah. Also, 2 Peter 3:5-6 tells us specifically that people will eventually show up mocking and denying that the flood ever happened.lifepsy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
JGuy- FYI there are Orthodox Jews who say the "days" of the Creation week were not 24 hour days. See hereJoe
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
A couple of points that are often overlooked . . . - It's believed that most of the red shift comes from the inflation of space-time, especially near the beginning of the "big bang." I've also read that the velocity of inflation exceeded the speed of light. This means that one can imagine a scenario where stars that are 100s of millions of light years away did not start there---in fact they might have been only a light year away 10,000 years ago. - Time is not fixed. It slows down as you speed up. So, it's entirely possible from an observer moving close to the speed of light that a 1000 years is as one day . . . or a billion years is a day. - It's possible that the Genesis account provides an Earthly perspective. Perhaps the atmosphere was saturated with water vapor that cleared up on day 4. I'm just saying that it's possible. - I find it amazing that immersed in an anthropomorphic belief system, where the sun and moon were gods and goddesses, driving chariots of fire, battling each other with the elements (fire, water, earth, and air) . . . that Genesis calls the sun and moon "greater and lesser lamps." -QQuerius
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Hi Jguy Thank you for your point of view, it is much appreciated. The verse I was thinking of was John 9:4. Christ (the Creator), is the man. Regarding post #41, the phrase "Evening and Morning" (the creative pause), is given at the end of each creative day (evolutionary pulse). Light was created on the first day, so the light and heat source was present before the sun was formed, so perhaps the earth was just hurling through space and was caught up by the sun's gravity on the 4th day. The spacing of heavenly bodies was probably much different in the beginning as well. Of course, there are many possible explanations, and the context where words are found in scripture, such as night, day, dark, light, etc., determine the intended meaning, as you know. A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day to the Lord, therefore, it could be that time (a day), is a matter of perspective and position. Hopefully, one day, Christians will come to a consensus on these very important issues, because without unification, we have no chance of getting the truth out of captivity, IMHO.littlejohn
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, each day and night represents a vast amount of geological time, where there was a sudden burst of creativity, AKA and evolutionary pulse (from morning to evening), then a long pause (from evening to morning).
As vast geologic times.... then where: "Day" 3. "night" occurs, then vegetation appears. "Day" 4: "night" occurs, then the sun appears. Problem: This means the "night" on "day" four was a vast geologic period of time without a sun to grow the vegetation and fill the earth. Was probably pretty cold to boot.JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
BTW: Isaiah 40:3 starts immediately with comfort & the prophecy of John the Baptist... this was fulfilled in: The book 40 (Matthew 3:3). Just saying :)JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
littlejohn @ 36
The evening and morning represent a pause in the creative act, because God does not work in darkness (can’t recall the reference).
I'll give my two cent at the end of this comment..but first.. it would be interesting to know the reference you are referring to. For now, I find this difficult... before God spoke light into existence... wasn't it dark? :P Consider Psalm 139 "7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee." ... Anyway, on the light and dark. Here is a type I gather from it. The day begins with evening and ends with morning. The Jews still recognize days like this today. In the west, we usually have the notion that morning (light) starts the day, and ends with evening (dark). Here's the type about the day structure I use - but I'm not saying that this IS what scripture says..it's just intuitive pleasant if not persuasive to me: The day is designed dark before light. And this, to me, is a general type for darkness BEFORE light. This theme occurs through the bible. In fact, the structure of the whole bible has this pattern. Old Testament has historical events (e.g.past looking, things like the fall) and the people were living under a very legalistic system... But Messiah arrived where we start the New Testament section of the bible (40th book)..and with Jesus comes hope & comfort (future looking). So, I see the day is designed at the start reflecting this model... darkness preceding the light... And the six day creation week, though literal, might act as an interesting parallel to all history.. with day four bringing the sun (designed to bring light to the world), like-wise, (by a yec calendar) Jesus (the light for a world in darkness) arrives at the end of the fourth millineum. The book of Isaiah is divided in the same way.. gloomy for the first 39 chapters, and hope/comfort starting from the 40th chapter. There is an over arching pattern to me, but I'd rather not get into that here. It's not explicitly stated, just compelling to me.JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Joe at 33 Correction where I wrote: "but I expect that God would make a covenant where it involved Abraham and someone other than Abraham’s real wife anyway." Should read: "but I would not expect that God would make a covenant where it involved Abraham and someone other than Abraham’s real wife anyway."JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Sal @ 31
And how about you JGuy, do you welcome being labeled a compromiser by a geocentrist?
I don't think anyone argues the bible makes either claim. But... in the hypothetical: I'd welcome it if it were true. But, you see, I agree that one shouldn't falsely accuse another individual of compromise. Anyway, I might be different than most in how I would feel about being labeled. I'm a YEC after all! :P It kinda comes with the territory. But granted, that is mostly from people that think science has proven old ages, and isn't relevant to compromising scripture. On compromising scripture explicitly, I have not been accused of it as far as I can recall (I wonder why?). Wait, actually, Mapou has pretty much made broad accusations against YEC - even somehow connecting it with the devil. But knowing his views, it's easy to discount the claims and counter his position. BTW: There seems to be some kinds of disconnects going on here. 1. The seriousness of compromise. Can a person that views scripture as authoritative, that actually compromises, still be considered a Christian if he/she is not repenting of the compromise? If not, then why does Ken Ham et.al. argue that old earthers are still among those that are Christians? If so, then how serious a sin does one need to do regularly to have his/her faith questioned? 2. Can a broad label of compromising be applied to people groups? For example, if it is known that the majority of people that have an old earth view, say 51%, is due to compromise at some level, then would it be fair to make general statements that old earth views compromise scripture (and letting it be inferred that here might be exceptions to the rule where people are ONLY mistaken). Ifso, then that not only can explains general claims of compromising by such as AIG, but absolve claimants of falsely accusing... in other words, it's made to mean more often than not that is is a result of compromising. So, just asking if that can be done...and if that is how AIG et.al are making such general claims. On the directed personal attacks. It matters more what is known of the person. I know you made a complaint about calling IDist compromisers. I agree, there may be an problem with that, since not all IDist are even Christians in the first place - but I don't know all the context of that.JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
drc466 You raise an interesting point with the written words, morning and evening. The KJV reads "Evening and Morning", and I think the order of wording is critical. There is much evidence that the entire Bible is written as a parable, and I think the interpretation of the 6 days of creation is as follows: The evening and morning represent a pause in the creative act, because God does not work in darkness (can't recall the reference). Nevertheless, I believe the evening and morning represent darkness, where God paused after each creative act. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, each day and night represents a vast amount of geological time, where there was a sudden burst of creativity, AKA and evolutionary pulse (from morning to evening), then a long pause (from evening to morning). Anyhow, just my 2 cents worth.littlejohn
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
I'll take a shot too...
OK a question for our resident YECs- why does a creation day have to be 24 hours? Why can’t it be that God was bound by physical laws and terraforming was the only solution?
There are several reasons to accept the literal translation - the use of the words "morning" and "evening", the fact that they were enumerated as distinct periods of time, the fact later in the Bible God even based one of the first Ten Commandments on the numbered days of creation (remember the Sabbath to keep it holy). Also - if it doesn't mean 24 hours, what does it mean? Were they all the same length, or different lengths? If the days were figurative, does that mean that the details were also figurative? If the timeframe was > 24 hours, how did the plants (day 3) survive the thousands/millions of years until the Sun and Moon were created (day 4)? What was the Earth doing without a Sun to rotate around? Floating through space? Is the order of the non-24-hour time periods wrong? If you don't accept the days as real 24-hour days, you pretty much have to throw the whole thing out as some kind of mysterious poetic post-modern abstract morality play that has no relationship to reality whatsoever. Why include all the details, if the details are wrong?drc466
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
I’d like to add a possibility to explain the light of distant stars. It has to do with stretched further dimensions in the sense of the Kaluza-Klein Theory and the exquisite but nearly unknown theory of Burkhard Heim, a German physicist. If the cosmos is actually a 5-D or even a 6 –D or even higher n- D- Fabric, there is perhaps the possibility that light reaches us from distant stars without increasing the c-value, the velocity of light, from the perspective of a 4-D-fabric. In this case it should be considered that photons are actually not crossing the 4-D-Fabric of Space and Time, but are crossing a higher-degree- fabric of additional dimensions. The trajectory through the 4-D-Fabric of space and time is -as quantum mechanics is already proposing- in reality non-existent. What can be measured is not the trajectory of photons in the 4-D-Fabric, but only the arrival of photons and their interaction with masses/energies within the 4-D-fabric. Indeed, it seems to me that this proposal is in accordance with the Quantum-analysis by Friedman, especially regarding his interpretation of the photon trajectory as an integration of all possible trajectories through SpaceTime. This sort of reckoning accounts also for the entanglement problem. And, it is supported by the strange phenomena of quasi-crystals with their higher dimension- symmetries. The problem of the light from distant stars then narrows down into a discussion of the real topography of the 4-D-manifold within a higher-dimensional fabric. The inhabitant of the 4-D-world would always measure the c-value within the local manifold in accordance with the special and general relativity and associate a certain travel time to the light from distant stars. From the perspective of the 5-D-Fabric light is travelling on a higher-dimensional trajectory, which leads us to a totally different actual time in the 5-D-frame. This would open up a solution for the (space probe) Pioneer anomaly: Within the flat local topography of the solar system the measured distances would be in accordance with the c-value. If the topography is bent or curved at the edges of the flat solar system region, light would travel the shorter trajectory through the 5-D- fabric, which would make Pioneer appear to gradually slow down. Another simple experiment might demonstrate the validity of the argument: According to the general relativity theory, the signals of a satellite coming from the opposite side of the orbit around the sun, or of a big planet, should slightly vary in travel time when passing close to the sun or the big planet, because the trajectory is bent. However, according to the proposed theory there should be in fact no difference in travel time. Rather, the signal should be arriving sooner than expected. Indeed, this "accelerating" effect is measured when satellites are orbiting big planets.halloschlaf
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply