JWs and the problem of Creation en toto

by logansrun 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:

  Will you explain your sudden abandonment of the Bible as a reliable dating device? You had some degree of credibility in maintaining the Bible at the core of your arguements, no matter what, as at least that made you consistant. You junking Bible chronology seems to remove that credibility.

  I have not abadoned the Bible as a reliable guide with regards to the timing to events. Bible chronology is fixed in certain places and is more potentially open in other places. If you would review some of my previous posts you would see that I have never argued for a specific fixed flood date of for example 2438 BC. But that I have consistently allowed for a range of dates for the flood. So your claim of "sudden adandonment" is false.
• 

  hooberus

  Unless of course you accept the 'appearance of age' arguement. Do you?

  Things initially created had to have some appearance of age. For example Adam would have appeared to be say 20 years old when he was created.

  Re: the issue at hand. I believe that all the Bristlecone trees would probably have to be post-flood.
• 

  hooberus

  This is great, according to this, the flood was around 2,000 BC. As you refuse to give a date, we'll go with that for a start, shall we? If they are wrong in this date please tell me why you think they are wrong and provide such evidence as you have.

  If we subtract 4,865 years from 2003 AD we get 2861 BC. The classic date given for the flood by Ussher is 2350 BC.

  In light of the date of 2861BC as the date a bristlecone pine (called 'Promethius') started growing, we can state (pending any attempt by you to prove earlier Flood dates are accurate using the Bible) that trees survived the Food. It either didn't happen, or it wasn't global, but the Bible is demonstrably inacurate, and any other Biblical citations cannot be automatically assumed to be any more accurate or divinely inspired than other contemorary documents.

  I have given a date range. The above argument in order to be valid requires multiple assumptions to be true which even many creationists let alone the Bilbe would not necessarily agree with.

  1. The proposed flood date of 2,000 BC or 2,350 would have to be set in stone in the Bible (they are not).

  2. The tree rings would have to all be annual rings.
• 

  rem

  It's amusing to watch bible literalists squirm in the face of hard evidence. The straw grasping is quite extraordinary.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  rem, my points basic and to the point; hardly straw grasping. Whereas many of your points lately both here and on another thread are more insulting than constructive.
• 

  Bona Dea

  LOL...same folks, same arguments. Don't you guys ever give up???

  Remarkable parallels, Logansrun. Thanks for bringing them to surface.

  I don't know why but the song "Rosanna" keeps popping in my head...

  Sadie
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  You have no points. That's why you've reduced yourself to grasping at straws. It's obvious in this thread in particular and in many others. Intellectual dishonesty is just a sad thing to watch in action.

  rem
• 

  crownboy

  Well, it seems like our evolution/ creation argument has reached the traditional point where the creationist realizes that science is not on his side, and that pure faith will have to suffice. Of course, given the fact that the bible very specifically calls for faith being the most important quality needed by Christains, I never really understand why the literalist feel so threatened by science. Just have faith that the earth is 6,000 years old; however don't embarrass yourself by trying to use science and arguments created mostly by non scientist.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus, if no one said that there were trees alive now that had stood during the Flood, why did you bother asserting that this was not the case? You might not regard it as a straw man/red herring, but in terms of argumentative techniques, that is the function it served, no matter whether you think it did or not.

  You say you have not abandoned the Bible as a reliable guide for dating events but refuse to narrow the date range you supply. Please give your calculations of this date range. How do other people determine Flood dates with such accuracy soley by using the Bible? Where do you find fault in their method? I base my accusation you have abandoned the Bible as a dating guide as those who do give specific dates for the Flood normally claim they get these from the Bible, and either you or they are wrong regarding whether this is possible.

  Please also provide specific Biblical proof that Adam was "say 20 years old when he was created", or is this speculation on your part? How about the appearance of age in geology or cosmology? Do you think they are that old or just look that old?

  Please explain how you can state "I believe that all the Bristlecone trees would probably have to be post-flood" when there is evidence, even using your broad date range, that this cannot be true. How do you support that belief, or is it an unsubstansiated belief?

  I ask you, what difference it would make if the entirity of Genesis was allegorical in nature? What if it is NOT literal, but is just the creation myths of a people that eventually spawned a wise man we call Jesus? Would that reduce the wisdom of some of the words that Jesus is said to have uttered?

  To me your persistant and obdurate maintenance of a literalistic belief, often in the face of direct contradictory evidence (which you refuse to believe through circular reasoning) is almost like saying "if every word is not true then Jesus is worthless".

  I disagree. I think Jesus was a man, but I think some of the statements attributed to him are useful. It is bewildering a believer doesn't have as much faith in what Jesus is meant to have said (and I'm talking about the stuff he said regarding how we should live our lives, the day-to-day non-doctrinal guidance) as a non-believer.
• 

  searchfothetruth

  To those who say that the creation account is accurate and that the sequence of events in Genesis chapter one is correct, just ask them if trees and plants can live without sunlight...well why was the vegetation created and then the sun and moon created later?

  Its a bit simplistic but gets the point over.