Great post, Vera: and everyone else, please read Vera's post and inwardly digest, rather than just respond to mine.

Is forensic science science? We can't murder the person again in the lab, but from the evidence left behind we can figure out what happened: in some cases with enough certainty to put someone to death.

Is the science of studying air crash sites science? Same thing - it's a study of the evidence left behind by an event, and it's not necessary to replicate the event in order to understand it.

Using a particular very narrow definition of science, that does not fit with the actual nature and philosophy of science, to decide that science has nothing to say about origins is not a particularly strong philosophical move.

But we also seem to have gone astray. The initial question *in this thread* was not at all a scientific one, it was a Biblical interpretation one.

And what the poll shows is that Young Earth Creationists are evenly split between believing this planet is 6000 years old and billions of years old, but they all believe the universe is old, even though arriving at that conclusion requires considerable interpretive contortion...

Mind you, so does deciding the earth is old. As has been repeatedly quoted at me from Exodus 20: "11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

I guess 'the heavens' doesn't mean 'the heavens' here, hmm?

It is not valid to equivocate between exegetically strong textual evidence for universe-before-life-one-earth such as

"The earth WAS without form and void and water covered the surface of the deep"

On Day four "God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS" not a-zillion-and-two

Vs -- SIX Days does not mean Six days no matter what the Bible says

(For which I have no text to support the myth)

Using Exegesis instead of eisegesis -- we get in Genesis 1 that "heavens" is a reference to the place where water is (where clouds are) on day 2 and where birds fly on day 5.

Using the most extreme reasoning the best you get is the day 4 place (our solar system) where God places the Sun and moon as the two GREAT LIGHTS.

But as Paul points out -- the Bible concept is that there are THREE heavens.

in Ex 20 we have vs 9-10 "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...".

1. ALL Bible scholars who look at the ENTIRE commandment vs 8-11 AGREE that this is a reference to creation week's timline given in Gen 1-2:3.

2. ALL Bible scholars agree that "SIX DAYS you shall labor" means SIX DAYS -- really.

3. ALL Bible scholars agree that "SIX days you shall labor ... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" is an argument for action that gives a REASON - based on the actions of God Himself and the authority He is claiming by His own action as He adds "THEREFORE the Lord BLESSED".

4. All Bible scholars agree that Moses was not some kind of avant guard Darwinist trying to teach Darwinism to the newly released slaves from Egypt.

So far nobody on any of these threads has shown a single Bible scholar trying to bend the text in favor of Darwinism that has done so using the ENTIRE text of the 4th commandment linked to the days of Genesis 1.

5. The formula "evening and mornig where the (ordinal number goes here) day" is framed so that we have the term "evening and morning" assigned an ordinal number. (Obviously). There is NO such formulation in all of scripture for which the clear rendering is NOT -- a real day (as in SIX DAYS you shall labor).


in Christ,

Bob

You're continuing to hammer on a point I've already conceded while ignoring the point I'm actually making.

Not at all. Especially on on a Christian website. An origins forum on a Christian website is much more likely to be about theology than science.

I disagree. We can make educated guesses about what happened. And in this example we can easily cite cases where forensics got it wrong. And yet they were taking guesses about events that occurred in the recent past. Those studying origins are taking guesses about things they estimate happened millions or billions of years ago. That can hardly be considered a hard science.

Why shouldn't it include science?

Amen there is so much more..there are more details in creation, in intelligent design in the amazing aspects of this universe that point to a creator. However, evidence that doesn't point to a creator or that disagrees with the Bible is not exhilerating or life-affirming at least not to a Christian that believes in Biblical account of creation.

I pointed out that on day four God says that He made TWO great lights not "a zillion and two" (and of course exegesis demands that we account for that detail in the text itself) and I point out that Paul argues for THREE HEAVENs not just one.

What part of your point did I miss?

in Christ,

Bob

No, I imagine you're right. I'll settle for confusing and troubling.