The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

Chiroptera's second point is trying to echo your own view back to you, that somehow the fall and what went before caused the world to take on a false appearance of age.What I feel is the important point has been raised before, but it appears to have gotten lost, so I will raise it again. The flood came after the fall. This means that in your view the scientific laws at the time of the flood were the same as today. Do I have that right?If I have this right, then it means you disagree with mainstream creationism, which holds that the scientific laws at the time of the flood were different from today. Is this true, namely that you do not agree with the views of mainstream YECism?--Percy

Hi Gone full circle,Looking at your discussion with Ringo from the outside, I'm having trouble seeing your logic. How is this: Consistent with this from later in the same paragraph: I suppose other Christians could judge you unchristian for making this judgement, but of course true Christians would never judge! Apologies for the off-topic diversion...--Percy

Gee, thanks! Ah, I see. I guess in that case I have questions similar to Faith's: what do you read in the Bible that leads you to conclude this? So do I. So your primary difference is with YECs seeking natural explanations for Biblical events and miracles?--Percy

As you wish.There's only a hundred messages to go till closing time. I apologize for the original digression, let's get back on topic.--Percy

I can't imagine why you would say this. Most YEC websites talk about changes in physical laws during the flood. YECs come here all the time and claim that physical laws were different during the flood. One of the most common claims in this regard is that radiometric decay was much faster during the flood.Your views seem very similar, the only difference being a lack of specificity. Where YECs will say, for example, that radiometric dating is wrong because of accelerated decay during the flood, you just say we have no idea why it's wrong because the fall places such knowlege beyond our reach.--Percy

I confess to complete puzzlement how you could not know what I was referring to. The belief in a change in physical laws during the flood is an extemely common YEC view. Here's an example from CreationWiki, the Encyopedia of Creation Science, http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accelerate...: The article goes on to discuss the evidence for accelerated decay. Well known YEC members of the RATE group are Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, Russell Humphreys and Andrew Snelling, making this one of most prominently supported of all Creationist views.--Percy

If you read the CreationWiki article (http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accelerate...) you'll see that changes in physical laws, not conditions, are among their proposals. For example: --Percy

The "p13" part will help you, but not the "Faith post 6003" part. The information provided next to Faith's messages didn't say "Post 6003", but "Posts: 6003". It's the number of messages Faith has posted at EvC Forum since she registered. It is as of this writing at 6005 and will never return to 6003 again.But this may possibly be a great feature, numbering every member's posts! I'm going to add this for consideration on the feature list for dBoard 3.0. The only downside is that dBoard 3.0 will also assign every message an absolute message number, and it's important that the two numbers not make things confusing. So posting messages at EvC Forum is a job for you? Where do I apply? I hope they allow overtime! --Percy

Yes, that's the important point, it began after the flood. If your "gradual decline" occurred between the fall and the end of the flood, then why did the "gradual decline" only begin after the flood? Again, you're offering something that changed after the flood as evidence for something that changed between the fall and the flood. Why did not different languages begin emerging after the fall? The Hebrew word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 was mistranslated in KJV. More up-to-date translations do not translate the Hebrew, and many scholars believe it is a reference to "fallen ones", interpreted by some to mean angels fallen from Heaven. This interpretation is consistent with the rest of the passage where it says "...the sons of God came in to the daughters of men..."More significantly relative to your position, in the previous sentence, Genesis 6:3, God says, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." So according to the Bible, before the flood man's life span was 120 years, while after the flood it was much longer. This means that from just before the flood until after the flood there was not a "gradual decline" but a rapid increase. The decline did not begin until after the flood.I'm only up to your third sentence, but I think I've already provided enough to show that your position doesn't have Biblical support. All your evidence for a decline is post-flood, and there is evidence for an increase during the flood. You're going to have to modify your position that there was a gradual decline between the fall and the end of the flood. The Biblical picture appears to be more complicated than that.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 03-28-2006 10:01 AM

Oh, okay, I see how you're viewing this now, and you appear to have only one line of Biblical evidence for "gradual decline", which is human lifespans. The Nephalim are not evidence for your position because they "were on the earth in those days, and also afterward...". And the presence or absence of Nephalim has nothing to do with "decline", nor is it related to the fall. The creation of languages was sudden, not gradual, and this, too, appears to have nothing to do with "decline", and again, is not related to the fall.Even human lifespans are not gradually declining between the fall and the flood. From Adam to Noah they are: 930, 912, 905, 910, 895, 962, 969, 777, 950. And they don't decline because of anything related to the fall, but because God made a specific decision in Genesis 6:3.Since your only line of evidence, the decline of human lifespans, is unrelated to the fall, the Biblical support for your position of a gradual decline initiated by the fall and ending with the flood's retreat seems extremely tenuous.--Percy

Hi Christian,Back in Message 268 you said in reply to Ringo: Ringo already pointed out that he said "small", not insignificant. I don't think anyone considers the creationist movement insignificant. This website exists because they represent such a significant threat to science education. You go on to ask a good question in your more recent post: Creationists lobby state legislatures, textbook publishers and state and local schools boards for increased representation of creationism and reduced representation of evolution in textbooks and public school classrooms. It would be off-topic to get into detail, but if you're interested then open a new topic.No one really cares what evangelical Christians believe. If they would stay in their churches and celebrate their beliefs I'm sure that would be fine with just about everybody. But they don't. They go to great lengths to try to force their views into public schools, and this cannot be ignored. It is why this site exists, to provide a relatively neutral site where people can discover through discussion why evolution is science and creationism is religion.That creationism is religion is something you seem to understand. You are correct that the philosophical views of science and evangelical Christianity have no likely resolution, but that creationism is not legitimate science is very clear.--Percy

This is probably off-topic. The thread Modulous referred you to is still open if you have questions, but I suspect that if you read Message 52 you'll find the answers you seek.--Percy

Hi Christian,I don't have any problem with you believing there was a "gradual decline" that affected lifespans, language, Nephalim and physical laws that can all be attributed to the fall. The point isn't whether your interprestion is right or wrong, but whether it has anything particularly compelling about it that would lead to its adoption by others. Faith, the person most similar to you in viewpoint, doesn't buy it, I don't buy it, and nobody else buys it.This has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong. Perhaps you're right, but you can't proceed on to argue your conclusions until at least some of the people in this thread accept your premise.In addition, you've been unable to support your position that what happened before the fall and during the transition period after the fall through the flood period is not open to scientific analysis and study, in effect pleading nolo contendere. Events that occurred under different physical laws would leave behind different evidence. You can't just *say* they're not open to study, you have to explain *why*. If I understand your position, for you this is actually a faith-based position, which is fine, but in that case you cannot argue that your position has any scientific standing.--Percy

While it would be nice if creationism went away, and perhaps we could consider that a long-term, though idealistic, goal, the goal in the near-term is more reasonably just the protection of public education from religious interference. Thanks for the suggestion, but the requirement of separation of church and state would not allow public moneys, not in voucher form or any other form, to be used for religious purposes.--Percy

I was only trying to echo the position of the US courts on this issue. If you believe I'm wrong and that the US courts actually have a different position and that GFC's proposal has a chance of passing muster, then that would be an interesting side-issue that probably belongs in a different thread.But if you're instead saying you disagree with the position of the US courts on this issue, we already knew that.Under the present system, there is no public funding of private schools, with the exception of some that provide special services. In the United States, anyone who sends their child to a private school, whether religious or otherwise, ends up paying twice for education.--Percy