201 October 14 2009 at 21:51:12
Comments: Our nameless commenter wrote: "Perhaps he could respond himself on the subject?"
I would be happy to.
I wrote: "Genesis cannot be interpreted literally if one wishes to keep their faith in the Christian God."
As Jim said "If you want to discuss this subject seriously, I think you'll need to read the two links he provided"
As the blogs I have referred you to outline:
Starlight indicates a universe far older than 6,000 years. Altering the speed of light so that it was once faster (as some creationists have suggested) does not get around this problem, in fact it only requires an older universe. By setting things up to appear much older in a 6,000 year old universe, God becomes a liar and a deceiver. The only plausible explanation for one wishing to keep their faith is that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.
Another reason is that post-global-flood population calculations show that either other civilizations would have been required to survive the flood or that other creation events would have been required almost immediately after. In either case, the Bible is no longer inerrant as these details were left out. The only plausible explanation for one wishing to keep their faith is that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.
If you have an alternative explanation I would be very much interested in seeing it.
I will also remind you (again) that I myself am a former young earth creationist. It was the dishonesty shown by creationists and their related organizations that led to my crisis of faith.
202 October 14 2009 at 20:15:23
Comments: "Genesis cannot be interpreted literally if one wishes to keep their faith in the Christian God. "
Word for word. I have put no words in his mouth. He feels I am unable to have faith in God if I follow the Bible literally. Perhaps he could respond himself on the subject?
203 October 14 2009 at 14:46:36
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hello, Anonymous Poster
I think that almost anyone who read your post would agree that you're misrepresenting trebob's point rather badly, and putting words in his mouth. If you want to discuss this subject seriously, I think you'll need to read the two links he provided, (http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/04/creationists-and-starlight.html
and http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/05/young-earth-creationism-vs-population.html), then give a reply to them that will probably take one of the following forms:
1. That you understood them, and now present your alternate explanation or refutation;
2. That wish to study them further, in order to give a response at a later date.
I'm sure you'll agree that it isn't very honest of you to continue "responding" to trebob by evading the issues he raises.
204 October 13 2009 at 16:55:40
Comments: What evidence is there that I cannot have faith in God unless I believe what you say? That is called your opinion
205 October 13 2009 at 16:53:08
Comments: My faith in God is full and my belief that He is the ultimate designer grows me closer to Him. I am sorry to hear you say I cannot have faith in Him without the belief of evolution, but in this way you are wrong. Because, well "evidence" shows I do.
206 October 13 2009 at 08:23:20
Comments: "I am sorry to have offended you."
You have not.
"(I can't change your mind)"
Yes you can... by finding alternative explanations to the problems I outlined in my blog entries I posted here.
"I respect your view,..."
It is not my view, it is simple mathematics.
"... but just do not understand why you insist on believing that I cannot be a keep my faith if I follow the Word of God literally."
I explain two reasons in my blog entries I provided the links to, which I'm willing to bet you still haven't taken the time to read.
207 October 13 2009 at 07:09:30
Comments: I am sorry to have offended you. do not take this as seriously and try my hardest not to focus on the argument (I can't change your mind) so I focus on what the Bible tells me to, and that is the message without the pointless bickering. I respect your view, but just do not understand why you insist on believing that I cannot be a keep my faith if I follow the Word of God literally.
208 October 12 2009 at 06:12:59
Comments: "Your statement is contradictory."
No, it is not.
"You claim you have said nothing about the Bible not being able to be trusted 100%, but then you say that Genesis can not be read literallyÖI am a strong Christian and try my hardest to believe in God and His Word without a single doubt."
What I have shown, and what you and the other commenter failed to address, are two simple observations that show Genesis cannot be interpreted literally if one wishes to keep their faith in the Christian God.
The first such observation is regarding starlight and a 6,000 year old universe:
The second regards a 6,000 year old earth and proposed post-global-flood population models:
To this date I have not seen how one can reconcile a 6,000 year old earth, a non-deceiving God, and reality.
Iím also assuming you are the same commenter who has repeatedly posted from IP address 220.127.116.11 and left the name section blank. I do have IP address tracking set up on the blog I have referred to and I find it very curios that your IP address did not show up once after my post on October 10 2009 at 06:01:38 or after your question regarding Hovindís criminal history that you posted on September 28 2009 at 19:52:51 and I replied to on September 29 2009 at 01:30:13. This indicates to me beyond reasonable doubt that you did not take the time to read responses to a question you asked and other provided materials. What do you think this says to other readers about your intentions?
I will also remind you that I myself am a former young earth creationist and Hovind supporter. It was his own claims that led me to start digging a litter deeper and I eventually rejected that pseudo-science because of the inherent dishonesty and willful violation of the ninth commandment shown by people such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, other creationists, and their respective organizations.
209 October 12 2009 at 04:25:01
Comments: Your statement is contradictory you claim you have said nothing about the Bible not being able to be trusted 100%, but then you say that Genesis can not be read literally. This is a simple contradiction, that confuses me. I am a strong christian and try my hardest to believe in God and His Word without a single doubt. Sometimes my faith is called into question, but I tell people the key to understanding God is right under our noses. The answer to all questions is in the Bible. From creation to end days. Follow His word.
210 October 10 2009 at 06:01:38
Comments: To our new(?) anonymous commenter on October 10 2009 at 05:01:54:
Not long ago someone showed up with a comment not to dissimilar from yours.
You can read about this series of exchanges at
In short: I for one have never suggested that the Bible cannot be trusted or that it is dangerous to believe it fully. What I have shown is two very simple observations demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that Genesis cannot be interpreted 100% literally, and that this 100% literalism is what is dangerous because it removes the need for any thought about the subject material.
As for the observations in question, one is about young earth creationism and starlight: http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/04/creationists-and-starlight.html
The other is on post flood population calculations:
<< 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >>