|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 3:48:33 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4976
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
Just checked--according to the Bible, they were in the ark for a little over a year before the earth was dry and they were able to leave the ark.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 7:29:28 PM
|
|
|
gmc4Jesus
Posts: 227
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Torrance, California
Status: offline
|
I agree. God created the heavens and the earth.
I don't see why God couldn't create the earth in 7 days, 6,000 years ago and it still have "age".
Adam and Eve were mature adults at the point of creation. How much "age" did they have one week later? All of the animals were created as adults and fully self-sustaining. Is it possible that God built "age" into other elements of heaven and earth at the moment of creation?
Also of note is that true science will confirm that the current methods of determining the "age" of rocks, fossils, etc. is flawed. When corrected, it confirms the young earth, not the "old" earth.
God did it. That settles it. How He did it will be revealed when we get to heaven. In the mean time, we can have fun and find a challenge trying to figure it all out.
God bless you with much age before you die. May He use you to build His Kingdom on earth and, when you leave this life, may He bless you with Heaven becasue you believed in Jesus as His Son and our Savior.
_____________________________
Let's talk about Jesus, His life and teachings at the www.gettingtoknowjesus.org Gospel Study Forum.
Home of "Getting To Know Jesus", a complete Bible study on the life and teachings of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 7:59:40 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gmc4Jesus
Also of note is that true science will confirm that the current methods of determining the "age" of rocks, fossils, etc. is flawed. When corrected, it confirms the young earth, not the "old" earth.
Could you provide more information about this 'true science'? You used the future tense - does this true science exist yet? If it does, how does it correct our current methods?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 9:58:44 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gmc4Jesus
Adam and Eve were mature adults at the point of creation. How much "age" did they have one week later? All of the animals were created as adults and fully self-sustaining. Is it possible that God built "age" into other elements of heaven and earth at the moment of creation?
Adam and Eve may have been created mature, but they wouldn't have had memories of a non-existent childhood or scars from injuries that never happened. It's not that certain things just cause the earth and universe to look old; it's that there is evidence of past events that could not have happened within the span of 6000 years.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/20/2008 1:10:08 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 633
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Moving to San Antonio!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
Just checked--according to the Bible, they were in the ark for a little over a year before the earth was dry and they were able to leave the ark.
Right. Now might be a good time to point out the differences between the catastrophic flood hypothesized by the modern young earth movement and the Flood described in Genesis (and the rest of the Bible).
Genesis describes a Flood where it rained for about 40 days, plus some water came up from springs or perhaps somewhere else. The waters stood in place for most of a year, and then God sent a wind to cause the waters to recede.
YEC tells us the flood violently thrashed the whole surface of all of planet earth for a whole year, radically reshaping it. Nowhere is that found in Scripture, which just mentions the waters rising and receding. And if it were true, can you imagine the beating the ark must have taken? And as I implied earlier, the movement of all the land material that fast would have vaporized pretty much everything.
In Genesis, the Hebrew words for "all the earth" are the same words that are CONSISTENTLY used for local geography or the land of a certain people group or around a certain area. At the Tower of Babel, the same words are used -- clearly all peoples on earth gathered in one place. Later Genesis says people from "the whole earth" came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. By that time certainly people were living in Australia. Did it really include them? Or is it better to understand it is "the world known to the patriarchs"?
YEC tells us it must have covered the entire physical planet. I think there are two reasons for that. 1) Due to satellite images and such, people naturally have a much more global perspective than they did even 50 years ago. 2) They need a global flood as a crutch to explain away things that make the earth look old. ("Well the flood shook it all up!")
It's also important to remember God's purpose for the Flood. Genesis 6 is clear that it was because of the wickedness of humans. Name ANY other judgment of God that takes out more than is necessary to accomplish His purposes. In those days people were all still living in the same general area, so a widespread local flood would have taken them all out. There is a possible basin in the Middle East that could have contained such a flood. Since God's purpose was to destroy humans and not Antarctic penguins, the flood waters did not need to reach Antarctica. Or the kangeroos in Australia or the critters in the Costa Rica rainforrest.
There's also strong New Testament evidence in 2 Peter 3:6, which says the waters covered the "world at that time." Why would it bother to add the qualifier "at that time" if the 'world' was the same as it was during Peter's day? I think it was Peter acknowledging that the 'world' was smaller during Noah's day, and that is the world that was destroyed.
I guess I see arguing for a global flood as about the same as arguing the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Science soundly refutes it and the Bible can stand just fine without it. So what's the point?
_____________________________
My current ministry dream:
http://victorymuseum.org
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/20/2008 2:29:47 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
YEC tells us it must have covered the entire physical planet. I think there are two reasons for that. I don't need a crutch to read the historical narrative account of Genesis! Chapter 7, verses 17-23 are painstakingly clear as to the extent of the global flood. Your condescension toward YEC understanding will not change the basic meaning of the original text.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/20/2008 2:56:48 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Creation
Psalm 104
1 Praise the LORD, O my soul.
O LORD my God, you are very great;
you are clothed with splendor and majesty.
2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
4 He makes winds his messengers, [a]
flames of fire his servants.
5 He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/20/2008 3:29:15 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3973
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
YEC tells us it must have covered the entire physical planet. I think there are two reasons for that. I don't need a crutch to read the historical narrative account of Genesis!
You should stick with the walker unless Medicare pays for a power wheelchair. Taking the historical context into account, there was no knowledge of a global earth. Therefore any historical references in the Bible are based on the world that was known to exist at that time.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/20/2008 4:17:59 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Taking the historical context into account, there was no knowledge of a global earth. Taking Authorship into account, I think God knew what He created!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/20/2008 5:51:49 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4976
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
While I understand that there is some connection to the topic for discussion the Great Flood, to go into it in any detail would be off-topic. If you wish to discuss the Flood further, please start another thread.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/21/2008 9:55:35 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3973
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Taking the historical context into account, there was no knowledge of a global earth. Taking Authorship into account, I think God knew what He created!
We aren't talking about what God knew, but about what humans knew.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/21/2008 4:59:37 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Taking the historical context into account, there was no knowledge of a global earth. Taking Authorship into account, I think God knew what He created!
We aren't talking about what God knew, but about what humans knew.
To be fair, we really don't know what the pre-Flood people knew. For all we know, Noah may very well have known that the Earth orbited a fusion-powered, g2v, main-sequence star, but the knowledge was secondarily lost as people started concentrating more on farming and lost interest in cosmology.
But to address the OP, I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, but am open to the fact that a proper understanding of history may lead to the notion that the fuzzier areas of Biblical history could include more time than Ussher claims.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/21/2008 5:08:09 PM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 48
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
But to address the OP, I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, but am open to the fact that a proper understanding of history may lead to the notion that the fuzzier areas of Biblical history could include more time than Ussher claims.
Any error margins?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/21/2008 5:11:59 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
quote:
But to address the OP, I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, but am open to the fact that a proper understanding of history may lead to the notion that the fuzzier areas of Biblical history could include more time than Ussher claims.
Any error margins?
Heheh, the comment that you quoted was, like, one huge error margin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/9/2008 4:07:49 PM
|
|
|
jmjphe
Posts: 84
Joined: 4/29/2008
Status: offline
|
I happened to see this thread here and wanted to say a few things
I apologize if this information was addressed earlier but seeing as how there are over 150 posts here I read the first page of the thread and posted here.
I personally dont buy a 6,000 years old earth as a Christian and i don't think it matters either way.
In the book of Genesis it says God created Earth in 7 days. Upon a cursosry exam one could say 7, 24 hour periods of time. Unless I'm missing something we base our time zones around the sun correct? According to Genesis the sun wasnt around until day 3.
I'd be interested to see if "day" traced back in lagnuage origin has slightly different meaning such as a "phase" or a "stage".
Genesis 1:14 talks about the sun and moon being put into place on the third day to mark off seasons, days, and years, but the word "day" was used prior to that. So i could imagine the "day" would have a different meaning depending on how its used.
Off the top of my head I can think of an example of this in John 20:34 where it talks about Christ being peirced by the Roman soldier with the spear while he was on the cross, and it says Blood and water flowed out. Medically speaking the clear liquid (which could easily be described as water) would have came out first. However, the way its written in latter translations makes it seem the blood poured out first which is medically incorrect. BUT, how the old wording goes is that the the more abundant of two things goes first. Again, medically speaking there would have been more blood that the water descirbed, so it would have been orignally written down first.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/9/2008 5:34:12 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jmjphe
I happened to see this thread here and wanted to say a few things
I apologize if this information was addressed earlier but seeing as how there are over 150 posts here I read the first page of the thread and posted here.
It's an old thread anyway, you're doing us all a favor by resurrecting it. Thanks for the post.quote:
I personally dont buy a 6,000 years old earth as a Christian and i don't think it matters either way.
In the book of Genesis it says God created Earth in 7 days. Upon a cursosry exam one could say 7, 24 hour periods of time. Unless I'm missing something we base our time zones around the sun correct? According to Genesis the sun wasnt around until day 3.
The day is described as an evening and then a day, with the next day being at the beginning of the next evening. I describe my day as starting at 6 AM and ending at 11 PM. Some would describe their day as beginning at 12 AM and ending at 11:59 PM. It's a matter of convention that doesn't have to have anything to do with the sun, the spinning of the earth, or the rising or setting of any heavenly body. The Bible says that there was evening, and there was morning, the first day. Regardless of what convention any social group may have used, the one used here is the darkness, then the light. The sun was later created, but the description of the evening then the morning didn't change. The sun was given to us as a sign, so that we, too, can know when the day ends and begins (or when spring or summer or fall is, and what have you).quote:
I'd be interested to see if "day" traced back in lagnuage origin has slightly different meaning such as a "phase" or a "stage".
Genesis 1:14 talks about the sun and moon being put into place on the third day to mark off seasons, days, and years, but the word "day" was used prior to that. So i could imagine the "day" would have a different meaning depending on how its used.
You're in good company thinking that the word "day" can mean age. Most people who try to reconcile Darwinism with the Bible do so on these grounds. The problem is that the chronology of Creation does not reconcile with the chronology of the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme (GUS- the belief in an ancient universe, old earth, and evolution all wrapped into one acronym). The most obvious difference is that in the Creation story the sun came after flowering plants, which also came two whole "ages" before land animals. No one can reconcile these two chronologies. In fact, some Old Earth Christians around this thread have stopped using this argument and side with the belief that the chronology given in Genesis means nothing at all, and that the days of creation were stories for the Israelites to believe. quote:
Off the top of my head I can think of an example of this in John 20:34 where it talks about Christ being peirced by the Roman soldier with the spear while he was on the cross, and it says Blood and water flowed out. Medically speaking the clear liquid (which could easily be described as water) would have came out first. However, the way its written in latter translations makes it seem the blood poured out first which is medically incorrect. BUT, how the old wording goes is that the the more abundant of two things goes first. Again, medically speaking there would have been more blood that the water descirbed, so it would have been orignally written down first.
I don't know that there is any literary device used that suggests that the blood flowed and then the water flowed, or that one happened more than another. Either way, as good of an observation as this is, I don't think that it demonstrates that the days of the book of Genesis should not be taken at face value.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/10/2008 12:01:53 AM
|
|
|
jmjphe
Posts: 84
Joined: 4/29/2008
Status: offline
|
correction on my previous poast, according to Genesis the sun and moon came into exsistence on the 4th day.
Ahh i see your points.
In regards to John 20:34
John writes that after Jesus was pierced with the spear blood and water flowed out (written in that order) In medical terms the "water" was a clear fluid called a pericardial effusion and a pleural effusion...water would be an accurate way to describe the appearance to a medically untrained person. I would think initally as its written that the blood flowed first then the water flowed 2nd. Medically speaking this is inaccurate as the clear fluids (water) would have flowed out first.
But heres the catch...for the most part, the ordering of words in ancient greek was determined by prominence not order. Again, medically speaking, there would have obviously been more blood than water, so in ancient greek writing, its accurate to say that "Blood and water" flowed out.
The point i was making is that sometimes a cursory look at scripture cant answer questions formulated from scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/16/2008 5:17:40 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote:
This is not true. As an example, one of the first semi-reliable dates for the age of the earth was calculated in 1862 by Lord Kelvin, who placed the age of the earth in the millions of years.
Your statement is in error. Lord Kelvin NEVER placed the age of the earth in the millions of years. He determined that the MAXIMUM age of the earth could not be more than 10 million years IF it started as a molten mass.
There is a big difference between saying the earth is 10 million years old and saying that the earth cannot be more than 10 million years old IF certain assumptions about its beginning are correct.
E.g. If you measure the temperature of a cup of coffee you find sitting on a table you can determine the MAXIMUM amount of time it has been sitting there by calculating how long it would take to cool to that point from being boiling hot. However, if you don't KNOW the temperature it was when set there you can't say with certainty that it wasn't set there just before you walked into the room.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/16/2008 6:56:07 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote:
This is not true. As an example, one of the first semi-reliable dates for the age of the earth was calculated in 1862 by Lord Kelvin, who placed the age of the earth in the millions of years.
Your statement is in error. Lord Kelvin NEVER placed the age of the earth in the millions of years. He determined that the MAXIMUM age of the earth could not be more than 10 million years IF it started as a molten mass.
Fortunately, we can read the paper itself:
quote:
But we are very ignorant as to the effects of high temperatures in altering the conductivities and specific heats of rocks, and as to their latent heat of fusions. We must, therefore, allow very wide limits in such an estimate as I have attempted to make; but I think we may with much probability say that the consolidation cannot have taken place less than 20,000,000 years ago, or we should have more underground heat than we actually have, nor more than 400,000,000 years ago, or we should not have so much as the least observed underground increment of temperature.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/17/2008 7:12:21 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote:
Your statement is in error. Lord Kelvin NEVER placed the age of the earth in the millions of years. He determined that the MAXIMUM age of the earth could not be more than 10 million years IF it started as a molten mass.
Fortunately, we can read the paper itself:
The point I am making is that the notion that the earth was ever completely molten is an ASSUMPTION, and an anti-Biblical assumption at that. The calculations Kelvin made are completely invalid if that ASSUMPTION is wrong.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2
If the earth was ever completely molten it could NOT have been covered in water.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/17/2008 7:26:44 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote:
Your statement is in error. Lord Kelvin NEVER placed the age of the earth in the millions of years. He determined that the MAXIMUM age of the earth could not be more than 10 million years IF it started as a molten mass.
Fortunately, we can read the paper itself:
The point I am making is that the notion that the earth was ever completely molten is an ASSUMPTION,
But that's not the point that was being argued. In post #26, mushhead claimed that old earth theories "are based on an agenda to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence."
ES pointed out that this was incorrect by showing that one of the first old estimates of the age of the earth was produced by Lord Kelvin, a fervent Christian.
If you now want to argue the validity of Kelvin's assumptions or his methodology, go ahead. He was wrong - he didn't understand the mechanism that heat the center of the earth. But that doesn't mean his motivations had anything to do with removing God from the picture.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/17/2008 8:12:16 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:iluvatarquote:
But that's not the point that was being argued. In post #26, mushhead claimed that old earth theories "are based on an agenda to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence."
ES pointed out that this was incorrect by showing that one of the first old estimates of the age of the earth was produced by Lord Kelvin, a fervent Christian.
Ok, I went off on a tangent. I have never claimed to be perfect. Let’s see if I can get on the right track this time.
The argument here is whether or not the idea of an old earth was ORIGINALLY anti-God. That being the case bringing Kelvn’s work in is also in error because he didn’t originate old earth theology. He was simply one of the first to try to resolve the question using science.
To determine if old earth theology originated as an attempt “to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence” we must examine the origin of the theology. Do you agree with that?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/17/2008 8:27:34 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
To determine if old earth theology originated as an attempt “to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence” we must examine the origin of the theology. Do you agree with that?
There's probably some element of this I'm missing, but it sounds good now. Sure, I agree with that.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/17/2008 9:44:57 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:iluvatarquote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
To determine if old earth theology originated as an attempt “to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence” we must examine the origin of the theology. Do you agree with that?
There's probably some element of this I'm missing, but it sounds good now. Sure, I agree with that.
If there is an element you are missing then I am missing it also. Simply put, to determine the original motive behind a theology we must examine its origin rather than what happened with it since it got started. I.e. what is relevant is the motive of the originators rather than the motive of those who have accepted it.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 9/17/2008 10:28:31 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
“It is not the average person who questions two thousand years of dogma, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin, Buffon, in his Historie Naturelle, a 44 volume encyclopedia describing everything known about the natural world, wrestled with the similarities of humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry of Man and apes. Although Buffon believed in organic change, he did not provide a coherent mechanism for such changes. He thought that the environment acted directly on organisms through what he called "organic particles". Buffon also published Les Epoques de la Nature (1788) where he openly suggested that the planet was much older than the 6,000 years proclaimed by the church, and discussed concepts very similar to Charles Lyell's "uniformitarianism" which were formulated 40 years later.” - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/buffon2.html
“Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. Despite this, Buffon insisted that he was not an atheist.” - http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-buffon.htm
Concerning Buffon’s denial of atheism let’s not forget that in his day open admission of atheism was putting one’s life in danger. I believe he was motivated “to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence”.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
