A Question for Biblical Literalists

[msmcneal]

I've been seeing on several other boards lately some pretty strange things that are being taught and believed by those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I was curious as to how many Christans here believe in these things, and if they do, then why.

Are there any Christians here who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe any of the following:

1. geocentrism
2. flat earth
3. dinosaurs and man co-existed

If you do believe in these things, then why? I realize that if you do believe in them, then your main reason would be because it's in the Bible, but I want scientific reasoning why you would believe these things. I'm also curious as to how Christians who don't believe in these things, yet still hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, explain their being found in the Bible.

[elle]

You seriously can't see the difference? I bet you can find a "mission statement" for ARJ and CRS that will be pointing them in a particular direction.

You are correct.

SOURCE: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about

Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal, Answers Research Journal. ARJ is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework...

Furthermore, people want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet, which is why papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research.

ARJ will disseminate research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science by providing scientists, students, and supporters the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,� and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.

Emphasis added to show that theologians are part of the so-called "peer review" process for what is purported to be a "scientific" journal.

SOURCE: http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

SOURCE: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Published continuously since 1964
Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
World-wide circulation
Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood

It seems clear from the organizations' websites that they already presuppose that Biblical creation happened and only publish articles that would support that theory.

[Scotracer]

You seriously can't see the difference? I bet you can find a "mission statement" for ARJ and CRS that will be pointing them in a particular direction.

You are correct.

SOURCE: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about

Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal, Answers Research Journal. ARJ is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework...

Furthermore, people want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet, which is why papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research.

ARJ will disseminate research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science by providing scientists, students, and supporters the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,� and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.

Emphasis added to show that theologians are part of the so-called "peer review" process for what is purported to be a "scientific" journal.

SOURCE: http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

SOURCE: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Published continuously since 1964
Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
World-wide circulation
Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood

It seems clear from the organizations' websites that they already presuppose that Biblical creation happened and only publish articles that would support that theory.

It's actually disgusting reading that, as a supposed "colleague" of them. They should be ashamed.

[Fisherking]

The 99%+ of the biologists that do not let their religious beliefs get in the way of their understanding of profession.

What proof can you offer that their religious/non-religious posistions don't affect their understanding of their profession?

Because they use peer reviewed journals to demonstrate that their proposals are reasonable and accurate. They make testable and repeatable predictions on things as part of their peer review.

How do peers with the same religious/non-religious beliefs writing in a journal prove that their religious belief doesn't affect their profession? For example, isn't there a difference in worldview/ beliefs between those writing and reviewing CRS Quarterly and ARJ, versus Nature and Science?

Nature and Science has articles from people from every walk of life and every belief. What is important is finding out what is correct about reality. Over 99% of biologists will post their papers to these publications. There will be Muslims, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus and the like that submit to these - they don't let their particular faith get involved by this very process.

I will ask again, how do you know or can you prove that "they don't let their particular faith get involved by this very process"?

With ARJ and CRS they are trying to direct results to a foregone conclusion - biblical creationism.

You seriously can't see the difference? I bet you can find a "mission statement" for ARJ and CRS that will be pointing them in a particular direction.

I see ARJ and CRS actually being honest as publications, aware that beliefs do have an effect on how one views the facts. The "difference" is secular journal's publishers, editors, and many contributers think their beliefs are the facts. The difference is some are interpreting the facts through a biblical creationist wordview (and being honest about it), while others are interpreting the facts through a secular, philosphical naturalist worldview, then claiming their interpretations are the facts.

[Goat]

I see ARJ and CRS actually being honest as publications, aware that beliefs do have an effect on how one views the facts. The "difference" is secular journal's publishers, editors, and many contributers think their beliefs are the facts. The difference is some are interpreting the facts through a biblical creationist wordview (and being honest about it), while others are interpreting the facts through a secular, philosphical naturalist worldview, then claiming their interpretations are the facts.

They might be honest about their religious bent, because they are religious sites.

However, they are not honest about their science. They take known inaccuracies, lies, and misrepresentations to make their 'point'. When people do that, that makes then stop being honest

[GentleDove]

I believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed; however, I don't believe that it was common for them to co-habitate, ala "The Flintstones."

I don't mean to be insulting, but how can anyone believe this? There is so much proof that the dinosaurs ceased to exist around 65,000,000 years ago (the K-T event). And absolutely ZERO evidence that they lived contemporary to humans.

Saying they existed because some cultures have dragon myths is totally off-base. Primitive people invent all kinds of crazy beasts... Most cultures have some sort of vampire mythology- Doesn't make it real.

Well, how can anyone call an unobserved and unproven hypothesis “proof?� Scientists have biases and exclude evidence contrary to their presuppositions, just like everyone else.

For example, when they found “65 million� year old “fossilized� T-Rex bone with soft tissue and red blood cells a few years ago, it was so funny to see the evolutionary scientists scrambling to try to figure out which facts to discard to keep the “dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago� canard alive. I think they’ve generally decided amongst themselves that the story is that sometimes partially-fossilized dinosaur bones can still have soft tissue that has not decomposed after “65 million years,� even though it is extraordinarily and shockingly unusual.

Or when live coelacanths were found, even though scientists had “proven� that coelacanths had gone extinct at the end of the “Cretaceous period.� The species is apparently alive and well in the Indian Ocean, “closely resembling� fossilized coelacanths that scientists “have proven� (speculated) are more than 65 million years old.

Here are some other “living fossils�—identically as unevolved as their “550-213 million year old� ancestors. It must be so annoying to have to keep explaining away proven facts that disprove other proven facts.

Some believe that dinosaurs exist even today, even though we are so much more advanced than “primitive people� (a phrase which assumes evolution), so that we know everything about the natural world now. My favorite is Mokele-mbembe.

I think there is zero evidence to you that humans and dinosaurs co-existed--no matter how many cave paintings, rock carvings or Turkmenistan footprints you saw with your own eyes--because you exclude as evidence anything that challenges your presupposed evolutionary assumptions.

[GentleDove]

If humans and dinosaurs co-existed, why are their remains never found together?

I believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed; however, I don't believe that it was common for them to co-habitate, ala "The Flintstones."

Clearly they did not cohabitate. But if they lived in the same environment, close enough that the humans made graphic representations of them and had myths about them, then one would expect that their remains would be found in the same geological layers. What evidence do you have that the biologists are wrong?

Human-made graphic representations of them and stories about them.

Vertebrate fossils are very rare, compared to invertebrate marine fossils. Most dead animal and human bodies are never fossilized. They are decomposed and/or eaten. Certain conditions have to occur for a carcass to fossilize. We may also have not yet found the sediment where human fossils and dinosaur fossils are buried together. I don’t think you are claiming we definitely have found all the fossils that exist in the world.

It is likely that human civilizations were concentrated in one place, while most dinosaurs lived elsewhere. We know from stories that humans hunted and killed dinosaurs when they could, and perhaps where humans built cities, the dinosaurs moved away to find better dinosaur habitats.

There’s no reason to think that most humans lived near most dinosaurs such that any fossils they may have left behind must be found together, in order to think they lived on the same earth at the same time. We don’t find human fossils with coelacanth fossils, but we both live in this world at the same time, and some humans even eat coelacanths (not me!) Gingko trees existed before the dinosaurs and exist today, but Gingko tree fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t co-exist; just that they weren’t buried together under the same fossilization conditions.

[Goat]

I believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed; however, I don't believe that it was common for them to co-habitate, ala "The Flintstones."

I don't mean to be insulting, but how can anyone believe this? There is so much proof that the dinosaurs ceased to exist around 65,000,000 years ago (the K-T event). And absolutely ZERO evidence that they lived contemporary to humans.

Saying they existed because some cultures have dragon myths is totally off-base. Primitive people invent all kinds of crazy beasts... Most cultures have some sort of vampire mythology- Doesn't make it real.

Well, how can anyone call an unobserved and unproven hypothesis “proof?� Scientists have biases and exclude evidence contrary to their presuppositions, just like everyone else.

For example, when they found “65 million� year old “fossilized� T-Rex bone with soft tissue and red blood cells a few years ago, it was so funny to see the evolutionary scientists scrambling to try to figure out which facts to discard to keep the “dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago� canard alive. I think they’ve generally decided amongst themselves that the story is that sometimes partially-fossilized dinosaur bones can still have soft tissue that has not decomposed after “65 million years,� even though it is extraordinarily and shockingly unusual.

Or when live coelacanths were found, even though scientists had “proven� that coelacanths had gone extinct at the end of the “Cretaceous period.� The species is apparently alive and well in the Indian Ocean, “closely resembling� fossilized coelacanths that scientists “have proven� (speculated) are more than 65 million years old.

Here are some other “living fossils�—identically as unevolved as their “550-213 million year old� ancestors. It must be so annoying to have to keep explaining away proven facts that disprove other proven facts.

Some believe that dinosaurs exist even today, even though we are so much more advanced than “primitive people� (a phrase which assumes evolution), so that we know everything about the natural world now. My favorite is Mokele-mbembe.

I think there is zero evidence to you that humans and dinosaurs co-existed--no matter how many cave paintings, rock carvings or Turkmenistan footprints you saw with your own eyes--because you exclude as evidence anything that challenges your presupposed evolutionary assumptions.

Now, there is a load of misrepresentation of the facts. For example, the link you put in does not say 'living fossils are not evolved' but rather says 'almost identical'

almost is not 'unevolved'.

As for the 'soft tissue'.. yes, some parts of the fossil was flexible, but that does not mean it was 'soft tissue'. Why do you misrepresent things, or speak in total ignorence?

It just so happens those pieces were mineralized.. it just was still flexible

[GentleDove]

Well, how can anyone call an unobserved and unproven hypothesis “proof?� Scientists have biases and exclude evidence contrary to their presuppositions, just like everyone else.

For example, when they found “65 million� year old “fossilized� T-Rex bone with soft tissue and red blood cells a few years ago, it was so funny to see the evolutionary scientists scrambling to try to figure out which facts to discard to keep the “dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago� canard alive. I think they’ve generally decided amongst themselves that the story is that sometimes partially-fossilized dinosaur bones can still have soft tissue that has not decomposed after “65 million years,� even though it is extraordinarily and shockingly unusual.

Or when live coelacanths were found, even though scientists had “proven� that coelacanths had gone extinct at the end of the “Cretaceous period.� The species is apparently alive and well in the Indian Ocean, “closely resembling� fossilized coelacanths that scientists “have proven� (speculated) are more than 65 million years old.

Here are some other “living fossils�—identically as unevolved as their “550-213 million year old� ancestors. It must be so annoying to have to keep explaining away proven facts that disprove other proven facts.

Some believe that dinosaurs exist even today, even though we are so much more advanced than “primitive people� (a phrase which assumes evolution), so that we know everything about the natural world now. My favorite is Mokele-mbembe.

I think there is zero evidence to you that humans and dinosaurs co-existed--no matter how many cave paintings, rock carvings or Turkmenistan footprints you saw with your own eyes--because you exclude as evidence anything that challenges your presupposed evolutionary assumptions.

Now, there is a load of misrepresentation of the facts. For example, the link you put in does not say 'living fossils are not evolved' but rather says 'almost identical'

almost is not 'unevolved'.

As for the 'soft tissue'.. yes, some parts of the fossil was flexible, but that does not mean it was 'soft tissue'. Why do you misrepresent things, or speak in total ignorence?

It just so happens those pieces were mineralized.. it just was still flexible

Oh, my, goat! Thanks for not letting me get away with a “load of misrepresentation of the facts�!

I recant this phrase from my post you quoted: “identically as unevolved as their “550-213 million year old� ancestors.�
In place of that phrase, I would insert: “almost identical to their “550-213 million year old� ancestors.�

As for the “mineralized and stretchy, but not soft tissue� issue, in case some people don’t click on the link to open the article, I’ll pull a few quotes from the first two pages of the article, emphases added.

A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed�

…a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur.�

The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,� says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.�

One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?� Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.� Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,� her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.�

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,� she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve.

I wonder how much scientists miss because their evolutionary presuppositions cause them to exclude contrary evidence, and in fact, causes them to not even look for it.

It is absolutely amazing that scientists can actually claim to believe that soft tissue could survive after 65 million years. They scientifically observe the soft tissue. They do not scientifically observe the 65 million years. But what fact do they toss in order to preserve the other “fact�? Amazing!

[Goat]

Well, how can anyone call an unobserved and unproven hypothesis “proof?� Scientists have biases and exclude evidence contrary to their presuppositions, just like everyone else.

For example, when they found “65 million� year old “fossilized� T-Rex bone with soft tissue and red blood cells a few years ago, it was so funny to see the evolutionary scientists scrambling to try to figure out which facts to discard to keep the “dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago� canard alive. I think they’ve generally decided amongst themselves that the story is that sometimes partially-fossilized dinosaur bones can still have soft tissue that has not decomposed after “65 million years,� even though it is extraordinarily and shockingly unusual.

Or when live coelacanths were found, even though scientists had “proven� that coelacanths had gone extinct at the end of the “Cretaceous period.� The species is apparently alive and well in the Indian Ocean, “closely resembling� fossilized coelacanths that scientists “have proven� (speculated) are more than 65 million years old.

Here are some other “living fossils�—identically as unevolved as their “550-213 million year old� ancestors. It must be so annoying to have to keep explaining away proven facts that disprove other proven facts.

Some believe that dinosaurs exist even today, even though we are so much more advanced than “primitive people� (a phrase which assumes evolution), so that we know everything about the natural world now. My favorite is Mokele-mbembe.

I think there is zero evidence to you that humans and dinosaurs co-existed--no matter how many cave paintings, rock carvings or Turkmenistan footprints you saw with your own eyes--because you exclude as evidence anything that challenges your presupposed evolutionary assumptions.

Now, there is a load of misrepresentation of the facts. For example, the link you put in does not say 'living fossils are not evolved' but rather says 'almost identical'

almost is not 'unevolved'.

As for the 'soft tissue'.. yes, some parts of the fossil was flexible, but that does not mean it was 'soft tissue'. Why do you misrepresent things, or speak in total ignorence?

It just so happens those pieces were mineralized.. it just was still flexible

Oh, my, goat! Thanks for not letting me get away with a “load of misrepresentation of the facts�!

I recant this phrase from my post you quoted: “identically as unevolved as their “550-213 million year old� ancestors.�
In place of that phrase, I would insert: “almost identical to their “550-213 million year old� ancestors.�

As for the “mineralized and stretchy, but not soft tissue� issue, in case some people don’t click on the link to open the article, I’ll pull a few quotes from the first two pages of the article, emphases added.

A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed�

…a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur.�

The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,� says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.�

One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?� Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.� Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,� her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.�

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,� she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve.

I wonder how much scientists miss because their evolutionary presuppositions cause them to exclude contrary evidence, and in fact, causes them to not even look for it.

It is absolutely amazing that scientists can actually claim to believe that soft tissue could survive after 65 million years. They scientifically observe the soft tissue. They do not scientifically observe the 65 million years. But what fact do they toss in order to preserve the other “fact�? Amazing!

Now, here is a lot more mispresentations.

For example, let's look at the 'coelecanth' claim. Coelecanth is not a species, it is an order , at a level much higher than a species. The modern cocelecanth is a deep sea fish, while the fossils that had been discovered previously were much smaller than the modern ones found, and also were shallow dwelling fish, not deep sea fish. To bring up that as an 'example' is misrepresenting facts to a large degree.

As for the soft tissue, you know, repeating misinformation does not make it true.

After being informed of the truth, sometimes ignoring that and repeating the misinformation can be considered lying.

Here is commnetary about it by P.Z. Myers.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... ssue_data/

[GentleDove]

As for the soft tissue, you know, repeating misinformation does not make it true.

After being informed of the truth, sometimes ignoring that and repeating the misinformation can be considered lying.

Here is commnetary about it by P.Z. Myers.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... ssue_data/

I read the link you provided about the claim that creationists lie about and fraudulently misrepresent the truth about the T-Rex soft tissue data.

I don't think that's the concern at all.

Because creationists are telling the truth about the T-Rex soft tissue data.

The concern evolutionists have is that the fact of the soft tissue data totally and flatly contradicts their supposed "fact" of "65 million year old" dinosaurs.

Living flesh and bone cannot be anything other than fossilized stone and/or completely-decomposed dust after 65 million years.

And that's what evolutionists are upset about. The "lie" is actually the truth.

Calling creationists liars won't make the truth of the empirical data of extant dinosaur red blood cells go away.