Should Christians Follow Evolution? Creationism vs. Evolution [Archive] - Page 7 - The Dancing Lawn

Elentari

07-25-2008, 04:21 PM

I'm not bashing on anyone when I write this, just to let everyone know XD
No one should take offense, but I can guarantee there will be disagreement. :)

I believe in the creation, but don't necessarily believe that the "days" were 24 hours long. They could have been millions, billions of years long each if God reckons His time different from ours.
That is a familiar argument to this thread. The discussion lately here as been about whether or not the Biblical term of "day" can/should be taken literally.

Along with this, I believe in evolution, but don't believe that humans evolved from monkeys. Sorry if that sounds boastful or rude, but I don't mean to be '^^ There's simply too much evidence supporting life before humans were created ie fossils of prehistoric life and ancient geologic activity. I feel God spent billions of years preparing the earth and its life for us to live on. We certainly couldn't live on the earth right when it was created, when it was full of volcanic activity, a poisonous atmosphere, etc. At our period of time, the earth is relatively peaceful to what it was just millions of years ago.

I have noticed there seems to be quite a few people out there, especially Christians, who believe in evolution but NOT in the evolution of man. It's interesting.

I find there is too much complexity and beauty in our world and beyond for it to just have happened by itself. Why should God and science be two different things when God uses a very superior science and intelligence to create? Even parts of the scientific community are starting to agree that there's too much order in the universe for there not to be something keeping it under control.

I agree that this world is complex and it definitely did not happen on its own. God and science should not be separated since the study of God's creation is really what science is about, however when scientISTS choose to exclude God from their work, problems will definitely ensue. God is the superior scientist, the superior intellect. Man cannot come close to discovering what God has not revealed. What has happened is instead of being in two opposite camps--evolution vs. creation--people now, believing that there is some kind of Power in the universe, have begun the "evolution begun by a Higher Power" theory. This is MUCH more likely than the evolution begun by chance theory, but many questions still remain.

And who knows exactly how God created the entire universe, or how He's creating it right now? It's beyond our mortal comprehension.

I take it then that you view the Creation account in the Bible as being a mythological poetic retelling of how God created the world, simplified so that we can understand? I'm being completely serious--I'm not making fun either--this is a well-thought-through and scientifically logical explaination. I don't believe it personally, but I have respect for the individuals I know that hold this position. I ask simply because I noted earlier you believe in a Higher Power (God) and you also believe it took millions of years for the earth to evolve to where it is today.

Anywho, that's just my view on things ^^
Thanks for joining in! I'm looking forward to hearing more from you! :)

Shadow Hawk

07-26-2008, 01:04 PM

Now can you back it up with mathematics or phyiscs? :p

Elentari

07-27-2008, 11:04 PM

Now can you back it up with mathematics or phyiscs? :p

Probably, but since those were perhaps my WORST subjects in school, I won't try since I will probably be in water way over my head.

Can you? :)

Shadow Hawk

07-28-2008, 12:01 AM

Yes, if given the correct data....... However considering the sad state of the "scientific community" I doubt I could ever find the truth amoung the lies.

Doffen

07-28-2008, 09:15 AM

What's truth? And can you back the truth up with mathematics and physics? Or you of course take one of the "lies" and disprove it with mathematics or physics. A challenge to you.

Shadow Hawk

07-28-2008, 01:43 PM

Mathematics and phyiscs are easy....... but, when one "measurement" roams from 0.002 seconds per day to 0.13 seconds per century and to 0.005 per century.

EveningStar

07-28-2008, 03:21 PM

God is immortal. He's always been here. Whether or not the world was made in seven literal days, it would have been equally easy for Him to do it one way or the other.

So why would God want to do creation in stages? We have one possible thing to compare that to.

The baby I was died and was replaced by the child I was, which also died when replaced by the teen I became, which was replaced by the young man I was, and finally the middle aged man I am. This man too will die, being replaced by the old man I shall become, and then finally the glorified me that lives in the presence of God.

We know that God could have made all men adult and fully able to speak and read and understand. We start out helpless babies, each generation starting over from scratch and having to learn the accumulated knowledge of history.

It could be that God's view of Earth fully uses the dimension of time as well as the three spatial dimensions. It could be that "everything" means "everytimething".

Pull out your DVD of LWW and look at the shiny data side. You see the entire film at a glance. But if you went from SEEING it to WATCHING it, could you enjoy simultaneously witnessing that they went through the wardrobe and that Edmund would be forgiven and the White Witch would die? Isn't there supposed to be a sort of journey through which you travel from beginning, through the middle, to the climax and the resolution? Is it possible that God found it more emotionally satisfying to make life on earth a journey rather than an explosion?

We're not saying if he COULD do it. Obviously there is not a creationist on this whole forum that would say God was INCAPABLE of creating using evolution. Far from anyone to say he lacked the power or the knowhow. The only question is WOULD he. And so we're not debating how great God is or how smart he is, or how old he is. Only which method resulted in where and what we are today.

Shadow Hawk

07-29-2008, 09:21 AM

The measurements listed is the decay of the earth's rotational speed. Variblies being time itself and speed. Yet, with enough speed or lack there of........ size also becomes a varible.

At 0.002 seeconds per day the earth the Earth would slow 1 second every 500 days, meaning it takes 30,000 days for the Earth to slow by 1 minute or 82 years, 1 month, and about 18 days for the same result. It would take the Earth 118,275 years to come to a complete stop. For those who wish it would be year 120283.

Others ways to know that the Earth is slowing is the example of leap year and the reason the have to stop the atomic clock.

However if you go in reverse in 1,000,000 years at that decay rate the earth would be spinning at a adrenaline rushing 2.045194456 miles per second. By adding the same answer to itself you end up with the result of the speed of the Earth 2 million years ago.

The "G's" generated is 7.247580626 x e ^10 or 72,475,806,260 G's. The human body can withstand 5-6 G's before blacking out.

Telcontargirl

07-29-2008, 03:51 PM

I believe that God created the universe, and created man - personally I think that it's easily the most logical explanation... After all, there needed to be something before there was anything. And that something must have a purpose for us, otherwise why do we have emotions, why do we have morals, why do we have such a yearning for purpose?

However, I believe God used The Big Bang to create the universe - not sure I agree with evolution though, too many gaping flaws... :confused: In my opinion, belief in The Big Bang and belief in a Creator is not contradictory beliefs - in fact it is complementary beliefs. I believe that the chances of the Big Bang happening wihtout a Creator are between one in infinity and no chance at all. The idea that God caused it to happen, in my opinion makes Him even more wondrous - imagine the planning involved in making sure that it all happened just so? :)

At it's basics however, the mechanics of creation do not particularly matter. The chief thing that matters is, was there a God that caused it - which in my opinion there is a huge amount of evidence in favour of.

HI Johan 72109;57220,
I have some question. Do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God? Do you believe it to be infallible and complete? And do you believe God would have intentionally left out a fact which (if included) He could forsee would keep weaker Christians form stumbling? If you believe these things, than can you PM me and tell me the reference for the big bang accound? thank you,
Telcontargirl

Elentari

07-29-2008, 04:14 PM

HI Johan 72109;57220,
I have some question. Do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God? Do you believe it to be infallible and complete? And do you believe God would have intentionally left out a fact which (if included) He could forsee would keep weaker Christians form stumbling? If you believe these things, than can you PM me and tell me the reference for the big bang accound? thank you,
Telcontargirl

If this topic interests you, I suggest going back a few posts and reading some earlier ones, Telcontargirl. :) The argument appears to be, NOT whether or not the Bible is inspired, infallible, and complete, BUT whether or not God told us everything based on our limited understanding. Apparently, not having a direct reference doesn't seem to bother some individuals or influence what they believe to have happened--even IF they believe the Bible to be inspired, etc, which most of them (at least as I can see) do say they believe.

We're not saying if he COULD do it. Obviously there is not a creationist on this whole forum that would say God was INCAPABLE of creating using evolution. Far from anyone to say he lacked the power or the knowhow. The only question is WOULD he. And so we're not debating how great God is or how smart he is, or how old he is. Only which method resulted in where and what we are today.

EveningStar--Good point. Yet, I could also flip it another way...Evolution/Old Earth makes "logical scientific sense" to many people. It's backed by evidence from a certain perspective. There should be no question that God could do something man CAN understand--such as "creating" via evolution and/or the Big Bang. So, why is it difficult to believe that God could create the entire world by speaking it into being in 6 days--something that seems to not be graspable by the human mind? As you say, God can hardly be INCAPABLE of ANYTHING. "Far from anyone to say he lacked the power or the knowhow." :)

Note: I say 6 days because He rested on the 7th, He was already done by then, according to the Genesis account.

Shadowhawk--You sound incredibly smart. :cool: What do you believe your equations signify for this discussion?
It would take the Earth 118,275 years to come to a complete stop. For those who wish it would be year 120283.
What year are you starting from, just out of curiousity? :)

Hermit of Archenland

07-29-2008, 05:30 PM

.

EveningStar--Good point. Yet, I could also flip it another way...Evolution/Old Earth makes "logical scientific sense" to many people. It's backed by evidence from a certain perspective. There should be no question that God could do something man CAN understand--such as "creating" via evolution and/or the Big Bang. So, why is it difficult to believe that God could create the entire world by speaking it into being in 6 days--something that seems to not be graspable by the human mind? As you say, God can hardly be INCAPABLE of ANYTHING. "Far from anyone to say he lacked the power or the knowhow." :)

Of course it's possible God could have created the universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago; no one would dispute that. It's also possible He made it in an instant 6 minutes ago along with our memories of lifetimes of events that never happened. It's possible but I don't believe it because I don't believe God is a liar. To accept the early part of Genesis as literal historical truth I would have to believe in a God who is almost as deceptive. A God who made fossils of creatures that had never lived, and images of events in distant galaxies that never happened. Faced with the choice of believing God to be a deceiver or Genesis to be non literal, I choose the later

Elentari

07-29-2008, 05:46 PM

Of course it's possible God could have created the universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago; no one would dispute that. Well, people do. Haven't you heard it's "scientifically impossible"?

It's also possible He made it in an instant 6 minutes ago along with our memories of lifetimes of events that never happened. It's possible but I don't believe it because I don't believe God is a liar.

Your logic is fascinating. I would have to say it is POSSIBLE since He's God, but since it would contradict the rest of the Bible, highly IMPROBABLE. God is all-powerful, but He is also a LOGICAL God.

To accept the early part of Genesis as literal historical truth I would have to believe in a God who is almost as deceptive.

Really?

A God who made fossils of creatures that had never lived, and images of events in distant galaxies that never happened.

Assuming of course, that science is always correct and God lies.

Faced with the choice of believing God to be a deceiver or Genesis to be non literal, I choose the later

Sure, if you only have those two options. :) I tend to believe that God created everything that is or was, all fossils are from animals/plants that have lived at some point--but are not as old as science thinks--and that my God is Truth and we will all know how it happened when we get to Heaven and have the Ultimate Science Lesson with the First Scientist. God is incapable of lying or being wrong--sadly, men ARE fallible and can't come close to ever knowing everything, even though some try.

Shadow Hawk

07-29-2008, 11:31 PM

Just as Sherlock said to his ever faithful sidekick. "Elementary, My dear Watson!" It is simple probability you never rule it out even if you "think" it doesn't exist.

Evolution has about as much evidense as Young Earth Creation does. Yet, Young Earth Creation does not have as many very critized "gaps" as Evolution.

I used the measurement of the current/present/now :p

Tell me, Elentari, Can God create a Rock as big as himself?

Hermit of Archenland

07-30-2008, 05:32 AM

Well, people do. Haven't you heard it's "scientifically impossible"?

No I don't think they do. Any theist would accept God COULD have made the world that way, it's just many think the evidence is overwhelmingly against Him having done so

Sure, if you only have those two options. :) I tend to believe that God created everything that is or was, all fossils are from animals/plants that have lived at some point--but are not as old as science thinks--and that my God is Truth and we will all know how it happened when we get to Heaven and have the Ultimate Science Lesson with the First Scientist. God is incapable of lying or being wrong--sadly, men ARE fallible and can't come close to ever knowing everything, even though some try.

I'm afraid that 3rd option is not viable. Yes scientists are fallible but they would have to be wrong on a huge range of evidence, it's just not feasible. Biblical interpreters can also be mistaken and they would just have to be wrong on the exegesis of a few passages. Not really much of a contest

EveningStar

07-30-2008, 09:40 AM

While I think it is drastically important to believe that God is the creator of all things, I don't think there is a place in Hell for people who did not know whether Genesis was literal or figurative. A statement that I warn you cannot be contradicted because I said "I think that" and I do think that whether or not you do too. ;)

Why is it important that we know God created all things?

1) Because we know he's not at cross-purposes with someone else who did.
2) Because as the creator he's also the owner, never having sold his rights.
3) Because as owner he has disposition over all of us.
4) Because as creator he's the ultimate authority over the meaning of human life.
5) Because as our creator we owe our very lives to him.

On the other hand, when it comes to a Heaven/Hell toss-up:

1) If we go to Hell for thinking Genesis was figurative about the creation of life in six days, will we go to Hell for thinking Genesis was literal about the sun and moon revolving around the earth?

2) We learn the ten commandments and the beatitudes because we are expected to do them in our daily life. Must we learn how life is created because we're expected to do it?

3) Even highly conservative scholars are debating whether Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was a physical problem or a figurative expression about an emotional torment. Will the people that interpret that wrongly go to Hell?

4) There are two accounts in Genesis...one of which has the animals being created and brought to Adam as companions...the woman comes last and she's suitable. The other is the more famous one in which the animals are created first, then man is made from the dust of the earth. Even literalists now have a 50/50 chance of going to Hell if God says flunking Creation 101 will keep you from geting your IHS degree.

I don't mean to open more fronts in this debate. I'm only reminding people that you are debating to see where the truth lives, not to save the souls of your opponents. Relax, take a deep breath. As fellow user Joytones says, "Breathing is good...in, out, in, out..."

bruiser

07-30-2008, 10:45 AM

Tell me, Elentari, Can God create a Rock as big as himself?

Is God strong enough to create a mountain that He can not move.?
That question just reminded me of this one. I do not have an answer to either of them, but I will say this: 'God can do anything.'

Hermit of Archenland

07-30-2008, 11:22 AM

Shadow Hawk

07-30-2008, 01:34 PM

Is God strong enough to create a mountain that He can not move.?
That question just reminded me of this one. I do not have an answer to either of them, but I will say this: 'God can do anything.'

Too have any absolute you must have an authority over it that rules/governs it. God is the final deminsion.

God on one hand is not restricted too the amount of space and matter while the rock is. The question itself fails because God is creating matter not more space.

Elentari

07-30-2008, 02:05 PM

EveningStar--Agreed. I can disagree with dear Inky about how the Earth was created, but I firmly believe we will BOTH be in Heaven because we are both followers of Christ.

Points 1 and 4 would be fascinating to discuss at some point.

Bruiser--Thank you, dear. I would have said something quite similar. To add, since I believe God doesn't do something without a reason, I would wonder WHY He would make a rock His size or a mountain He couldn't move, but since that wasn't the question, I'll let it go. ;)

ShadowHawk--Sometimes I think we agree, and sometimes I feel I am being picked on. ;) I am glad, whichever is the case, that you are joining in the discussion.

Hermit--All I will add to my previous posts is to let you know I neither fear other viewpoints or cling to my own based on what others tell me. What I share in this discussion is my own personal opinion, not just "what the Bible says, no questions asked". While I will admit that it is based significantly on faith and on my interpretation of Scripture, the idea that it is not a "viable" option simply because, according to you, it is far more "likely" for writers of the Scripture to be wrong on a few points than it is for modern scientists to be wrong, or perhaps just biased, on a so called "huge range of evidence"...

Hermit, if I have ever said anywhere in this thread that "you are wrong", which I do not recall, I do apologize. I try to approach this thread as a discussion of viewpoints and not a place to change viewpoints different than my own. My goal is to debate and grow personally as I am driven back to my Bible again and again to reread Scripture (which can never be a bad thing!) I will not ask the same of you, but I intend to simply state what I believe in response to others--both in agreement and not. As Eveningstar said, neither of us is going to Hell for believing as we do, and I have no "Sacred Cows", unless you call literal interpretation of a Book I believe to be a source of Truth a "Sacred Cow". One of my favorite quotes, by Frank Peretti, says "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...But it is possible to be wrong." I hope I am as open to being wrong as I am sure of my being right, and I do hope I give everyone that same opportunity.

EveningStar

07-30-2008, 02:22 PM

Here I find myself in agreement with Shadow Hawk

The mathematics of infinity do not lend themselves to fixed ratios, only to the single statement that infinite is bigger than finite. Absurdity creeps in because anything that is infinitely large is infinitely larger than anything which is not infinite. Therefore giving the false impression that a one ton rock and a tiny pebble are the same size because they are both the same percentage of the total size of infinity, which is 0%.

Larger than and smaller than are based on a common frame of reference.

God can create anything that can be defined. "Bigger than he can move" is a logical absurdity, just like a brilliant darkness and an earth shattering silence are logical absurdities. You cannot melt something by getting it cold enough or break it by tapping it softly enough.

"The largest rock" or "a larger rock" assume a frame of reference. And since all finite things are the same size when compared to infinity (both are zero percent of the total size so are equal to one another) we cannot use "infinity" in a "bigger than" or "smaller than" sense of the word as we know it.

An infinitely large rock in an infinitely large expanse would both be non-moving (nowhere left to go) and moving at infinite speed (it's anywhere at once). Therein I unlesash the ultimate absurdity that any infinitely large thing "A" is infinitely bigger than an infinitely large thing "B" and VICE VERSA. Why? Because an infinite number of infinities can fit within an infinity.

In most non-euclidian geometry books you hear that ONE AND ONLY ONE line can pass between any two points. But since lines are infinitely thin, actually, an INFINITE number of lines can pass through two points, all of them parallel and all of them taking up the same amount of space. Sound absurd? Darned right it is, and yet when Apollo went to the moon, the computer calculating the trajectory used the "infinite lines" variation as an integral part of crunching the numbers. My words to anyone that says it is impossible: "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

You may tell your friends that.

Elentari

07-30-2008, 02:30 PM

Somehow it makes so much more sense. :) I am at this very moment smacking my head say "Duh!" :eek:

I've always been the type to shy away from questions or situations I feel are "tricks". ;)

iminlovewithedwardcullen

07-30-2008, 02:42 PM

OK havent read any other posts this is not related just my opinion

I beleive that god was the dreator of heaven and earth ect but i dont belever in the literal 6 day thing. I think it was written to be more like a story to help others learn from it. But i do belever that god created everything and that noting was made by chance (evelution kinda).

i think that anythign as beautiful as this earth and amazin as the creaturs that live there cannot have alll evolved from a single organisum(not qiute sure about the evelution argument sorry) and must have been created by an all powerful god!

Hermit of Archenland

07-30-2008, 02:53 PM

Hermit--All I will add to my previous posts is to let you know I neither fear other viewpoints or cling to my own based on what others tell me. What I share in this discussion is my own personal opinion, not just "what the Bible says, no questions asked". While I will admit that it is based significantly on faith and on my interpretation of Scripture, the idea that it is not a "viable" option simply because, according to you, it is far more "likely" for writers of the Scripture to be wrong on a few points than it is for modern scientists to be wrong, or perhaps just biased, on a so called "huge range of evidence"...

Actually I never said WRITERS of scripture are wrong, but rather interpreters. There is a difference.

Elentari

07-30-2008, 03:04 PM

Actually I never said WRITERS of scripture are wrong, but rather interpreters. There is a difference.

True. However are we speaking here of interpreters or translators? There is a difference there as well, and I want to make sure I understand who exactly you think is--or could be--"mistaken" in their work.

To interpret: to explain the meaning of (typically open to anyone to do)
To translate: to turn into another language; to express in different words
(when speaking of the Bible or other books, a highly trained profession)

Hermit of Archenland

07-30-2008, 05:06 PM

True. However are we speaking here of interpreters or translators? There is a difference there as well, and I want to make sure I understand who exactly you think is--or could be--"mistaken" in their work.

To interpret: to explain the meaning of (typically open to anyone to do)
To translate: to turn into another language; to express in different words
(when speaking of the Bible or other books, a highly trained profession)

Primarily we are talking about interpretation, but translation also comes onto it i.e. the possible meanings of yom. The two really cannot be neatly seperated if you want to do serious exegesis. Unfortunately I have only the most basic grasp of Classical Greek and am certainly no expert in the koine Greek in which the NT is writen, and I have little knowledge of Hebrew at all. For most people who want to seriously study scripture good commentaries are essential. Unfortunately some of the commonly available ones are almost useless, and give little consideration to the original text. When I was recently writing an essay on Paul and Second Temple Judaism for my Theology course I was forced to invest in some very specialist (and expensive) textbooks. Although the actual work of complete translation is very much a job for the expert, the results of specialised scholarship on word usage in biblical texts is available to those less expert (although as I discovered may be quite pricey) and can be used the intepretative process.

FatherChristmas

08-01-2008, 01:15 PM

New to this thread. I believe in 6-day creation just like the Bible says. I see nothing in scientific research that refutes this. No scientist has ever disproved Genesis as literally read, they simply assume that there must be a "natural" explanation and proceed along that path. As a practical matter in terms of research, there's nothing wrong with this, but it shouldn't make its way into our theology. The word of God is higher than any human authority.

Primarily we are talking about interpretation, but translation also comes onto it i.e. the possible meanings of yom.

I have heard this argument, which is sometimes known as the "day/age theory", but I can't buy it. The scriptures say "evening followed by morning, the first day", and so forth for the six days. It seems pretty clear. Also, I'd like to know how God could possibly made it any clearer without reference to hours (which are a human invention).

The two really cannot be neatly seperated if you want to do serious exegesis. Unfortunately I have only the most basic grasp of Classical Greek and am certainly no expert in the koine Greek in which the NT is writen, and I have little knowledge of Hebrew at all. For most people who want to seriously study scripture good commentaries are essential. Unfortunately some of the commonly available ones are almost useless, and give little consideration to the original text. When I was recently writing an essay on Paul and Second Temple Judaism for my Theology course I was forced to invest in some very specialist (and expensive) textbooks. Although the actual work of complete translation is very much a job for the expert, the results of specialised scholarship on word usage in biblical texts is available to those less expert (although as I discovered may be quite pricey) and can be used the intepretative process.
There are some excellent commentaries available online for free. Adam Clarke's commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/) and JFB (http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/) come to mind. But there are also many other good ones that will be costly, just as you say.

As others have said, I don't think a person's view on this issue affects salvation.

inkspot

08-02-2008, 12:49 PM

Elentari

08-02-2008, 02:09 PM

FatherChristmas

08-02-2008, 02:23 PM

If the entire universe were created in 6 literal days just 6,000 years ago, it would be impossible for the starlight we receive from stars millions of light years distant from us to be arriving here yet. This isn't "science" disproving scripture; it's just common sense.

Better men than I have argued against that "common sense" conclusion, like D. Russell Humphreys (http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp) for example. His PhD in physics means he is much more qualified than I am on the subject.

The children of Israel had a different story-telling style than modern westerners, and their "evening and morning the X day" were understood to be indefinite periods of time.

Scripture is written by God himself, inspiring the human authors through His Holy Spirit. And the interpretation of these passages, like the science issue mentioned above, has been debated by better men than I (http://http://www.icr.org/article/164/). I have seen very few Bible scholars argue for anything other than a literal interpretation of the days in Genesis 1. Most admit that neither view can be conclusively proved, but that there is no reason from the text itself to assume anything other than literal days.

This has all been discussed previously in this endless thread ...
And it has also been discussed elsewhere (journals, other websites, college classrooms, lecture halls, etc.), as I am sure you are aware. Are you saying that you don't want to talk about it anymore? I wouldn't blame you if you're tired of the subject. But as I said I'm new to the thread and have not grown tired of it just yet. In any case, I hope you don't expect me to examine all 150+ pages of the discussion here. That would probably take me several weeks, and if I'm going to study this subject I would rather read more scholarly material. I hope you can forgive me for that.

Elentari

08-02-2008, 02:28 PM

In any case, I hope you don't expect me to examine all 150+ pages of the discussion here. That would probably take me several weeks, and if I'm going to study this subject I would rather read more scholarly material. I hope you can forgive me for that.

As Inky said, it is fairly repetitive. :) Based on your first response, you seem to have the gist of it. I do hope you will continue to participate just the same. :D

Hermit of Archenland

08-03-2008, 05:28 AM

There are some excellent commentaries available online for free. Adam Clarke's commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/) and JFB (http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/) come to mind. But there are also many other good ones that will be costly, just as you say.

.

Yeah I've seen them . Both are useless. As with most commentaries they give only one theological viewpoint and little discussion of disputed interpretations and alternate meanings. Utterly hopeless for serious research

Hermit of Archenland

08-03-2008, 10:14 AM

Better men than I have argued against that "common sense" conclusion, like D. Russell Humphreys (http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp) for example. His PhD in physics means he is much more qualified than I am on the subject.

The fact Humphreys has a PhD in physics doesn't make him an expert in the fields on which he pontificates in his roles as a creationist. His area of expertise is fusion engineering, not cosmology or radioisotope dating or any of the other disciplines relevant to the debate.

I feel a bit sorry for people like Humphreys. They so desperately want to believe in scripture absolutely literaly and delude themselves in the process. Much like those who believe in a flat or hollow earth. No matter how often their evidence and reasoning is shown to be flawed they will ignore the facts.

FatherChristmas

08-03-2008, 03:25 PM

Yeah I've seen them . Both are useless. As with most commentaries they give only one theological viewpoint and little discussion of disputed interpretations and alternate meanings. Utterly hopeless for serious research

I feel a bit sorry for people like Humphreys. They so desperately want to believe in scripture absolutely literaly and delude themselves in the process. Much like those who believe in a flat or hollow earth. No matter how often their evidence and reasoning is shown to be flawed they will ignore the facts.
What happened to the idea of being polite and respectful? :confused:

Hermit of Archenland

08-03-2008, 04:46 PM

What happened to the idea of being polite and respectful? :confused:

Sorry if I seemed impolite or disrespectful. I was only stating the facts as I see them. Perhaps I could have expressed my views with greater tact. My apologies for that.

I think we all need to bear in mind (myself especially) that this is not an issue that impacts on salvation. Believing creationism or evolution will not decide if we get to heaven. Only faith in Christ will do that.

That said where this issue has real importance in the world at large is in education. Should children be taught creationism in science classes alongside evolution and standard cosmology? I have to say no. Certainly the different views Christians hold on the topic should be carefully explained in religious education. But to place creationism alonside standard science means everyone with unorthodox scientific views could demand equivalent treatment. That way lies madness!

EveningStar

08-03-2008, 05:10 PM

If interpreting Genesis literally is a matter of life and death, either people who believed the sun revolved around the earth would go to hell or the people who believed the earth revolved around the sun would go to hell. As long as you know God and God alone is responsible for the existance of life on Earth, you are paying him due respect.

What's problematic is not those of you here who realize it's not a salvation issue. It's those who say it IS a salvation issue. Like those who say the King James Version of the Bible is the only "real" Bible, etc. etc. That sort of thinking sometimes goes beyond religion.

I once had a secretary who was 62, and she had to learn computers with the greatest reluctance. She thought anything she did that wasn't written down step by step might break it. She would NEVER use her own initiative under ANY circumstances. I got so tired of her asking if EVERYTHING NEW I asked her to try would "break it" that I once wrote a prank computer program for her. It looked like her word processor but the first key she touched caused an error popup that said, "WARNING: HARD DISK DATA LOSS IMMINENT! CALL YOUR SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR AT ONCE WITH ERROR CODE A00n339-C." I could hear her scream down the hall. I know even God had to laugh.... :D

Some people are like that about their souls. They think pressing the wrong key sends them to hell. They don't realize that hell is not for those who press F12 at the wrong time but for those who surf porn sites and spam kids with viagra ads.

Relax. Discuss. It's ok.

FatherChristmas

08-03-2008, 10:07 PM

Sorry if I seemed impolite or disrespectful. I was only stating the facts as I see them. Perhaps I could have expressed my views with greater tact. My apologies for that.

Sir, if you expect this to go well, the first thing you should do is drop the self-righteous tone. The best way to "express your views" with more tact is to remember that they are "views", and not "the facts". You are offering your opinions. There is only One who knows all the facts of this matter. You are not Him.

I think we all need to bear in mind (myself especially) that this is not an issue that impacts on salvation. Believing creationism or evolution will not decide if we get to heaven. Only faith in Christ will do that.

I have already borne this in mind, and I stated it very plainly in my first post in this thread. Did you miss that?

That said where this issue has real importance in the world at large is in education. Should children be taught creationism in science classes alongside evolution and standard cosmology? I have to say no. Certainly the different views Christians hold on the topic should be carefully explained in religious education. But to place creationism alonside standard science means everyone with unorthodox scientific views could demand equivalent treatment. That way lies madness!
It is only your opinion that the subject does not have "real importance" outside of educational debates. I think it's important to discuss it here, and that's why I am attempting to do so.

To that end, let me address your previous arguments point by point.
The fact Humphreys has a PhD in physics doesn't make him an expert in the fields on which he pontificates in his roles as a creationist. His area of expertise is fusion engineering, not cosmology or radioisotope dating or any of the other disciplines relevant to the debate.

If you scroll back, you will see that the only point I was making was that he is more qualified than I am, which is still true even granting your technical point. As for the charge that he is "pontificating", I see much more humility in his writing that I see in your posts.

I feel a bit sorry for people like Humphreys. They so desperately want to believe in scripture absolutely literaly and delude themselves in the process. Much like those who believe in a flat or hollow earth. No matter how often their evidence and reasoning is shown to be flawed they will ignore the facts.
So he writes something with which you do not agree, and that justifies you comparing him to a flat-earther? Really now, this is the type of strawman argument that I see all the time from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I am surprised and disappointed to see it coming from someone who claims to be a Christian when speaking of a fellow brother in Christ.
Yeah I've seen them . Both are useless. As with most commentaries they give only one theological viewpoint and little discussion of disputed interpretations and alternate meanings. Utterly hopeless for serious research
You could have just ignored my suggestions. I was offering them in an attempt to be helpful. You didn't have to smack me down like some little kid who annoys you. But whatever. Saying a Bible commentary is "one-sided" is an irrelevant point. You might as well say that every Christian is one-sided in their view of Jesus being the only savior, because we don't entertain alternate theories about who He is. If you want multiple views of a passage, then just consult multiple commentaries. I always do that. I gave you two of them, but there are many more available. I also look at the original language myself armed with a lexicon and attempt to exegete the passage on my own to supplement what I read in the commentaries. But that doesn't mean that any one of them is "useless" or "utterly hopeless". That is only your opinion.

Elentari

08-03-2008, 11:59 PM

That said where this issue has real importance in the world at large is in education. Should children be taught creationism in science classes alongside evolution and standard cosmology? I have to say no. Certainly the different views Christians hold on the topic should be carefully explained in religious education. But to place creationism alonside standard science means everyone with unorthodox scientific views could demand equivalent treatment. That way lies madness!

You are right that this argument has great affect on education. As a teacher I completely agree with you. However, I happen to disagree with everything else. As others have stated, this is a place for opinions and everyone is entitled to one. :)

1. Should children be taught creationism in science class alongside evolution and standard cosmology:
I am not exactly certain what you mean by "standard cosmology", but I do believe it is important to instruct students to THINK. This can hardly be done when science teachers tell that WHAT to think (aka: evolution is fact, not theory--which IS taught in some classes I've taken). I do not go so far as to say what specifically teachers should teach (as far as I know of standards it does not really affect students until middle/secondary levels). I DO believe that students need to be told that there are other "theories" (I.D/Old Earth, Creationism) and that evolution is not undeniable "Truth". In my high school experiences, there is far more to science than whether or not you believe evolution or creation by a soveriegn almighty Creator God.

2. Certainly the different views Christians hold on the topic should be carefully explained in religious education. But to place creationism alonside standard science means everyone with unorthodox scientific views could demand equivalent treatment:

Creationism cannot be successfully taught in "religious education". First, religious education should be defined. Is this in a church or school setting? Is this the responsibility of teachers, clergy, or parents? Second, the only "religious education" I have ever witnessed in a public school must be off school property, is barely 30 minutes every week, or often every 2 weeks, and not even for a full year. The teacher barely has time to make sure children know who Jesus IS and your basic Bible stories without delving into a step-by-step disection of Genesis to discuss HOW God created the world.

Now a question for you: Do you believe evolution should be taught in a CHRISTIAN school environment?

Hermit of Archenland

08-04-2008, 02:00 AM

Sir, if you expect this to go well, the first thing you should do is drop the self-righteous tone. The best way to "express your views" with more tact is to remember that they are "views", and not "the facts". You are offering your opinions. There is only One who knows all the facts of this matter. You are not Him.
.

Well I'm sorry you find my tone self righteous. I've already apologised for the way I expressed myself. If you have the generosity to accept that and go on from there we can continue this discussion. If you do not we have nothing to say to each other

FatherChristmas

08-04-2008, 08:42 AM

Well I'm sorry you find my tone self righteous. I've already apologised for the way I expressed myself. If you have the generosity to accept that and go on from there we can continue this discussion. If you do not we have nothing to say to each other
Fair enough. Let us continue.

Doffen

08-04-2008, 09:13 AM

I am not exactly certain what you mean by "standard cosmology", but I do believe it is important to instruct students to THINK. This can hardly be done when science teachers tell that WHAT to think (aka: evolution is fact, not theory--which IS taught in some classes I've taken). I do not go so far as to say what specifically teachers should teach (as far as I know of standards it does not really affect students until middle/secondary levels). I DO believe that students need to be told that there are other "theories" (I.D/Old Earth, Creationism) and that evolution is not undeniable "Truth". In my high school experiences, there is far more to science than whether or not you believe evolution or creation by a soveriegn almighty Creator God.

Religious views doesn't do well in science classes. Creationism is a Christian way of explaining the beginning, and is not proven at all at ANY term. By the mere reason that Creationists like to say that the world is only 5-6 thousand years old explains widely why it SHOULDN'T even be confronted in the science classes, as it goes against EVERYTHING that scientists has done to uncover many truths about life. Creationism tries to disprove evolution, yet, they cannot find proof to their own gain. If I as an atheist was going to a science class and be taught by my teacher about creationism, and I asked "How can you be sure about this?" ... Is he going to drop a bible on my desk and tell me to look at all the evidence..?

The Bible holds answers to those who are CHRISTIAN. To Christians, the bible is evidence. In a school setting it's absolutely fine to say that Christians (Or Muslims, or buddhists) BELIEVE that the world was created by this and that, though clarifying religion as evidence and science is not okey, as it's widely unfair to those who actually want to learn science and who're not religious. Religion belongs in religion classes, and not in science classes. Not at all. Creationism isn't even a THEORY to those who're unreligious.

Creationism cannot be successfully taught in "religious education". First, religious education should be defined. Is this in a church or school setting? Is this the responsibility of teachers, clergy, or parents? Second, the only "religious education" I have ever witnessed in a public school must be off school property, is barely 30 minutes every week, or often every 2 weeks, and not even for a full year. The teacher barely has time to make sure children know who Jesus IS and your basic Bible stories without delving into a step-by-step disection of Genesis to discuss HOW God created the world.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about public education thaught on schools. Responsibility to learn about religion is your own and your teachers (That said, it might be your parents responsibility aswell, if they're religious). Though I find it important that students get to learn about religion from school and from a neutral viewpoint. This said, religious education shouldn't only be christianity, but all the other big religions on earth. When I went to school we had religion classes for three hours every week, where we learned about Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism from a neutral standpoint (I don't know what religious views my teacher had). As a teacher, you shouldn't be teaching the students with who Jesus IS, but who he WAS. Then you should let them figure out what Jesus IS now. Teachers should not be pushing religion on students.

Now a question for you: Do you believe evolution should be taught in a CHRISTIAN school environment?

This question was not directed to me, but YES, it should.

FatherChristmas

08-04-2008, 10:16 AM

Doffen

08-04-2008, 11:49 AM

Doffen, I notice that you live in Norway. I actually have a friend in Norway that you really ought to meet. His name is Ruben and this is his website (http://www.fastupwards.com/). Check it out if you get a chance.
:)

I checked out the website and I think I've heard of the guy before. We live in two very different society levels so I don't think we'd have the oppertunity to be friends. Cool to hear that you know someone from my country though.

Elentari

08-04-2008, 01:05 PM

Religious views doesn't do well in science classes. Creationism is a Christian way of explaining the beginning, and is not proven at all at ANY term. By the mere reason that Creationists like to say that the world is only 5-6 thousand years old explains widely why it SHOULDN'T even be confronted in the science classes, as it goes against EVERYTHING that scientists has done to uncover many truths about life. Creationism tries to disprove evolution, yet, they cannot find proof to their own gain. If I as an atheist was going to a science class and be taught by my teacher about creationism, and I asked "How can you be sure about this?" ... Is he going to drop a bible on my desk and tell me to look at all the evidence..?

Creationists have scientific-based proof. The only way for the science world to refute this proof is to make the argument that "our proof is better than their proof" which is incredibly childish. I do acknowledge that having Creationism given equal footing in a science classroom will not happen probably in my lifetime. However, I do think there is a way to teach that evolution is not the ONLY theory of life's beginning, whether or not you teach the other ones in class or not.

The Bible holds answers to those who are CHRISTIAN. To Christians, the bible is evidence. In a school setting it's absolutely fine to say that Christians (Or Muslims, or buddhists) BELIEVE that the world was created by this and that, though clarifying religion as evidence and science is not okey, as it's widely unfair to those who actually want to learn science and who're not religious. Religion belongs in religion classes, and not in science classes. Not at all. Creationism isn't even a THEORY to those who're unreligious.

In the end, science and God cannot be separated, but I will leave that for another day.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about public education thaught on schools. Responsibility to learn about religion is your own and your teachers (That said, it might be your parents responsibility aswell, if they're religious). Though I find it important that students get to learn about religion from school and from a neutral viewpoint. This said, religious education shouldn't only be christianity, but all the other big religions on earth. When I went to school we had religion classes for three hours every week, where we learned about Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism from a neutral standpoint (I don't know what religious views my teacher had). As a teacher, you shouldn't be teaching the students with who Jesus IS, but who he WAS. Then you should let them figure out what Jesus IS now. Teachers should not be pushing religion on students.

Learning about religion from a "neutral" viewpoint supposedly happens in history class or a class on "religion". That is "religion class" not "religious education". Where I am from, only a few schools have what is called WRE (Weekday Religious Education) lead by a local pastor. It is not mandatory...Typically only children who attend church or who's parents are not AGAINST church attend. Therefore, Jesus is taught as BEING because He is God. The public school teachers have nothing to do with this class, whether they endorse it or not. The teacher is a pastor or other religious leader and it is done on a volunteer basis, not paid.

This question was not directed to me, but YES, it should.

So evolution SHOULD be taught in a religious environment but Creationism should NOT be taught in a non-religious environment? Hmm.

lieke

08-04-2008, 01:33 PM

So evolution SHOULD be taught in a religious environment but Creationism should NOT be taught in a non-religious environment? Hmm.
I've been in a christian public school, and our school was clear about its identity, believing Genesis one to be literally true (6 days and such), but we did learn about evolution. And i'm glad we did. You know, general knowledge, even if you don't believe it to be true, is always important. Plus, if you ever meet someone who does believe in evolution and you don't you can say something more about the subject than just 'we don't come from apes'. It's always great to hear both sides, and even if you are standing on one of the sides, it's still important to know what the other side is talking about.

Considering that my school had that viewpoint of Genesis, and because there were almost only christians at my school, we heard about the 6-days-creationism a lot already, and i loved the lessons about evolution too.

And i think non-religious people should also get to know about creationism, Doffen mentioned that he got religious classes, about like all the main religions (christianity, islam, buddism, hinduism, atheism, etc.) on earth (we got that too, even though it was a christian school), that could be a great time to explain what all the different religions think about how the earth came to be. And the scientific evidence (the things that could proof a 6000 year old earth without the stuff in the bible) could be taken into the biology or science classes.

My two cents.

EDIT: btw Elentari, i love your siggy! :)

Elentari

08-04-2008, 01:46 PM

I've been in a christian public school, and our school was clear about its identity, believing Genesis one to be literally true (6 days and such), but we did learn about evolution. And i'm glad we did. You know, general knowledge, even if you don't believe it to be true, is always important. Plus, if you ever meet someone who does believe in evolution and you don't you can say something more about the subject than just 'we don't come from apes'. It's always great to hear both sides, and even if you are standing on one of the sides, it's still important to know what the other side is talking about.

When I was in Christian school we debated Evolution, but it was taught for that sole purpose, not as part of the curriculum, per se.

Considering that my school had that viewpoint of Genesis, and because there were almost only christians at my school, we heard about the 6-days-creationism a lot already, and i loved the lessons about evolution too.
I found it interesting that most of what I was taught in the Christian classroom was completely ignored in the public one.

And i think non-religious people should also get to know about creationism, Doffen mentioned that he got religious classes, about like all the main religions (christianity, islam, buddism, hinduism, atheism, etc.) on earth (we got that too, even though it was a christian school), that could be a great time to explain what all the different religions think about how the earth came to be. And the scientific evidence (the things that could proof a 6000 year old earth without the stuff in the bible) could be taken into the biology or science classes.
Since I was only in Christian school until high school we didn't get into other religions, but it was interesting to study origin theories when I was in college. Since I don't view learning other theories and belief systems as threatening to my own, I enjoyed discovering that most world cultures/religons have a world flood story similar to that of Noah and no religion seems to have a belief system that parallels the evolution theory. :)

My two cents.
Thanks for your opinion!

EDIT: btw Elentari, i love your siggy! :)
Thanks! :)

lieke

08-04-2008, 02:31 PM

Elentari

08-04-2008, 02:41 PM

I found it interesting that most of what I was taught in the Christian classroom was completely ignored in the public one.

Hm, i'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, could you explain it, please?:)

Sure. :) When we were taught about the evolution theory in my public high school the weaknesses and flaws of the theory were pretty much ignored or "glossed over" as not as important as the "proven evidence". If there was part of the theory which was questioned the basic answer was "it hasn't been discovered yet" or "it hasn't been proved it's NOT, therefore it may be...somewhere".

In my Christian middle school when we debated evolution we were encouraged to look at both sides of the argument and not base our "pro" argument soley on belief and Biblical evidence but also on natural evidence (mainly complexities in animal structure and behavior that might be just written off as an adaptation by evolutionists, but could actually be the signature of the Creator who made things ON PURPOSE. On the "against" side (pro-evolution), we were encouraged to look at the evidence presented (mainly from textbooks and other scientific sources) and base our debate on that, occasionally attempting to "refute" the evidence of the other side.

Hope that helps. :)

Hermit of Archenland

08-04-2008, 04:33 PM

2.
Now a question for you: Do you believe evolution should be taught in a CHRISTIAN school environment?

Perhaps I have bitten off a bit more than I can chew by starting this as i actually know very little about the US education system. But as I worked in a Church school here in the UK for a while I'll describe what happens here. Basically evolution was introduced in the science course at about ages 14/15 I think. It was expalined as the theory held by the majority of scientists to account for the variety of life on earth, although mention was made that it was not universaly accepted. I think that's a fair enough approach

In religious education I believe evolution and creationsm are mentioned but I'm not sure of exactly what's covered. Generally though religious education here in the UK is required by the National Curriculum to be fairly thorough so I'm sure it is possible for these topics to be adequately discussed

inkspot

08-04-2008, 05:56 PM

Heigh-ho. I did not mean to sit on Fr Christmas and hope he didn't take my post that way. My apologies if it sounded snippy. :p

The starlight objection to the 6000 year old universe is one which not even Answers in Genesis can explain -- they've admitted such, and they are about the biggest purveyors of Creationist literature and educational materials. If they've admitted there's no defense, I am pretty sure there isn't one.

OK, as for Bible scholars who argue that Genesis need not be read as three literal days: I don't know how scholarly you find them, but Billy Graham and CS Lewis are a couple of notable Christians who have held this opinion. Of the ancient church fathers, very few held the view that Genesis must be read as 6 literal 24-hour days. Many early Christians thought the days were longer -- they thought each day represented 1,000 years. Obviously they were wrong, but it shows that they did not feel the creation story had to be crammed into 6 literal 24-hour days.

This is a relatively new phenomenon in Christianity, and it is troubling as it flies in the face of science and creates a barrier to Christ for scientifically-minded non-Christian people. :(

As far as education goes, I think the 6-day creationist curriculums do a dis-service to the students by teaching bad science, and sometimes knowingly perpetuating mistakes (if not lies). Six-Day Creationism is not scientific and should not be taught in the schools, to my mind, but neither should students be taught that earth and life here erupted out of random chance, because there is no way science can prove that, either. If evolution is taught, seems to me it should be taught as a theory, and not the gospel.

Did I cover all the bases? :)

Doffen

08-04-2008, 07:03 PM

Creationists have scientific-based proof. The only way for the science world to refute this proof is to make the argument that "our proof is better than their proof" which is incredibly childish. I do acknowledge that having Creationism given equal footing in a science classroom will not happen probably in my lifetime. However, I do think there is a way to teach that evolution is not the ONLY theory of life's beginning, whether or not you teach the other ones in class or not.

I'll need some sources for that. Since when did creationists able to handle over evidence (EVIDENCE!!) that the world was created by God and that it happened in seven days, and that no specie on the planet has been evolving? When did creationists get the evidence that the world is only 5-6 thousand years old?

What creationism describes is a theory not backed up by much evidence at all. For us to teach creationism in science classes is absurd, as the only evidence to back the theory up is a very old collection of books, which again has no scientific reasoning in it.

Yes; there are ways to teach creationism as science. And aslong Christians among themselves teach it to eachother and don't push it on someone and says it's scientificly proven; "THIS is how the world was created", I don't mind. Teachers should not be in control of who believes what (Creationism is a belief, not a proven matter)

In the end, science and God cannot be separated, but I will leave that for another day.

I'll say it as bluntly as you. Yes it can. It's actually nearly impossible to imply God into something scientific.

Learning about religion from a "neutral" viewpoint supposedly happens in history class or a class on "religion". That is "religion class" not "religious education". Where I am from, only a few schools have what is called WRE (Weekday Religious Education) lead by a local pastor. It is not mandatory...Typically only children who attend church or who's parents are not AGAINST church attend. Therefore, Jesus is taught as BEING because He is God. The public school teachers have nothing to do with this class, whether they endorse it or not. The teacher is a pastor or other religious leader and it is done on a volunteer basis, not paid.

Alright, that's totally ok. Aslong as the same arangment doesn't go into public school. I wouldn't mind to have a pastor visit our school and talk about Christianity and his faith at all. Though when it starts to get preachy or anything the like, I think it's wrong. Religion shouldn't be forced upon you. Especially not when you're in a place that's supposed to be all-accepting to all religions and so on.

So evolution SHOULD be taught in a religious environment but Creationism should NOT be taught in a non-religious environment? Hmm.

Yes, it should. Creationism should be taught as a concept that people do believe in and that you're very much able to believe in yourself. Though not learning about evolution and the concepts of it (I'm of course talking public schools here. Christian public school if so be it) limits your education. I say it again; Creationism should be taught in religion classes and not in science classes.

If a young guy goes to a Christian school because his parents assigned him for it (normal christian public school), of course he should get to know about evolution as it's the LEADING concept within science on how our world was created. Creationism should also be taught at this school as much as they'd like (Even as a thing beyond evolution), but not teaching a child about evolution shortens his education quite a bit.

This Norwegian is tired. I'll correct the text tomorrow.

(This is written by a guy who lives in a country with a state lutheran church. Religion is taught in my country and all our schools are christian, still, we have evolution as the leading concept of our science education).

FatherChristmas

08-04-2008, 08:43 PM

Heigh-ho. I did not mean to sit on Fr Christmas and hope he didn't take my post that way. My apologies if it sounded snippy. :p

Nah, it just sounded like you were tired of the subject. :)

The starlight objection to the 6000 year old universe is one which not even Answers in Genesis can explain -- they've admitted such, and they are about the biggest purveyors of Creationist literature and educational materials. If they've admitted there's no defense, I am pretty sure there isn't one.

Ironically, the article I linked to in my response to your note was hosted on the Answers in Genesis site. If the link doesn't work, then just do a google search on "starlight and time, bible" and you'll find it.

OK, as for Bible scholars who argue that Genesis need not be read as three literal days: I don't know how scholarly you find them, but Billy Graham and CS Lewis are a couple of notable Christians who have held this opinion.

They are great men of God and they are entitled to their opinions. But the charge of not being scientifically qualified on the subject is especially powerful when the men you are quoting have no scientific training at all.

Of the ancient church fathers, very few held the view that Genesis must be read as 6 literal 24-hour days. Many early Christians thought the days were longer -- they thought each day represented 1,000 years. Obviously they were wrong, but it shows that they did not feel the creation story had to be crammed into 6 literal 24-hour days.

From the other article that I linked in my response to you earlier:
It is sometimes claimed that the church fathers believed in long ages for the days in Genesis 1. That is a half truth. The only two who held to this view were Origen and Clement of Alexandria, and they were allegorizers who devised unusual interpretations for every part of Scripture. Their system of allegorizing led to the most unbelievable interpretations, which were bounded only by the limits of their fertile imaginations. Other early commentators on Genesis 1 include the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenacus, and Justin Martyr. Their remarks have frequently been misunderstood to mean that they believed in the day-age theory. That is not true. What they were doing was developing an eschatological framework which included a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth (the millennium). Their logic followed these lines:

a. God worked for six days and rested on the seventh.
b. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years (cf. 2 Peter 3:8).
c. The six days of creation and one day of rest therefore typify the six thousand years of human history that will be concluded by the one thousand-year millennium, followed by eternity. Creation took place on 4000 B.C. therefore the millennium should commence on A.D. 2000, terminate on A.D. 3000, and usher in the timeless period of eternity.

Whether or not we agree with their reasoning and the resulting prophetic framework, we conclude that these early church fathers were not denying the literal six-day creation, but were affirming their faith in it.

Another person often quoted by those who reject a 6-day creation is Augustine. Some people have told me "Augustine didn't believe in a 6-day creation either". I looked into this, and I found that while the claim is true, it is highly misleading. Augustine believed that the creation actually took LESS than 6-days, which doesn't exactly bolster your argument.

This is a relatively new phenomenon in Christianity,

Also from the article I quoted earlier:
The view of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) is that of a six-day creation, of 24 hours apiece.

Thomas Scott's commentary of 1780 generally mentions varying interpretations where they exist, but says nothing about any possibility of the "days" being other than 24-hour periods.

It is only since the middle of the nineteenth century that commentators began talking about long periods of time within Genesis 1 itself. That is truly amazing! The Pentateuch was written by Moses in 1500 B.C. The day-age theory is not mentioned by any serious biblical scholar until the 1800's A.D. For 3300 years this supposed secret lay hidden awaiting the craftiness of nineteenth-century scholarship to unlock its mysteries and reveal them to a waiting world! Something is wrong here. Either God does not know how to express Himself very clearly, or three thousand years' worth of biblical scholars were blind for failing to see this obvious truth, or . . . the whole day-age theory is nothing more than a modern contrivance.

Is there some event in the mid 1800's that would tie in with this? Indeed, there is. It was at this time that Darwin's Origin of Species, Lyell's Principles of Geology, and other evolutionary treatises were flooding the marketplace, resulting in a widespread popular acceptance of the major tenets of evolution.

and it is troubling as it flies in the face of science and creates a barrier to Christ for scientifically-minded non-Christian people. :(

The only true barrier to non-believers is sin. They like it and they want to keep doing it. If they tell you otherwise, they are either unevangelized or dishonest. As our Lord told us "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)

As far as education goes, I think the 6-day creationist curriculums do a dis-service to the students by teaching bad science, and sometimes knowingly perpetuating mistakes (if not lies). Six-Day Creationism is not scientific and should not be taught in the schools, to my mind,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I cannot agree with this.

but neither should students be taught that earth and life here erupted out of random chance, because there is no way science can prove that, either. If evolution is taught, seems to me it should be taught as a theory, and not the gospel.

I can certainly agree with that.

Did I cover all the bases? :)
Not sure, but maybe.

Elentari

08-04-2008, 09:30 PM

Doffen--I guess the biggest barrier to our discussion is the obvious differences in our countries' educational systems. The USA has a definite line between Christian and public education, though there are private non-Christian schools I have never heard of a Christian public one.

I would respond to more but, though it is only 9:30 here, I have had a long day and I am tired. :(

Thank you, Father Christmas, for the research and thought you put into your posts. It's much appreciated. :)

inkspot

08-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Ironically, the article I linked to in my response to your note was hosted on the Answers in Genesis site. If the link doesn't work, then just do a google search on "starlight and time, bible" and you'll find it.
Yah, the link didn't work, plus I am lazy and prefer someone just tell me what the article sez, however, I did notice the link was to an article by Russel Humphries -- I think HoA pointed out that his specialty is not astronomy, and his theory has been debunked as regards his book entitled, Starlight and Time.
To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement.

They are great men of God and they are entitled to their opinions. But the charge of not being scientifically qualified on the subject is especially powerful when the men you are quoting have no scientific training at all.
Sorry, I thought you had asked for Bible experts, not scientists. As for scientists, all the credible ones seem to believe the evidence for a much older earth.

Another person often quoted by those who reject a 6-day creation is Augustine. Some people have told me "Augustine didn't believe in a 6-day creation either". I looked into this, and I found that while the claim is true, it is highly misleading. Augustine believed that the creation actually took LESS than 6-days, which doesn't exactly bolster your argument.
But yes, it does bolster my argument! If we are going to insist on 6 literal days, then we must insist on 6 literal days. Why should Augustine be allowed to think it took less time if I am no allowed to think it took more time? If the early church fathers believed creation took less time than what the Bible says (as YEC's insist), then clearly the timing of creation is not set in stone in Genesis.

The only true barrier to non-believers is sin. They like it and they want to keep doing it. If they tell you otherwise, they are either unevangelized or dishonest. As our Lord told us "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)
This is as may be, but surely you agree there are cultural and intellectual barriers as well? In India, for example, the cultural tendency is to cast Christianity as a "white man's" religion. The cultural barrier has little to do with the sin of the people and more to do with the history of the nation. Among illiterate people, the missions world is discovering, the evangelism techniques of the literate west may not have the impact they could have, not because they are not presented in faith or the targets are sinful, but because the entire system of assimilating new information for people with an aural tradition is vastly different than that of people with a tradition of literacy, and we're more effective to re-think our presentation techniques.

So, if we can allow that there are barriers to the Gospel which are not based in the sinfulness of the hearer, then surely we can allow an intellectual barrier to a person who understands the scientific evidence for an Old Earth when a YEC insists according to the Bible the earth is only 6,000 years old? That is not even in the Bible, and it is very off-putting to someone who understands the scientific evidence (which is all for an older earth).

As for the 6 literal days being the main viewpoint of the Reformers: this is what I call a "recent" development. They were removed from Christ by 1700 years, whereas the early church fathers were much nearer to the Lord's incarnation in their time-frame. Even closer to the days in question were the ancient Hebrews, and it is to be noted that they do not insist on 6 literal days. This being the case, and all the science tending toward a much older universe, then why do we insist that the Bible says something different?

This is the reason I say I don't think 6-day Creationism should be taught in the schools: it has no basis in science, and it has no basis, really, in the Bible. The Bible experts say you can't tell from the Bible exactly how long the 6 days were considering the word "yom" and its many uses and the re-telling of the whole story in Genesis 2, and the science experts say clearly the process took much longer than 6 literal days ... so we would be teaching children a theory which is grounded neither in the Bible nor in science.

What we can teach is what the scientific evidence actually shows, and this is evidence for an old earth -- I think the ultimate cause of life on this old earth cannot be taught as science in school because science cannot prove there was no Creator, and of course, we cannot prove that there was.

FatherChristmas

08-06-2008, 12:26 PM

Yah, the link didn't work, plus I am lazy and prefer someone just tell me what the article sez, however, I did notice the link was to an article by Russel Humphries -- I think HoA pointed out that his specialty is not astronomy, and his theory has been debunked as regards his book entitled, Starlight and Time.

Since you prefer to just see what the article says, I'll quote a portion that is relevant to your critique.

The Rossites chose tactics that confuse the nonexpert reader, in order to leave him depending on their professed academic authority. Most of their equations only regurgitate standard textbook proofs whose conclusions they could simply have cited. If I had not replied on a technical level, nonexperts might have assumed I was not knowledgeable on the issues. Unfortunately, my technical responses leave the average reader in a quandary about who is correct.

However, my quotes of experts from the secular astrophysics literature may help you. Without intending to, these experts support all my major points. Weinberg shows that the crux of the Conner-Page argument is wrong. Hellaby, Sumeruk and Ellis show that a white hole can occur naturally and contain a timeless zone. Harwit shows that real time dilation of physical clocks occurs in my type of cosmology. The Rossites have steadfastly ignored my challenges to comment on the first two citations (the third being more recent). Their silence seems to endorse Starlight and Time.

Sorry, I thought you had asked for Bible experts, not scientists. As for scientists, all the credible ones seem to believe the evidence for a much older earth.

Ok, I think we need to come together on this qualification stuff. HoA says, and you echo, that Humphreys is unqualified to comment on cosmology and relativity because his specialty is Fusion Engineering. I could use the same logic regarding Lewis (whose specialty was not Bible interpretation but Medieval and Classical Literature) and Graham (who has a theology degree but whose specialty for the past half-century has been evangelism). Is it not splitting hairs to say that a person has to be recognized for a certain specialty in order to comment intelligently on it? Humphreys has a PhD in Physics. If you read his responses to the critics (especially his 18-page response to Connor and Page (http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf)) you will see that he is more than capable of holding his own in the field in question.

But this goes to a larger point, and that is whether or not you and I (or anyone else on this forum) is really qualified to evaluate either Humphreys or his critics. I've had a few Physics classes, but in no way am I up to speed on the issues in question. I cited Humphreys only to show that men with advanced degrees in science are not all on the same side on the issue, which you seem to imply. But even if they were, I would still prefer the word of God. He's the only true expert. And what He says is very plain and straightforward. You want my explanation of why Lewis and Graham believe as they do? I would say it's because Lewis was an Anglican (church hierarchy and all that) and because Graham was a guy that didn't like to create enemies (witness his statement about respecting the "many paths to God"). But in the end, it doesn't really matter because they are just giving their opinions, which are no more valid than yours or mine. All Bible translators and interpreters agree that the language in Genesis does not demand an allegorical understanding or long ages of time. In fact, the literal view seems the most likely if you consider nothing more than the text. The difference between you and I is that I don't think that the views of scientists should ever affect theology. If my salvation does not depend on how I stand on this issue, then I am free to choose either view. In that case, I simply err on the side of more faithfulness to God and His word, rather than less. The opinions of scientists do not even factor into my consideration.

But yes, it does bolster my argument! If we are going to insist on 6 literal days, then we must insist on 6 literal days. Why should Augustine be allowed to think it took less time if I am no allowed to think it took more time? If the early church fathers believed creation took less time than what the Bible says (as YEC's insist), then clearly the timing of creation is not set in stone in Genesis.

Actually, it was set in stone in Exodus (Exodus 20:11). Literally. But that technicality aside, I never said that you couldn't take that view if you want to. Augustine had his opinion, you have yours, and I have mine. When I started posting on this thread, it was not with the intention of telling everyone else what they should think. I was only pointing out what I believe. But I am not "insisting on" 6 literal days. That is simply what the text of the scripture says, repeatedly. All I am saying is that I believe what it says, and I see no reason to force my interpretation of scripture through an outside filter. I have already shown that the early church fathers in general did not believe in long ages of time. I cannot show you statements of theirs supporting a "young earth", mostly because in those days no one questioned the idea like they do today. There was no need to state what was commonly believed already.

This post is getting too long so I'll answer the rest of your note in a different post.

FatherChristmas

08-06-2008, 12:47 PM

This is as may be, but surely you agree there are cultural and intellectual barriers as well? In India, for example, the cultural tendency is to cast Christianity as a "white man's" religion.

Why do we not cast it as a "Jewish Man's religion", since that would be more accurate. There are millions of Christians in India. The "cultural tendency" in this case is highly deceptive, but that is typical of sinful people who resist changing their ways.

The cultural barrier has little to do with the sin of the people and more to do with the history of the nation. Among illiterate people, the missions world is discovering, the evangelism techniques of the literate west may not have the impact they could have, not because they are not presented in faith or the targets are sinful, but because the entire system of assimilating new information for people with an aural tradition is vastly different than that of people with a tradition of literacy, and we're more effective to re-think our presentation techniques.

Where did you get this information? Gospel For Asia (for which I am a sponsor) trains native Christians to be pastors and preachers and sends them out to the mission field on foot or on a bicycle. They are starting churches all over the place and the gospel there is spreading like wildfire. The message they preach is the same one that has been preached for centuries. They are more effective than missionaries from the West because they know the local language and culture and because they are there for the duration. But they have not changed the message at all. Send an e-mail to K.P. Yohanan at GFA and he will tell you all about it.

So, if we can allow that there are barriers to the Gospel which are not based in the sinfulness of the hearer, then surely we can allow an intellectual barrier to a person who understands the scientific evidence for an Old Earth when a YEC insists according to the Bible the earth is only 6,000 years old?

I never even bring this subject up in witness encounters, and no one I am witnessing to has ever brought it up to me. It's not an issue, plain and simple. I am speaking from experience, not from conjecture.

That is not even in the Bible, and it is very off-putting to someone who understands the scientific evidence (which is all for an older earth).

Six days for creation is most certainly in the Bible. But again, no one ever brings this up. It's not an obstacle at all.

As for the 6 literal days being the main viewpoint of the Reformers: this is what I call a "recent" development. They were removed from Christ by 1700 years, whereas the early church fathers were much nearer to the Lord's incarnation in their time-frame.

Since only a couple of them ever proposed long ages of time in Genesis, I feel safe in saying that I'm not going against them.

Even closer to the days in question were the ancient Hebrews, and it is to be noted that they do not insist on 6 literal days.

Oh now, this is highly misleading. Tell me, what year is it by the Jewish calendar? ;)

This being the case, and all the science tending toward a much older universe, then why do we insist that the Bible says something different?

Because it does, and the "science" you quote is all based on the assumption that there is a "natural" cause for everything. Since this assumption is clearly at odds with scripture, why should we filter our interpretation of scripture through it? Bad trees produce bad fruit, and bad assumptions produce bad conclusions.

This is the reason I say I don't think 6-day Creationism should be taught in the schools: it has no basis in science, and it has no basis, really, in the Bible. The Bible experts say you can't tell from the Bible exactly how long the 6 days were considering the word "yom" and its many uses and the re-telling of the whole story in Genesis 2, and the science experts say clearly the process took much longer than 6 literal days ... so we would be teaching children a theory which is grounded neither in the Bible nor in science.

What we can teach is what the scientific evidence actually shows, and this is evidence for an old earth -- I think the ultimate cause of life on this old earth cannot be taught as science in school because science cannot prove there was no Creator, and of course, we cannot prove that there was.
I agree with that last sentence. But we should just let the school boards decide what is taught in schools. This solves the problem rather neatly I think.

Hermit of Archenland

08-06-2008, 03:49 PM

Since you prefer to just see what the article says, I'll quote a portion that is relevant to your critique.

Ok, I think we need to come together on this qualification stuff. HoA says, and you echo, that Humphreys is unqualified to comment on cosmology and relativity because his specialty is Fusion Engineering. I could use the same logic regarding Lewis (whose specialty was not Bible interpretation but Medieval and Classical Literature) and Graham (who has a theology degree but whose specialty for the past half-century has been evangelism). Is it not splitting hairs to say that a person has to be recognized for a certain specialty in order to comment intelligently on it? Humphreys has a PhD in Physics. If you read his responses to the critics (especially his 18-page response to Connor and Page (http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf)) you will see that he is more than capable of holding his own in the field in question.

I would not go so far as to say he's unqualified to COMMENT on those subjects. But he does more than comment, he's come up with a completely new cosmological model.

My scientific specialty is organic reaction kinetics and mechanism. If I published a new theory on say the bonding of organometalic cluster compounds then, given my qualifications I would deserve a hearing. But if the experts in that field all dismissed my theory as nonsense it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to accept it

inkspot

08-06-2008, 05:00 PM

Thanks, HoA, good point. :)

I cannot answer all Fr. Christmas’ posts right now, but I do appreciate the thoughtfulness and research which went into it! Bless your heart. You are so much more studious than I. But because you asked, I did do some research. Let’s start there.

If you go to RTB and look at this list, there are links to each person. A ton of them are professors, some are Bible commentators, others are theologians and apologists. I will quote a few of them further in this post.

The following individuals—respected authors, Bible scholars, scientists, pastors, linguists, and more—hold to a diversity of views on the timing of God’s creation. And yet all have affirmed, in documented sources, that an ancient universe and Earth (including big bang cosmology) pose no threat to Christian ...
John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield
John Ankerberg

[Referring to God's Sabbath analogy in Exodus 20:10-11:] By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days ...

... it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day.

What does day mean in the days of creation?

The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." As it is clear that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours.

In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11,12 and 17 for such a usage.

The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis.

In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which may otherwise appear reasonable. The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern.
So here are some Bible experts who allow that the “days” of Genesis need not have been literal 24-hour days. Our own beloved Christian brother and smartie scientist Charn Tim explains further.
For example, the Hebrew language is much smaller than the English language, containing much fewer words than the English language. Another example of this is their word for "father." They use the same word to mean: father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather, etc. Likewise, in the Hebrew language, the word "yom" can mean one of four things, and the meaning is determined mostly through context. These things are:

1) a 12 hour time period, from sunrise to sunset.
2) a 24 hour time period, from sunrise, to sunrise.
3) a time set apart for some purpose of God, ex: "The Day of Atonement" (see Lev. 23:27, for example).
4) an "age" or "eon"-from months to years to millions of years, etc. which certain comprehensive purposes of God are to be accomplished. Ex: Joel chapters 1 and 2, Zephaniah chapters 1 and 2, Malachi 3:17 & 4:1, and there are many others.

The question we must ask ourselves is, what could Moses have meant when he wrote "yom" there in Genesis 1, in explaining the creation of the universe? From the context, I think we can figure this out. First of all, it wasn't until creation day four when God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth" (Gen. 1:14). Clearly, Moses was not intending the word "yom" in Gen. 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, etc. to mean "a 24 hour time period-one rotation period of the earth" when the sun, moon, and stars only became visible to an observer on the earth in creation "day" 4. In its strictest sense, a day in the english language is the rotation period of a heavenly body, of which God had created about 10^26 of. Why would God not mean any one the other heavenly bodies that he had created? By the way, according to the scientific dating methods that we already agree on, the length of a "creation day" is several hundred million years long, which is roughly the same as the rotation period of an ordinary spiral galaxy.

Another piece of contextual evidence that I'll cite for why the author of Genesis intended that one "day" does not mean one 24-hour time period is that after each creation "day", the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning-the xth day." By the way, the Hebrew words "evening and morning" are also translated in other parts of the old testament as "beginning and ending." Anyway, at the end of day 7 which is the "day" that God rested, there is no phrase, "there was evening and morning, day 7." Therefore, we are still in day 7, according to Genesis 2:1-3.

Therefore, God's creation days and the Earth's day represent the different periods of time. Therefore, the Genesis account of the creation of the universe does not contradict modern science.
This is all based, not on science per se, but on Scripture, so that maybe will ease the fears of anyone who thinks the 99% of scientists in the world who believe in old earth are actually trying t undermine faith or are mistaken in their methods, etc.

The rest of my response I will post later. Ugh! More research!

Sunrise

08-07-2008, 01:50 PM

If I might break in quickly (I have not the energy for true debate, and Inky is holding her own), I do want to point out that the listing of pastors, theologians, etc. is not intended to "prove" that Old Earth Creationism is correct anymore than listing all the people who think 9-11 was a government conspiracy would "prove" them correct. Obviously, just because people - even very intelligent people with a lot of knowledge on a subject - admit something is possible doesn't mean it actually happened.

I say this only because in the past the OEs on the thread have been criticized for bringing up all these names as though somehow they were the final authority on the subject. So just for clarity's sake, remember that the purpose is simply to show that even within the Christian community at large, there is no vast consensus on this topic, and those who hold differing viewpoints should not question the validity of each other's faith. (Not that you have done this, FC - on the contrary you have been very well-spoken, reasonable, and respectful, which is much appreciated.)

inkspot

08-07-2008, 02:29 PM

Thanks Sunrise. Good to see you, sweetie! How is the babY And where? He's not in your banner ... :(

Also, the reason I listed those guys, FC did say he did not know of any Bible scholar who believed Genesis 1 reflected anything but 6 literal 24-hour days, and I wanted to show that there are indeed scholars, linguists, etc. who do feel that way. :)

Some stuff to consider while I am still researching my response to FC.
I think that the gist of Charn Tim's original post (which didn't actually address evolution, but the creation of the universe and the time span question), you'll see that he is not questioning the veracity of God's Word, but merely pointing out that the word used for "day" is used in Scripture multiple ways. To superimpose a more narrow, modern usage on it (i.e. day must always and only equal 24 hours) is, in fact, to do the greater damage to the text.

Another example is the use of the term "son". Usually it means "immediate male descendant", but the Scripture uses it also to mean male descendant of any generation - as in "Jesus, son of David". If you were to superimpose the narrower definition on the word "son", you'd be saying Scripture was lying, since we know Jesus was not the immediate male descendant of David.

I learned this distinction from Dr. Francis Schaeffer, evangelical apologist and theologian, and the late 20th century's strongest defender of the integrity, inerrancy, and literal truth of the Sacred Scripture. He was the last person on earth who would seek to undermine the authority of Scripture, yet in the interest of preserving that authority, he pointed out that words could legitimately be understood several ways.
I liken this dilemma (young earth vs. old earth) to the dilemma involving Galileo and the church of the 17th century. The current christian view of the solar system was that of a geo-centered system-that is, that the earth was at the center of the universe. The clergy and others used Psalm 104:5 to justify their position: "He sets the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." To them this meant that (literally) the earth remained stationary relative to all other celestial bodies in the universe, including the sun; therefore, we have a geocentered universe. But what the church failed to realize was that this is poetic license taken on the part of the psalmist; it was using poetic language to describe reality. It was simply not their intent to speak "accurately and scientifically" in the 21st Century sense regarding the orientation of the earth with respect to the rest of the universe. After all, the last I checked, it makes for a pretty lame poem (or psalm) to discuss "scientifically" nuclear physics or astrophysics, for example.

FatherChristmas

08-08-2008, 07:56 AM

I'm going to have to break up this post, since it is too long for forum standards. There is a lot to respond to, and I'll do my best to cover everything.

I would not go so far as to say he's unqualified to COMMENT on those subjects. But he does more than comment, he's come up with a completely new cosmological model.

Which you are perfectly free to reject if you like. But using words like "nonsense" (see below) is insulting. Just say you don't agree and leave it at that.

My scientific specialty is organic reaction kinetics and mechanism. If I published a new theory on say the bonding of organometalic cluster compounds then, given my qualifications I would deserve a hearing. But if the experts in that field all dismissed my theory as nonsense it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to accept it
I am not saying that anyone has to accept it. I don't even know if I accept it. In fact, I'm not even sure exactly what his theory is, having never read his book. But I don't think he should be dismissed out of hand just because he has ruffled the feathers of those whose feathers would be ruffled by any challenge to the reigning "scientific" orthodoxy on origins.

If you go to RTB and look at this list, there are links to each person. A ton of them are professors, some are Bible commentators, others are theologians and apologists. I will quote a few of them further in this post.

All of these men say that a long-age view of Genesis is no threat to Christian...and then the sentence ends. No threat to Christian beliefs? No threat to Christian practices? No threat to Christian church buildings? We may never know. But if the sentence ends with "no threat to Christianity", then I cannot disagree. But that's not really the subject of this discussion.

So here are some Bible experts who allow that the “days” of Genesis need not have been literal 24-hour days.

That's not exactly what your quote says. Look at it again. But I've already stipulated that I can't prove my point. I'm just saying that I believe Genesis 1 means what it says. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but I believe it.

Our own beloved Christian brother and smartie scientist Charn Tim explains further.

Ok, let me see what he says.
For example, the Hebrew language is much smaller than the English language, containing much fewer words than the English language. Another example of this is their word for "father." They use the same word to mean: father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather, etc. Likewise, in the Hebrew language, the word "yom" can mean one of four things, and the meaning is determined mostly through context. These things are:

1) a 12 hour time period, from sunrise to sunset.
2) a 24 hour time period, from sunrise, to sunrise.
3) a time set apart for some purpose of God, ex: "The Day of Atonement" (see Lev. 23:27, for example).
4) an "age" or "eon"-from months to years to millions of years, etc.

It can mean an indefinite period of time, but there is no place in the Bible where "millions of years" is ever referenced. Sticking strictly to scripture, and leaving out the speculations of evolutionists, it can mean a period of time stretching from months to years if the context indicates it.

which certain comprehensive purposes of God are to be accomplished. Ex: Joel chapters 1 and 2, Zephaniah chapters 1 and 2, Malachi 3:17 & 4:1, and there are many others.

He is referring here to passages talking about "the day of the Lord", but none of them demand a long period of time. They could mean that, or they could mean one day. The context never demands a long period of time, but I think it's reasonable to say that the "day of the Lord" could be an indefinite period. However, this phrase is not used in Genesis 1.

The question we must ask ourselves is, what could Moses have meant when he wrote "yom" there in Genesis 1, in explaining the creation of the universe? From the context, I think we can figure this out. First of all, it wasn't until creation day four when God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth" (Gen. 1:14). Clearly, Moses was not intending the word "yom" in Gen. 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, etc. to mean "a 24 hour time period-one rotation period of the earth" when the sun, moon, and stars only became visible to an observer on the earth in creation "day" 4.

There were no observers on the earth at the time. Clearly, the signs were meant for the future. And how exactly does this address the length of the day? Actually, the length of the day was already established on day one as being "evening followed by morning". I ask again, if God wanted us to know that it was a normal day, how in the world could he have made it any clearer? Can anyone tell me that?

In its strictest sense, a day in the english language is the rotation period of a heavenly body, of which God had created about 10^26 of.

This is merely modern usage. The earliest usage of the word undoubtedly reckoned a day to be one full cycle of light followed by darkness (or the reverse in the Jewish way of thinking).

Why would God not mean any one the other heavenly bodies that he had created?

Again, he had already defined the length of a day before any of the heavenly bodies had been created. The heavenly bodies are irrelevant to the question.

By the way, according to the scientific dating methods that we already agree on, the length of a "creation day" is several hundred million years long, which is roughly the same as the rotation period of an ordinary spiral galaxy.

We already agree on this? No, I don't agree that you can accurately say anything is millions of years old. That is an estimate only.

To be continued...

FatherChristmas

08-08-2008, 08:03 AM

Ok, now I can respond to the rest of the Charn Tim quote, plus some other stuff.

Another piece of contextual evidence that I'll cite for why the author of Genesis intended that one "day" does not mean one 24-hour time period is that after each creation "day", the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning-the xth day." By the way, the Hebrew words "evening and morning" are also translated in other parts of the old testament as "beginning and ending."

Not according to Strongs, and they track both the KJV and the NASB. What Bible are you looking at, and where do you find the words "ereb" and "boqer" translated as "beginning" or "ending"? Please tell me the verses if you have them.

Anyway, at the end of day 7 which is the "day" that God rested, there is no phrase, "there was evening and morning, day 7." Therefore, we are still in day 7, according to Genesis 2:1-3.

God never said we are still in day 7. You are making an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, God's creation days and the Earth's day represent the different periods of time. Therefore, the Genesis account of the creation of the universe does not contradict modern science.

I never said it contradicts modern science. We certainly have no disagreement there. But since 95% of the time, the word "yom" means an ordinary day in the Old Testament, I would say the very first use of the word probably follows the primary usage. Call me crazy, but if it says "day" it probably means "day", unless the context demands something else. In this case, it doesn't.

Now back to comments from Inkspot.

This is all based, not on science per se, but on Scripture, so that maybe will ease the fears of anyone who thinks the 99% of scientists in the world who believe in old earth are actually trying t undermine faith or are mistaken in their methods, etc.

I make no accusations against scientists per se; I believe they are mostly sincere in their desire to increase our knowledge. But I don't think a theory (or set of theories) that are based on the assumption that there must be a "natural" cause for everything should be imposed upon the interpretation of scripture. Let scripture interpret scripture, and let the word of God be the highest authority.

Also, the reason I listed those guys, FC did say he did not know of any Bible scholar who believed Genesis 1 reflected anything but 6 literal 24-hour days, and I wanted to show that there are indeed scholars, linguists, etc. who do feel that way. :)

Every Bible I have seen translates "yom" as "day" in Genesis 1. None of them translate it as "eon" or "age" or "indefinite period". Most commentaries list all of the possible usages of "yom", but all of the ones I've seen agree that based on the text alone the ordinary meaning of day is in view in Genesis 1. I have no doubt that some have written books advocating long ages for the days (Hugh Ross, etc.), but the list you gave me was agreeing with the statement that these long ages "pose no threat to Christian..." (elipsis in your original). That is not the same as saying they actually believe it. And I don't consider Hugh Ross to be a Bible scholar because he is clearly a scientist first and foremost. I suppose this is a matter of opinion, so let me stipulate that I don't think you are wrong. I just haven't seen a Bible translation or Bible commentary take your position on this. They all agree that the answer cannot be known for certain, but they say the most likely answer is that the days are just ordinary days based on the text alone.

Some stuff to consider while I am still researching my response to FC.
Here follows the comments of Prince of the West:
I think that the gist of Charn Tim's original post (which didn't actually address evolution, but the creation of the universe and the time span question), you'll see that he is not questioning the veracity of God's Word, but merely pointing out that the word used for "day" is used in Scripture multiple ways. To superimpose a more narrow, modern usage on it (i.e. day must always and only equal 24 hours) is, in fact, to do the greater damage to the text.

Another example is the use of the term "son". Usually it means "immediate male descendant", but the Scripture uses it also to mean male descendant of any generation - as in "Jesus, son of David". If you were to superimpose the narrower definition on the word "son", you'd be saying Scripture was lying, since we know Jesus was not the immediate male descendant of David.

I learned this distinction from Dr. Francis Schaeffer, evangelical apologist and theologian, and the late 20th century's strongest defender of the integrity, inerrancy, and literal truth of the Sacred Scripture. He was the last person on earth who would seek to undermine the authority of Scripture, yet in the interest of preserving that authority, he pointed out that words could legitimately be understood several ways.

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Schaeffer, but I don't think what I am doing is "superimposing a narrow, modern usage". As I have pointed out, 95% of the time in the Old Testament, the word "yom" means just an ordinary day. This is clearly the primary usage of the Hebrew word "yom". Is it really doing "damage to the text" to assume that the first use of the word in the entire Bible is following the primary usage, especially when the context points in that direction?

Here are some more comments from Charn Tim:
I liken this dilemma (young earth vs. old earth) to the dilemma involving Galileo and the church of the 17th century. The current christian view of the solar system was that of a geo-centered system-that is, that the earth was at the center of the universe. The clergy and others used Psalm 104:5 to justify their position: "He sets the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." To them this meant that (literally) the earth remained stationary relative to all other celestial bodies in the universe, including the sun; therefore, we have a geocentered universe. But what the church failed to realize was that this is poetic license taken on the part of the psalmist; it was using poetic language to describe reality. It was simply not their intent to speak "accurately and scientifically" in the 21st Century sense regarding the orientation of the earth with respect to the rest of the universe. After all, the last I checked, it makes for a pretty lame poem (or psalm) to discuss "scientifically" nuclear physics or astrophysics, for example.

Fair enough. But Genesis is not poetry. It's a historical book. Should we interpret the story of Abraham as poetic allegory? How about Jacob? Joseph? What about the rest of the Torah? Genesis is a history book. The context of Genesis 1 is a bland historical account of the creation. No poetry there.

FatherChristmas

08-08-2008, 08:36 AM

Update: I went to the "reasons" site that Inkspot listed in order to get the complete statement that all those notable Christian authors were agreeing with. Here it is.

The following individuals—respected authors, Bible scholars, scientists, pastors, linguists, and more—hold to a diversity of views on the timing of God’s creation. And yet all have affirmed, in documented sources, that an ancient universe and Earth (including big bang cosmology) pose no threat to Christian orthodoxy, but rather may be considered plausible and valid interpretations, even literal interpretations, of the biblical text. Not one sees the question of age as a crucial doctrinal issue.

The statement is not saying that they all agree with the "long ages" view of Genesis 1, they're just saying that it does not threaten Christian Orthodoxy. Although I don't really disagree with the statement, I think it's a little deceptive to gloss over the difference between agreeing with the long view and saying that it doesn't threaten Christianity. Inkspot, I'm not saying that you are at fault here, I believe you sincerely thought that you were giving a list of those who agreed with your position. I guess to anyone who reads this site in the future I would say caveat lector.

Elentari

08-08-2008, 12:58 PM

Update: I went to the "reasons" site that Inkspot listed in order to get the complete statement that all those notable Christian authors were agreeing with. Here it is.

"The following individuals—respected authors, Bible scholars, scientists, pastors, linguists, and more—hold to a diversity of views on the timing of God’s creation. And yet all have affirmed, in documented sources, that an ancient universe and Earth (including big bang cosmology) pose no threat to Christian orthodoxy, but rather may be considered plausible and valid interpretations, even literal interpretations, of the biblical text. Not one sees the question of age as a crucial doctrinal issue. "

The statement is not saying that they all agree with the "long ages" view of Genesis 1, they're just saying that it does not threaten Christian Orthodoxy. Although I don't really disagree with the statement, I think it's a little deceptive to gloss over the difference between agreeing with the long view and saying that it doesn't threaten Christianity. Inkspot, I'm not saying that you are at fault here, I believe you sincerely thought that you were giving a list of those who agreed with your position. I guess to anyone who reads this site in the future I would say caveat lector.

I would say, based on the quote FC was discussing, that what those men were saying is the same as what WE were saying when we said that this dicussion does not affect salvation. By "posing no threat" to Christian orthodoxy, I take this to mean that the concept does not add or detract from the basic tenents of Christian doctrine. I don't recall 24 hour days of Creation being a "basic tenent". :) I continue to believe that Creation happened as Genesis says, and I continue to be glad that FC has joined this discussion. :) My only problem is I don't know Latin, so I don't know what "caveat lector" means. :confused: At least I'm guessing its Latin...:o

FatherChristmas

08-08-2008, 02:52 PM

I would say, based on the quote FC was discussing, that what those men were saying is the same as what WE were saying when we said that this dicussion does not affect salvation. By "posing no threat" to Christian orthodoxy, I take this to mean that the concept does not add or detract from the basic tenents of Christian doctrine. I don't recall 24 hour days of Creation being a "basic tenent". :) I continue to believe that Creation happened as Genesis says, and I continue to be glad that FC has joined this discussion. :) My only problem is I don't know Latin, so I don't know what "caveat lector" means. :confused: At least I'm guessing its Latin...:o
Yes, it's Latin. It means "let the reader beware". So the two years of Latin I had back at Catholic High School weren't a total waste. (over the smiley limit so please insert an imaginary smiley here)

Hermit of Archenland

08-08-2008, 08:10 PM

Fair enough. But Genesis is not poetry. It's a historical book. Should we interpret the story of Abraham as poetic allegory? How about Jacob? Joseph? What about the rest of the Torah? Genesis is a history book. The context of Genesis 1 is a bland historical account of the creation. No poetry there.

I would not entirely agree. Certainly Genesis is narrative rather than straightforward poetry like the Psalms, although it does have poetical elements. But I would not consider it history. The two differing accounts of creation should be enough to warn us against regarding the first few chapters of Genesis as a straightforward historical account

the freak sisters

08-08-2008, 10:04 PM

I am a Christian and I believe that God created the world and all in the six days/ 24 hour days... I don't think the earth was made billions of years ago, but that's just my opinion...

FatherChristmas

08-08-2008, 10:09 PM

I would not entirely agree. Certainly Genesis is narrative rather than straightforward poetry like the Psalms, although it does have poetical elements. But I would not consider it history. The two differing accounts of creation should be enough to warn us against regarding the first few chapters of Genesis as a straightforward historical account
Genesis chapter two is just some details from day 6 in chapter 1. This is clear from the introduction in Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." It's very much like a sports report where the broadcasters tell you the score of the game and then proceed to tell you some details from the game like who was the leading rusher, etc. I have never understood why people think this is two different creation accounts. I've read those chapters many times and that thought never occurred to me until I heard it from some atheist trying to discredit the scriptures. Of course, I'm not looking to find contradictions and objections to a straightforward account, so maybe that's my problem.

Elentari

08-08-2008, 10:53 PM

Genesis chapter two is just some details from day 6 in chapter 1. This is clear from the introduction in Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." It's very much like a sports report where the broadcasters tell you the score of the game and then proceed to tell you some details from the game like who was the leading rusher, etc. I have never understood why people think this is two different creation accounts. I've read those chapters many times and that thought never occurred to me until I heard it from some atheist trying to discredit the scriptures. Of course, I'm not looking to find contradictions and objections to a straightforward account, so maybe that's my problem.

Thanks, FC, I was going to say the same thing. People keep on calling it "two accounts" and I run back to Genesis and read it again (never a bad idea!) as I think to myself..."I don't remember that, where do they get that idea?" I liked your comparison to the broadcasters, FC...that's a simple way to look at it. The first part is a step by step, as your watching, then chapter 2 begins like "Now if you missed that, this is what happened in a nutshell". :D

Hermit of Archenland

08-09-2008, 07:36 AM

Genesis chapter two is just some details from day 6 in chapter 1. This is clear from the introduction in Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." It's very much like a sports report where the broadcasters tell you the score of the game and then proceed to tell you some details from the game like who was the leading rusher, etc. I have never understood why people think this is two different creation accounts. I've read those chapters many times and that thought never occurred to me until I heard it from some atheist trying to discredit the scriptures. Of course, I'm not looking to find contradictions and objections to a straightforward account, so maybe that's my problem.

No they are actually completely seperate accounts of creation. They differ not only in the order of events but even in characteristic word usage, for example the use of Yahweh and Elohim for God. The two versions almost certainly have seperate origins.

This is probably the major difference between us. You think of Genesis as history. I consider it a theological rather than a historical document. The same is true of the Gospels. The Gospels deal with historical events, but they are not history. They are stories woven around historical events for a theological purpose.

FatherChristmas

08-09-2008, 08:40 AM

No they are actually completely seperate accounts of creation. They differ not only in the order of events but even in characteristic word usage, for example the use of Yahweh and Elohim for God. The two versions almost certainly have seperate origins.

I am more than "almost certain" that the entire Bible is from God, which would constitute one origin.

This is probably the major difference between us. You think of Genesis as history. I consider it a theological rather than a historical document. The same is true of the Gospels. The Gospels deal with historical events, but they are not history. They are stories woven around historical events for a theological purpose.
Yes, we are most certainly different in our theology. You sound like a follower of N.T. Wright and his "narrative theology". I cannot agree with your assertions, but you are free to believe what you like.

Adanedhel

08-09-2008, 09:10 AM

Should we follow evolution?

My senior year of high school I observed many species whose subtle differences from one geographic area to the next resembled speciation. For example, the squirrels of Chester County are big, have fluffy tails and are grey. The squirrels in Pittsburgh have darker coats, thinner bodies and skinny tails. The different populations do not interbreed, how could they? Their genetic material, therefore, is unique to their specific population and caused by their isolation from other groups of squirrel.

Microevolution provides great explanations for differences among populations of the same species. Don't discount all evolution as atheistic.

Hermit of Archenland

08-09-2008, 09:20 AM

I am more than "almost certain" that the entire Bible is from God, which would constitute one origin. .
I personally am totally certain the entire Bible comes from God. Ultimately then it does have one primary origin, but many secondary ones. No one could seriously claim the Book of Ecclessiastes and the Book of Revelation are stylistically identical. Individual writers do have an influence on the style of Scripture. I think many have a rather naive, one dimensional view of Divine Inspiration. They imagine each book being dictated by God almost like automatic writing. Any suggestion of multiple sources for a single book is seen as undermining the Bible's status as an inspired text. I disagree. I see the Holy Spirit at work not only in the composition of primary sources but also in the process of editing and redaction.

Yes, we are most certainly different in our theology. You sound like a follower of N.T. Wright and his "narrative theology". I cannot agree with your assertions, but you are free to believe what you like.

I am actually a great admires ot Tom Wright, especially his emphasis on the "cosmic Lordship" of Christ, an area theology has seriously neglected. But there are many issues on which I profoundly disagree with him.

You're free to believe what you like as well, but I wonder if there's any point continuing our discussion, especially as we've veered rather off topic. We are so different in our viewpoints that I don't really see any possibility of resolving our differences. Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree

FatherChristmas

08-09-2008, 10:02 AM

I personally am totally certain the entire Bible comes from God. Ultimately then it does have one primary origin, but many secondary ones. No one could seriously claim the Book of Ecclessiastes and the Book of Revelation are stylistically identical. Individual writers do have an influence on the style of Scripture. I think many have a rather naive, one dimensional view of Divine Inspiration. They imagine each book being dictated by God almost like automatic writing. Any suggestion of multiple sources for a single book is seen as undermining the Bible's status as an inspired text. I disagree. I see the Holy Spirit at work not only in the composition of primary sources but also in the process of editing and redaction.

It is one thing to talk about multiple human authors, but another to use the phrase "separate origins". Now that we've cleared that up, let me say that calling others "naive" is probably not the best way to edify your fellow Christian brothers and sisters. We are not talking about an issue in which you have knowledge. The Hebrew tradition holds that Moses was the author of the Torah (or at least the editor). Could there have been multiple primary sources? Sure. But this is an area of possibility, not of knowledge. We do know that there were multiple human authors for the book of Psalms. But any such claim regarding Genesis is mostly speculative. It is not "naive" to believe that Moses could have written all of it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I am actually a great admires ot Tom Wright, especially his emphasis on the "cosmic Lordship" of Christ, an area theology has seriously neglected. But there are many issues on which I profoundly disagree with him.

I understand you a lot better now.

You're free to believe what you like as well, but I wonder if there's any point continuing our discussion, especially as we've veered rather off topic. We are so different in our viewpoints that I don't really see any possibility of resolving our differences. Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree

If you insist on a type of "narrative theology" akin to that of N.T. Wright, then there is probably no way we will ever be able to agree on anything concerning the scriptures.

Elentari

08-09-2008, 07:53 PM

No they are actually completely seperate accounts of creation. They differ not only in the order of events but even in characteristic word usage, for example the use of Yahweh and Elohim for God. The two versions almost certainly have seperate origins.

1. Completely separate accounts of Creation: I have both the NKJV and NIV translations of the Bible. When I read chapter 2, compared to chapter 1, I do not see two separate accounts. Chapter 2 focuses on the creation of Man and the actions of Adam and Eve (beginning with Adam naming the animals). Chapter 1 is a play-by-play step-by-step order of events. They may not be written the same, but they do not contradict each other.

2. When I searched online, I found that Elohiym is plural (with singular meaning: God) so it would be referring to the Trinity (referred to as "we" and "our" during the Creation story). According to Strong's, in both chapters 1 and 2 the word for God is the same (Elohiym). In chapter 2 God is referred to as LORD (Jehovah-Yahweh) God (Elohiym). Jehovah (Yahweh) is considered His "proper name". So, when God interacts with Adam in the Garden, the name Yahweh could possibly have been used to signify God the Father--His more personal name. (Yahweh can also be translated "I Am")

3. Order of Events: I'll wait on this until I hear how YOU think they're different. :)

This is probably the major difference between us. You think of Genesis as history. I consider it a theological rather than a historical document. The same is true of the Gospels. The Gospels deal with historical events, but they are not history. They are stories woven around historical events for a theological purpose.

4. Theological purpose vs. historical purpose?
What makes something an historical account then if books that deal with historical events are not historical accounts? I can understand something not being history if it is a fictional story that was set in a historical time, or something like The Illiad that had mythological elements, but I do not understand your meaning.

5. The Gospels aren't history? Do you believe the Gospels are TRUE?
For example: Acts (or The Acts of the Apostles) can be referred to as the History of the Early Church, Romans-Jude are letters by Paul and other disciples to the churches or to specific believers. Revelation is a vision of the Apostle John. How do you view Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Whether or not you can use them in a history book does not determine if something is or is not "history". In my view if something HAPPENED it makes it "history". With that definition, to link it back to Genesis, the story of the Children of Abraham is the HISTORY of the Hebrew people. You say this is just a theological account and not historical?

Ephinie

08-10-2008, 01:50 AM

FatherChristmas

08-10-2008, 12:21 PM

Hey, here's a question that might help in our discussion if answered. Since we were debating whether or not there were two creation stories in Genesis... from two human authors. Is it tradition that tells us Moses wrote the ENTIRE book of Genesis, or does it mention somewhere in the Scriptures themselves that he was the only author?
It is tradition that says Moses wrote the Torah (literally "the law", the Hebrew name for the first five books of the Old Testament). But that tradition presumably would not rule out the idea that Moses merely compiled the information in Genesis (and the first couple chapters of Exodus) from other sources. The books themselves are mostly silent on authorship. The only clue we get is that when Moses was on Mt. Sinai it is written that God dictated to him all of the law and he wrote it down. What is unclear is how much God gave to Moses. Was it all of Genesis through Leviticus? Or was it just the last part of Exodus plus Leviticus? Numbers and Deuteronomy would have to have been written later, because they contain historical events that happened after the Israelites left Mt. Sinai. But Moses was present for 99% of that and so it seems likely that he wrote it, leaving out the post-script about his death and burial. Perhaps Joshua wrote those.

Regarding the first two chapters of Genesis, God would have to have dictated that to someone (or otherwise revealed it), because there was no one around to see it other than Him.

inkspot

08-12-2008, 08:21 PM

Wow! I am missing out on a great discussion. Sorry, I have not had time to keep up with it! I have been doing my research, though. I hope that what I have to post today is not really extraneous at this point. (For what it's worth just from the posts on this page which I had time to read: I agree with HoA that the two creation accounts differ significantly and tend to shore up the idea that they are poetical looks at the same event.)

OK, let me say that there’s no one who believes more strongly in the idea that Christian morality is being persecuted in the USA, and Christians are being sat on in every kind of way. I believe there is a huge media bias against Christianity. I believe there is a political and social trend to reduce Christianity to an aberration, as has been done in Europe. I totally agreed with Ben Stein’s perspective in Expelled. that even the “scientific establishment” wants to stop people believing there is any God or any reason for life.

However, where scientists do not try to posit God’s existence, they are still free to do their research and publish their findings, and all reputable findings in geology, astronomy, cosmology point to the evidence for a universe that is 14 billion years old and an earth that is 4.5 billion years old.

Any YEC’s claiming a 6,000 year old earth are not using credible scientific evidence. It’s just that simple. Nowhere outside a YEC-based community will you find acceptance for a young earth.

Scientists will hold their nose and admit that the universe had a beginning, as noxious as that is to them, because this is what the best evidence puts forward. (They don’t like the universe having a beginning, because it suggests there was a “cause,” something that started it, but they do admit that it had a beginning, because that cannot be refuted.) If you’re up for it, read Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion.

If there were any evidence that could not be refuted that the earth were only 6,000 years old, scientists would deal with it. They would not and could not squelch it. There’s just no such evidence. But there is a ton of evidence that it is much older.

I’m not going to say more about the scientific evidence, because it speaks for itself, and what we have tried to do here is focus on the Scriptural record, and why it is that YEC’s believe the Scriptures say the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days.

So ... on to my research.

Definition of the Hebrew word “yom” used for “day” in Genesis 1-2.

... from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger
It can mean a season or an age, and so there is no reason to assume the days of creation were literal 24-hour days.

Where this word “yom” is used in the Bible, it is translated in many different ways:

• In 67 verses it is translated as “time” as in Genesis 4:3, “in the process of time it came to pass.
• In 4 verses it is translated as “year.”
• In 8 verses it is translated as “age.”
• One time (1 Samuel 9:20) it is translated as “ago.”
• Four times it is translated as “always.”
• Three times it is translated as “season.”
• Eleven times it is translated as “continually.”
• Nineteen times it is translated as “ever,” as in Deuteronomy 19:9, “to walk ever in His ways.” Sixteen of those times it is part of the term “for ever.” Eternity!

So, we cannot say that “yom” always means a literal 24-hour day. It could as easily indicate the beginning and ending of one creative period of time, and to an eternal God, that could be billions of years. This is the same Guy who told Abraham his descendants would outnumber the grains of sand -- why didn’t he just say, “Millions”? Because, what was a million to Abraham? The grains of sand thing was much better for him. God is a poet. ☺

YEC’s say that whenever the word “yom” is used in conjunction with the phrase “evening and morning,” or with a numeral like “the 6th day” that it means a literal 24-hour day, but in my study, I found this not to be true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, for instance, one day (a numbered day, one) is referred to as the time the Lord will reign over the earth. We all know this will be longer than one literal 24-hour day.

Does the construction, “evening and morning, the Xth day” actually mean one single sunrise and sunset? How could it, considering according to the strict literalist theory, there was no sun until the 4th day? In this case, the Bible would be outright lying, wouldn’t it, to say there were a literal sunrise and sunset before there was a literal sun?

For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
Does this mean if you are weeping tonight, you may expect joy at sunrise? No ... and yet here we have the word “yom” associated with an evening and a morning, and we don’t say the psalmist was lying or talking about a literal 24-hour day. We accept that he was speaking of a time to come when God will wipe the tears from our eyes ...

This concludes my study on the word “yom.” I am sorry if I have ignored any questions or stuff that needs answering! I will try to get back to it.

FatherChristmas

08-12-2008, 11:12 PM

Inkspot, you have certainly done a lot of research. Your comments are very thorough. In order to keep my responses short, I'll not reply to every point. From what I can see, you are basically making two main points:

1. Scientists have established a definite age for both the earth and the universe, and therefore Christians should accept it.

2. The word "yom" can be translated in many different ways, and therefore no one should believe that it means 24-hour days when used in Genesis 1 and 2.

Let me address the second point first. First of all, no one has denied that "yom" can be translated in different ways. No one. But the fact that it CAN mean a period longer than a literal day does not mean that it MUST be understood in that way in Genesis. Your point about the sun not existing on the first three days of creation is interesting, but keep in mind that God made light on day one. Where did the light come from? There were no sources of light, at least none that we can understand in our limited minds. But God is able to provide light on His own. In Revelation 21:23 it says that the Holy City will not need the sun or moon because God will give it light on His own. There was evening and morning on the first day, and the two following it, because God was able to provide it without a source. So, understanding that God can provide light without a light source, He defined what a day is by causing the light to recede at some point and then causing it to shine again later. This was part of God's plan.

Next, I found your use of Psalm 30:5 to be very instructive. The words "night" and "morning" were used there metaphorically. But would anyone understand the metaphor if they didn't know what the literal meaning of "night" and "morning" was? Of course not! It's like if I was speaking to a person who had never heard of the sport of basketball, and I said something like "this job interview is going to be a slam dunk", that person wouldn't know what I was talking about. They don't understand the literal meaning of "slam dunk", and so the metaphor would make no sense to them. Likewise, if God had not defined the word "day", all the figurative uses of the word later in the scriptures would have made no sense. That is why it is more likely that the initial uses of "yom" are best translated into the primary usage of the word (i.e. "day"). You have to establish the literal meaning of the word before the figurative meanings will make any sense.

In conclusion, there is no question that "yom" is sometimes used figuratively, and in these instances, it indicates a period longer than a day. But the primary usage is that of a literal day, and Genesis chapter 1 features the first uses of the word in the Bible. The word is defined there. The figurative usages come later, after the literal meaning has been established. Is it possible that I am wrong about this? Sure it is. But I'm going with the most likely possibility, based on the text only.

As for the first point about what scientists maintain, keep in mind that these dates are estimates only. No one knows how old the earth and the universe are. If they say that they know, they are not being honest with you. The estimates are based on assumptions which cannot be proven. Finally, the assumptions are based on the theoretical framework that scientists use to address the question of origins: that everything must have a "natural" cause. I believe that God created everything, which means that I believe their theoretical framework is flawed at its very foundation. That means the assumptions they make about the composition and state of the earth and the universe are also flawed, and thus their conclusions based on these assumptions are unsound. After all, the very definition of a sound argument is that all of your assumptions are true. I know that their primary assumption is false, and therefore I am very confident that their estimates for the age of the earth and the universe are unsound. Does that mean that I know the exact age of everything? No. I make no claims in that regard. The Bible does not say exactly, and I would rather not speculate where the scriptures are silent.

Elentari

08-12-2008, 11:38 PM

YEC’s say that whenever the word “yom” is used in conjunction with the phrase “evening and morning,” or with a numeral like “the 6th day” that it means a literal 24-hour day, but in my study, I found this not to be true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, for instance, one day (a numbered day, one) is referred to as the time the Lord will reign over the earth. We all know this will be longer than one literal 24-hour day.

I am curious to know what translation you used for the verses in Zechariah, Inky. I looked it up in NIV and NKJV. Though the NKJV mentions the word "one" in description of a day (verse 7), it is not used in a context anywhere similar to how it is used in Genesis 1 or 2. It is not "the first day" or "the end of day one", but "one day"!

"It shall be one day which is known to the Lord--Neither day nor night. But at evening time it shall happen that it will be light." (Zech. 14:7, NKJV)

If you cross reference that verse with the NIV, you get this:

"It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime--a day known to the Lord. When evening comes, there will be light" (Zech 14:7, NIV)

Everywhere else in this chapter, both the NIV and NKJV, when "day" is referenced it is referred to as "that day". Chapter 14 begins "A day is coming". Inky dear, I understand the point you were trying to make. However, these verses are not speaking of the ENTIRE reign of the Lord, but the FIRST DAY of the entire reign. (And I have no doubt He can do everything He mentions in chapter 14 in 24 hours!)

A day is coming...and on THAT day...a UNIQUE day. I read the chapter all together and I read about "the day of the Lord" that is coming--probably the FINAL day, His "second coming" when every day INCLUDING and AFTER that He reigns. On THAT day it will all BEGIN. I think of my parents saying "One day you'll thank me for this!" They're not saying I will only thank them for one day, but I will BEGIN to thank them one day! This is not the same word usage in ENGLISH as "and on the seventh day, God rested" or "Sunday is the first day of the week", so I doubt it is the same in Hebrew.

Ephinie

08-13-2008, 01:50 AM

FatherChristmas, I think that in one particular assertion you made in your last post, the reasoning behind it doesn't hold up.

In conclusion, there is no question that "yom" is sometimes used figuratively, and in these instances, it indicates a period longer than a day. But the primary usage is that of a literal day, and Genesis chapter 1 features the first uses of the word in the Bible. The word is defined there. The figurative usages come later, after the literal meaning has been established. Is it possible that I am wrong about this? Sure it is. But I'm going with the most likely possibility, based on the text only.
Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean, but the way it is worded puts me in mind of thinking that your contention is that yom is most reasonably regarded as the literal sense in Genesis 1 BECAUSE it is at the beginning of the Scriptures, and therefore it establishes the literal precedent by which all figurative uses can be understood. I don't believe that reasoning holds up in this case because if that were true, it would mean that the word yom was either never used or not used often enough already - verbally - for people to otherwise understand what it meant until it was used here. But spoken language is older than written language, and I don't think for a minute that the original audience for whom this account was written would have had any trouble understanding a figurative use of a word that they likely used every day.

So, to address your basketball metaphor, of course people who do not understand what basketball is would not understand the statement, "This job interview is going to be a slam dunk!" But you don't have to explain the game of basketball to all of US for us to understand it, because most of us already do (at least if we live in the USA) know about it. Likewise, the original audience that first read/heard/were told the story in the beginning of Genesis would already understand the literal usage of the word yom, and so it could have been used as an effective metaphor.

Of course God knew exactly how the Scriptures would one day be ordered, but at the time that the Genesis account was put together, the Scriptures weren't complete. So who knows but young Hebrews might not have been introduced to the beginning of Genesis as their first exposure to scripture. So what sense would it make that it would be more likely to have the literal meaning simply because it happens to have been placed first?

Also, I think that if it is not explicitly stated within Scripture somewhere that Moses wrote the Torah, then it does not take away any of the authority of Scripture if we conjecture about alternate sources or seemingly seperate accounts. I don't want to knock tradition, because I believe tradition is incredibly important to our Christian lives. But tradition can make a mistake, whereas Scripture does not make mistakes.

It seems that the only relevance that authorship has in this discussion (as in one account with a subsequent footnote vs. two seperate accounts) is in proving or disproving the first couple chapters of Genesis as having a literal meaning. Personally, I don't think that is a good line of argument to persue, but I can see why it would have its usefulness.

FatherChristmas

08-13-2008, 06:23 AM

FatherChristmas, I think that in one particular assertion you made in your last post, the reasoning behind it doesn't hold up.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean, but the way it is worded puts me in mind of thinking that your contention is that yom is most reasonably regarded as the literal sense in Genesis 1 BECAUSE it is at the beginning of the Scriptures, and therefore it establishes the literal precedent by which all figurative uses can be understood. I don't believe that reasoning holds up in this case because if that were true, it would mean that the word yom was either never used or not used often enough already - verbally - for people to otherwise understand what it meant until it was used here. But spoken language is older than written language, and I don't think for a minute that the original audience for whom this account was written would have had any trouble understanding a figurative use of a word that they likely used every day.

I was speaking of the scriptures only, and not the spoken language. It is of course fair to assume that the word was already established in normal usage among the Hebrew peoples, but we have no way of knowing what the normal usage was. Therefore, we cannot make any assumptions regarding that. As for my point regarding this being the first use in the scriptures, please consider all of my previous comments regarding the word's use in the entire Old Testament. In other words, do not consider this last post of mine in isolation, but as a continuation of my previous arguments. "Yom" means a literal day in the vast majority of cases in the Old Testament, therefore this should be regarded as the primary usage of the word. In the case of Genesis 1, this is the first use of the word in the entire scriptures, and so it seems likely to me that the primary usage of the word is what the Lord was aiming for, especially when he defines it as "evening followed by morning". Again, if God wanted us to know that he meant literal days, how could He have made it any clearer?

Also, I think that if it is not explicitly stated within Scripture somewhere that Moses wrote the Torah, then it does not take away any of the authority of Scripture if we conjecture about alternate sources or seemingly seperate accounts. I don't want to knock tradition, because I believe tradition is incredibly important to our Christian lives. But tradition can make a mistake, whereas Scripture does not make mistakes.

It seems that the only relevance that authorship has in this discussion (as in one account with a subsequent footnote vs. two seperate accounts) is in proving or disproving the first couple chapters of Genesis as having a literal meaning. Personally, I don't think that is a good line of argument to persue, but I can see why it would have its usefulness.
I do not necessarily disagree with you here. As I have previously stated, even if tradition is correct there is no reason to rule out the use of multiple sources. But ultimately God is the single source, and so the argument about Genesis 1 and 2 being separate accounts is trivial. Still, the evidence presented thus far for separate human authorship is not something that I would find compelling.

Setmiphus Heap

09-01-2008, 03:26 PM

Evolution is the belief of Humanistic people and yes the United State Government does recognize Humanism as a World Religion. If a Christian believes that God used this theory (Theory meaning that there is no proof, no scientific proof or evidence but based on idea not on fact) then sorry I must be serving the wrong God because it says that God does not need the help of man. Prove to me that Evolution is not a Humanistic belief. Prove to me that these apes came to be human. Faith is how I know and believe and can prove that God really made this earth without the help of a theory.

Here is a good thinking question for all of you who say God had the help of Evolution to create the earth.

If a Christian believes that God had help creating the earth with Evolution then how can he believe in God?(See above opening statement for clarification)

Before any one answers that question I want them to think about it very carefully. Because I want to know how you will debate this with real facts. I want facts not what you think but real facts on how a Humanistic belief is intertwined with the mighty, powerful God.

That is my challenge to every one including the Mods on here.

Also just to throw this out there, I learned all this in my Science class, a Christian Science class that viewed both the Evolution side and God's side. I am taking all of this from my notes I took in the class. From my teacher's mouth to here.

Secondly I would like for all of those who believe Evolution helped God, Explain: since God had the help of Evolution I want to know which part in the bible and where it said that. Specifically tell me why you believe that and where the proof is.

note to all Theistic Christians on here: God has no room for Evolution, Evolution has no room for God.

Sunrise

09-10-2008, 09:50 AM

*sigh* This is why it is so hopelessly impossible to have any kind of intellectually honest debate with those who have been educated in a "Christian Science" curriculum - they come out with such a predetermined anti-evolutionary bias that they refuse to accept any evidence as such. Their interpretation of scripture is held up as indisputable fact while scientific "facts" are assumed to be inherently false and deceptive, and those who dare to call themselves Christians while still giving due consideration to the discoveries of science are automatically under suspicion of either ignorance or willful rejection of God's truth.

Your terminology is misleading, Septimus. You say "faith is how I know and can believe and can prove that God really made this Earth without the help of a theory."

First off, you can't prove anything by faith. It is "believing without seeing". That is what makes it faith.

Secondly, no Christian would honestly say that God had the "help" of evolution, as though evolution were an intelligent entity in and of itself. (I find it interesting that you capitalize it as if it were so.) If I designed and wrote a computer program that would do all my budgeting, I suppose you could say it "helped" me to pay my bills. But as the Author of the program, I am still the one who paid the bills, and it takes no credit away from me to say I did it by using a computer.

With regard to theistic evolution, most Christians would go even further. Using my computer analogy, they'd say God is the Author, the Program itself, and the Computer it runs on. No single bit or byte of information happens without His directive will.

I have nothing to prove by writing this, and no vested interest in which theory is correct. My salvation is through Christ alone and I don't believe I'm going to be denied entrance to the pearly gates because I couldn't make up my mind whether Creation happened in seven days or seven million; I find it far more pressing to live my life in accordance with His will in this present day.

FatherChristmas

09-10-2008, 10:08 AM

*sigh* This is why it is so hopelessly impossible to have any kind of intellectually honest debate with those who have been educated in a "Christian Science" curriculum - they come out with such a predetermined anti-evolutionary bias that they refuse to accept any evidence as such. Their interpretation of scripture is held up as indisputable fact while scientific "facts" are assumed to be inherently false and deceptive, and those who dare to call themselves Christians while still giving due consideration to the discoveries of science are automatically under suspicion of either ignorance or willful rejection of God's truth.

First, you say that you can't have a debate about this stuff, then in the paragraphs below you proceed to have exactly that kind of debate. Which is it? Is it "hopelessly impossible" or are you willing to actually have the debate? I promise that I will be respectful and polite about it. How about we just try?

Secondly, no Christian would honestly say that God had the "help" of evolution, as though evolution were an intelligent entity in and of itself. (I find it interesting that you capitalize it as if it were so.) If I designed and wrote a computer program that would do all my budgeting, I suppose you could say it "helped" me to pay my bills. But as the Author of the program, I am still the one who paid the bills, and it takes no credit away from me to say I did it by using a computer.

With regard to theistic evolution, most Christians would go even further. Using my computer analogy, they'd say God is the Author, the Program itself, and the Computer it runs on. No single bit or byte of information happens without His directive will.

What you're talking about here is not "evolution", but "intelligent design". Even this much is not allowed to be taught in schools according to all of the "scientific experts". If you pretend that the modern scientific academy actually makes room for God when speaking of "evolution", you are being deceptive. "Evolution" as described by scientists is a process that entirely excludes any supernatural entity.

I have nothing to prove by writing this, and no vested interest in which theory is correct. My salvation is through Christ alone and I don't believe I'm going to be denied entrance to the pearly gates because I couldn't make up my mind whether Creation happened in seven days or seven million; I find it far more pressing to live my life in accordance with His will in this present day.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts on this thread, I agree that no one's salvation is riding on their view of origins. Once that is understood, I think we can have a friendly debate on the issue.

Ephinie

09-10-2008, 11:03 AM

Secondly, no Christian would honestly say that God had the "help" of evolution, as though evolution were an intelligent entity in and of itself. (I find it interesting that you capitalize it as if it were so.)
That's not so strange when you realize why this is done. I can tell you, because I myself was educated using the A Beka Book and Bob Jones programs - VERY much anti-evolution, six-day-only Creationism works. We are taught that "Evolution" is a religion. It is always capitalized in the science books because, after all, you capitalize the proper names of religions. They use other sly, subliminal programming techniques as well, which makes it difficult to have a positive opinion of these books. That is unfortunate, because their mission is admirable and very much needed - to have a solid, academic curriculum written from a Christian perspective. The problem is that a Christian perspective should not need to resort to mind games and subliminal tricks, and it should let the truth speak for itself instead of trying to brainwash you into their way of thinking. So there we are.

FatherChristmas, we talked about terms earlier in this thread; and I believe (though I could be mis-remembering, someone correct me if I am) that we agreed the term intelligent design describes ANY view that believes God created the universe - whether through a literal interpretation of six days or through evolution.

Sunrise

09-10-2008, 11:40 AM

FatherChristmas, we talked about terms earlier in this thread; and I believe (though I could be mis-remembering, someone correct me if I am) that we agreed the term intelligent design describes ANY view that believes God created the universe - whether through a literal interpretation of six days or through evolution.

That's the assumption I was building on. There are many, many proponents of intelligent design who have no problem with theistic evolution.

I've been debating this for pages that go back months, FC, and frankly, I'm tired, and have mostly dodged out of the game by now. My rather forceful first paragraph was a response to Septimus's assertions, which were neither scientific nor scriptural, but purely dogmatic.

Carry on.

FatherChristmas

09-10-2008, 11:48 AM

FatherChristmas, we talked about terms earlier in this thread; and I believe (though I could be mis-remembering, someone correct me if I am) that we agreed the term intelligent design describes ANY view that believes God created the universe - whether through a literal interpretation of six days or through evolution.
Evolution (capitalized only because it's the beginning of the sentence, since we're all so sensitive about it) cannot mean two different things. Since it has been established by modern scientists as a theory of origins where only natural causes are considered, then it cannot also mean a theory of origins with God as the cause. I agree that "intelligent design" is a broad term that would include all theistic origin theories. But it does not include evolution because evolution is not theistic. The term "theistic evolution" is a contradiction.

Sunrise

09-11-2008, 12:59 PM

I agree that "intelligent design" is a broad term that would include all theistic origin theories. But it does not include evolution because evolution is not theistic. The term "theistic evolution" is a contradiction.

Michael Behe would certainly disagree. Read "Darwin's Black Box" sometime.

fernshirehobbit

09-11-2008, 01:25 PM

As for the first point about what scientists maintain, keep in mind that these dates are estimates only. No one knows how old the earth and the universe are. If they say that they know, they are not being honest with you. The estimates are based on assumptions which cannot be proven. Finally, the assumptions are based on the theoretical framework that scientists use to address the question of origins: that everything must have a "natural" cause. I believe that God created everything, which means that I believe their theoretical framework is flawed at its very foundation. That means the assumptions they make about the composition and state of the earth and the universe are also flawed, and thus their conclusions based on these assumptions are unsound. After all, the very definition of a sound argument is that all of your assumptions are true. I know that their primary assumption is false, and therefore I am very confident that their estimates for the age of the earth and the universe are unsound. Does that mean that I know the exact age of everything? No. I make no claims in that regard. The Bible does not say exactly, and I would rather not speculate where the scriptures are silent.
this is very true. and often, scientist will disagree and later change their dates...

FatherChristmas

09-11-2008, 01:45 PM

Michael Behe would certainly disagree. Read "Darwin's Black Box" sometime.
He would disagree with which part? I'm a big admirer of Behe, btw.

Sunrise

09-12-2008, 02:39 PM

FatherChristmas

09-12-2008, 04:13 PM

So am I. I think his work is fantastic, and he's a prime example of how scientists who dare to question the materialism you so rightly reject get ostracized and mocked by the secular scientific community.

From what I understand through reading his work, though, the man himself IS a theistic evolutionist, which you keep insisting is a contradiction in terms, or at least has no problem with the idea that God did his creating through the medium of evolutionary progression.

I would have to disagree here. The subtitle of Darwin's Black Box is "the biochemical challenge to evolution". In his preface, he explains what he means by "evolution" (emphasis mine):
Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean something as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community. And that is the sense in which I use the word evolution throughout this book.
(Michael Behe, Preface to the 10th Anniversary edition of Darwin's Black Box, pages X and XI)
With that understanding of the definition of the word, I think you and I can both agree that Behe rejects evolution.

In other words, he rejects evolution by natural selection alone (or at all, possibly). I think that may the key issue here where we are ships passing in the night as far as definition of terms. Evolution is simply a scientifically observed process. As such, it does not deserve to be treated as a religious faith or even philosophy. It's just something that happens.

The kind of rigid materialistic, "everything-must-have-a-natural-cause" that you and I both find to be opposed to the Word of God I would call not evolution but Darwinism. And Darwinism, I would agree, could be considered a religion, because its central tenet is automatically assumed to be true by its adherents in absence of evidence.
The only usefulness that "Darwinism" has is to distinguish those who favor the gradualistic approach (which is the majority of evolutionists) from those who favor the Gould-Eldredge approach, a.k.a. "punctuated equilibrium". A "Darwinist" or "Neo-Darwinist" believes in a process that occurred gradually over time, while a "punctuationist" believes that "evolution" takes place within short periods of intense advancement followed by long periods of stasis. If you're not trying to make this particular distinction, then I would consider "Darwinism" to just be a synonym for "evolution".

Fiddle Girl

09-12-2008, 04:24 PM

i am just jumping in so sorry if someone already said this.
two things.
1 yes, christians should follow evolution ( i mean know about it not believe it) because how are we supposed to convince the other side that we are right if we don't even know how they think
2 this thread really shouldn't be here ( please take no offense at that) because there is only one God and only one God created the earth in only Six days. i believe they were twentyfour hour days also because God knows everything right? so wouldn't he be smart enough to know that humans would make a twentyfour hour day. it think so. also, it is one thing among many you have to use faith in. the Christian walk is all about faith. Period.

thank you for your time.:) lol
btw i am nat

Doffen

09-12-2008, 05:32 PM

Protagonist

09-12-2008, 07:47 PM

That LHC is gonna rock my world baby

-mominator-

09-12-2008, 09:47 PM

Well, I've never seen order come from chaos. I just don't believe it happens unless there is an intelligent being changing things....whether it's the universe being created or my closet being cleaned. : )

FatherChristmas

09-12-2008, 11:59 PM

I'd love to see how the CERN project might spice up the discussion in the future. For those of you who doesn't know, CERN is a project based on finding out the secrets behind the Big-Bang. If the project is successful, they will be able to prove that it happened. What a great thing that would be, and get the discussion overwith.
Actually, what it will prove is that the conditions for a "Big Bang" can be created by intelligent people who work together with a purpose in mind. Thus, it would contribute to the discussion about intelligent design, but would contribute absolutely nothing to the argument for evolution.

Doffen

09-13-2008, 11:08 AM

Actually, what it will prove is that the conditions for a "Big Bang" can be created by intelligent people who work together with a purpose in mind. Thus, it would contribute to the discussion about intelligent design, but would contribute absolutely nothing to the argument for evolution.

Of course it would contribute to the theory of evolution. If the CERN project is successful, it will prove that it is possible for something like the Big Bang to happen.

It wouldn't contribute a thing to intelligent design, because that is not proven in the least, on ANY term.

FatherChristmas

09-13-2008, 12:42 PM

Of course it would contribute to the theory of evolution. If the CERN project is successful, it will prove that it is possible for something like the Big Bang to happen.

But only after being set up by intelligent people who were doing it for that very purpose. In other words, it's an intelligently designed experiment.

It wouldn't contribute a thing to intelligent design, because that is not proven in the least, on ANY term.
Say what you like, but design is at the very foundation of the experiment. The only thing the experiment would prove is that such a thing can happen if there is some intelligence there beforehand to set it up. Now, if the conditions of the experiment were to set themselves up with no help from intelligent people, it might contribute to the argument for evolution. But that is not the case here.

Sunrise

09-13-2008, 02:55 PM

But only after being set up by intelligent people who were doing it for that very purpose. In other words, it's an intelligently designed experiment.

Say what you like, but design is at the very foundation of the experiment. The only thing the experiment would prove is that such a thing can happen if there is some intelligence there beforehand to set it up. Now, if the conditions of the experiment were to set themselves up with no help from intelligent people, it might contribute to the argument for evolution. But that is not the case here.

Finally something FC and I can agree on. :D

The CERN project is a case-in-point argument for Intelligent Design. It's being designed and conducted by intelligent people; it did not happen all on its own.

In regards to Behe, FC, I base my understanding of his personal views on the following quotation from Darwin's Black Box:

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.

He goes on to specify why he believes Darwinian evolution to be insufficient explanation for life on a molecular level, etc. You note that in this passage he is careful to add the "Darwinian" qualifier. I reason that, in the sections you quoted, he is clarifying his terms for the sake of the reader's understanding so that he doesn't have to footnote every mention of "evolution" with the disclaimer: "the Darwinian kind."

FatherChristmas

09-14-2008, 08:16 AM

In regards to Behe, FC, I base my understanding of his personal views on the following quotation from Darwin's Black Box:

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.

He goes on to specify why he believes Darwinian evolution to be insufficient explanation for life on a molecular level, etc. You note that in this passage he is careful to add the "Darwinian" qualifier. I reason that, in the sections you quoted, he is clarifying his terms for the sake of the reader's understanding so that he doesn't have to footnote every mention of "evolution" with the disclaimer: "the Darwinian kind."
He wasn't adding "Darwinian" as a qualifier (at least not in that passage). He was correctly stating that this is how "evolution" is used in the biological sense. There is no need for the qualifier because scientists never make any distinction. As he said: "That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community." Yes, he does accept the notion of common descent, but only within the framework of intelligent design. His book is a challenge to evolution (as the subtitle says), not an endorsement of it.

Doffen

09-14-2008, 08:29 AM

But only after being set up by intelligent people who were doing it for that very purpose. In other words, it's an intelligently designed experiment.

No. We're doing something that we KNOW happens in the real world WITHOUT any help from scientists. The only thing is that we help it getting started here on earth to see the effects of it and to be able to read the data.

Say what you like, but design is at the very foundation of the experiment. The only thing the experiment would prove is that such a thing can happen if there is some intelligence there beforehand to set it up. Now, if the conditions of the experiment were to set themselves up with no help from intelligent people, it might contribute to the argument for evolution. But that is not the case here.

lol.

FatherChristmas

09-14-2008, 03:46 PM

No. We're doing something that we KNOW happens in the real world WITHOUT any help from scientists. The only thing is that we help it getting started here on earth to see the effects of it and to be able to read the data.

I thought this thing was going to prove the "big bang". Are you saying that the "big bang" is happening in the "real world" right now? If so, why aren't we all being destroyed? ;)

Seems to me that you ought to either modify your previous comment or concede the obvious: that there is no "big bang" happening right now and the attempt to set up those exact conditions (which is highly speculative to begin with) is an intelligently designed experiment.

Doffen

09-14-2008, 04:39 PM

I thought this thing was going to prove the "big bang". Are you saying that the "big bang" is happening in the "real world" right now? If so, why aren't we all being destroyed? ;)

Seems to me that you ought to either modify your previous comment or concede the obvious: that there is no "big bang" happening right now and the attempt to set up those exact conditions (which is highly speculative to begin with) is an intelligently designed experiment.

The things that they are doing with the CERN project happens in the universe all the time, especially when the stars implode and makes a black hole. They are trying to make the same conditions in the CERN project as they see it in the universe.

Yes, the CERN project is made by humans, though how can you say:

"But only after being set up by intelligent people who were doing it for that very purpose. In other words, it's an intelligently designed experiment."

The thing is that none of us can say what the CERN project is gonna solve. First of, how can you say that the scientists who run the project can't find evidence that this CAN and HAS happened in the universe? What does it matter if the experiment was made by humans if we find out that this can happen on its own? Surely you can't say that if we find a way to do it, God had to make it because nature in itself wasn't smart enough to do it...?

Yes, I ought to modify something: I didn't mean that big bangs happen around in the universe all the time. Sorry for that one (Norwegians write hastily).

FatherChristmas

09-17-2008, 01:22 PM

The things that they are doing with the CERN project happens in the universe all the time, especially when the stars implode and makes a black hole. They are trying to make the same conditions in the CERN project as they see it in the universe.

Yes, the CERN project is made by humans, though how can you say:

"But only after being set up by intelligent people who were doing it for that very purpose. In other words, it's an intelligently designed experiment."

The thing is that none of us can say what the CERN project is gonna solve. First of, how can you say that the scientists who run the project can't find evidence that this CAN and HAS happened in the universe? What does it matter if the experiment was made by humans if we find out that this can happen on its own? Surely you can't say that if we find a way to do it, God had to make it because nature in itself wasn't smart enough to do it...?

Yes, I ought to modify something: I didn't mean that big bangs happen around in the universe all the time. Sorry for that one (Norwegians write hastily).
The apology is appreciated, but I don't really think it's necessary. Based on press reports, it looks like your original comment about trying to re-create the "big bang" were correct. Here's what I found in my research:

From UK's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/aug/07/research.cern?gusrc=rss&feed=education) newspaper:
"The idea is to recreate the heat and dust that must have existed in the universe when it was about as big as a beach ball, in the first trillionth of a second of creation."

From The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cern-experiment-machine-switched-on-no-big-bang-it-works-925568.html):
"When it is up and running, the LHC will fire beams of protons in opposite direction around the two tubes. They intersect at four points, which is where the energy-laden protons will smash together, replicating the conditions that existed less than a nanosecond after the Big Bang."

And from CERN's own website (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html):
"Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy."

Your original comment was:
I'd love to see how the CERN project might spice up the discussion in the future. For those of you who doesn't know, CERN is a project based on finding out the secrets behind the Big-Bang. If the project is successful, they will be able to prove that it happened. What a great thing that would be, and get the discussion overwith.
Looks to me like you were right on target with what they were hoping to create. So now that takes us back to my original contention, since we know that this is not something that is happening naturally throughout the universe. This is an experiment that is trying to simulate the conditions that supposedly were present at the moment of creation, or the "big bang". But it will not, and cannot, prove that the "big bang" actually happened. There are two reasons for this:
1. As I mentioned before, the experiment is designed by intelligent people to achieve a desired end. Thus, the result of the experiment would be the result of intelligent design, not any natural process.
2. Since the conditions being set up supposedly happened after the "big bang", the "big bang" itself is a pre-requisite for them, and thus it is assumed even before you begin the experiment. Anyone who understands logic knows that you cannot prove something by constructing an argument that is based on assuming that which you are trying to prove. This is a form of tautology, or circular reasoning.

dayhawk68

09-18-2008, 10:27 PM

First of all if you have ever gotten to the end of the evolutionary theory it basically says there's no God. That was what Darwin wanted, to find a way to be independant of God. So as a Christian (and I think if you love God you trust in is word and it says in the beginning the word was God and then the creation story so...) I dont beleive that my race was once came from chimps, plus if you ever researched it there are SO MANY evidence's (from biology to geology to astronomy) that disproves evolution.

*sorry for my terrible spelling btw*

Desert Wolf

09-19-2008, 10:30 AM

In general I believe that Christianity and evolution theory are compatable with one another. Now granted I'm not the most versed in the subject, but after two religions class and mandatory Chapel at my school, I think a lot of religion scholars believe it works together just fine. Science just being an explanation God's work. Another interesting fact that my friend who is a deist brought up was that Charles Darwin said the evolution was just a theory.

FatherChristmas

09-19-2008, 03:16 PM

Desert Wolf

09-19-2008, 03:56 PM

Well I guess my question for people who believe in evolution would be what created the first cell, or atom, or what caused the big bang? As I said before my belief is that evolution and science is just a description of what God created. Also, please forgive me I'm a Middle East Politics and Economics Major not Physics Major incase I butcher this, but for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. Which means there is a means for everything, so that means the big bang didn't just happen, something caused. Now last time I read science had yet to conclusively figure that one out.

bruiser

09-19-2008, 04:00 PM

incase I butcher this, but for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. Which means there is a means for everything, so that means the big bang didn't just happen, something caused it.

You got it. I've been wondering the same thing, but I had yet to post it on here.

hmmm.

dayhawk68

09-19-2008, 04:23 PM

Evolution assumes that there must be a natural cause for all life, and therefore it is incompatible with any type of theistic belief system.

I agree. Plus if you beleive in the Gap theory (which is that there was millions of years taken place between when God created the heavens and earth then created life and so on) it would mean that creatures died and according to the Bible death didn't occur until after Adam and Eve left the garden. And that just contradicts everything!

Sunrise

09-19-2008, 08:02 PM

dayhawk68

09-19-2008, 08:33 PM

Spiritual death entered the world with the fall of man. Whether anything died physically prior to that is a matter of speculation, and is, in fact, one of the weaknesses of the literal Creationist viewpoint, which has no explanation for the fact that many creatures were clearly designed to be carnivores. The idea that God suddenly caused T-Rex to sprout canines and spiders to spin webs only AFTER the Fall has no scriptural basis whatsoever.

If nothing died physically before the Fall, why were bacteria and the organisms designed to break down decaying matter created?

For that matter, life, scientifically speaking, is the same whether you're talking about animal or plant life. So what about the plants all these supposed herbivores were consuming?

It's not as simple as we all wish it were, unfortunately.

You all are correct that secular science has no explanation for what caused the Big Bang, and ultimately we know that whatever happens, has a cause. Actually the idea that the universe had a beginning at all was very new to secular science when the Big Bang was first proposed, and many in the materialistic camp were very upset about it, because they wanted to maintain that the Universe had no beginning but was infinite. The Big Bang theory actually supports the concept of a Designer extremely well.

I disagree. First, pestulance and other bacteria did exsist but their function was not to destroy and reek havoc. It has been proven that some bacteria and other microscopic organisms are actully benefitial in a live organism, like us. The human body carries many them (dont ask me what their called I had Bio 5 years ago...its been awhile).

Also I would also add that in the Torah (to which the Christain Old Testement is based of) the translation of the 6 days means actual 24 hour days. Meaning when God made the world in six days it does not mean 6 ages.

Also for the sake of argument, many people think the creation story is a parable, a metaphor like the ones Jesus told. For one who has two Theology literate parents, the old testement (especially Genesis through Numbers) does not hold any parables. All the stories happened and were not there to be metaphors. Theologins will tell you that the old testiment is history (all parts, even psalms in a way) and the new is the moral guidlines to which a Christian lives their lives.

Now back to what you were saying, no the Bible CLEARLY states that ALL creatures lived in harmony and (though not the actual phrasing) herbavors. The T-rex (im sure) loved fruit salad. And If God is so powerful to create the world dont you think he created T-Rexs to adapt to their new eating habbits? I mean Adam and Eve were herbivors too and they too had to transition to becoming omnivors. With the fall of man came sin, death and hunting. Says it all right there in Genesis.

As for the Big Bang theory, I have a friend who beleives that the physical and the spiritual realm collided and that was the Big Bang. Is that what you mean? Just wondering.

***Adain sorry for the spelling***

FatherChristmas

09-20-2008, 11:23 AM

Spiritual death entered the world with the fall of man.

That is not what the scripture says. Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin". You're making an assumption that he is talking about spiritual death.

Whether anything died physically prior to that is a matter of speculation,

And yet you treat it as if you were absolutely certain that there was death before sin.

and is, in fact, one of the weaknesses of the literal Creationist viewpoint, which has no explanation for the fact that many creatures were clearly designed to be carnivores. The idea that God suddenly caused T-Rex to sprout canines and spiders to spin webs only AFTER the Fall has no scriptural basis whatsoever.

Nor does the idea of death before sin. In fact, there is abundant scriptural evidence against it. As for the design of creatures, we have no idea what kinds of lizards and arachnids were around back then. It's all just speculation on your part.

If nothing died physically before the Fall, why were bacteria and the organisms designed to break down decaying matter created?

For that matter, life, scientifically speaking, is the same whether you're talking about animal or plant life. So what about the plants all these supposed herbivores were consuming?

I'd rather not speculate where the Bible is silent.

It's not as simple as we all wish it were, unfortunately.

You all are correct that secular science has no explanation for what caused the Big Bang, and ultimately we know that whatever happens, has a cause. Actually the idea that the universe had a beginning at all was very new to secular science when the Big Bang was first proposed, and many in the materialistic camp were very upset about it, because they wanted to maintain that the Universe had no beginning but was infinite. The Big Bang theory actually supports the concept of a Designer extremely well.
Except that it is based on the assumption that there must be a natural cause. Therefore, if a person believes in God, then he/she believes in intelligent design, not the big bang or evolution.

Desert Wolf

09-20-2008, 07:26 PM

dayhawk68

09-20-2008, 07:32 PM

I guess the ultimate question you have to answer of yourself as a Christian is whether you take a literal interpartation of the bible or a metaphorical interpartation. Taking the literal would rule out evolution, metaphorical would allow the acceptance of evolution. Personally I take most of the Bible literally, Genisis however I tend to take in the metaphorical sense, this mainly because most of the religion classes I've taken have told me that Genisis came from oral tradition stories that were passed down for many generations before actually written. As a Christian I also feel that there are more important things to discuss in the Bible then to argue about creation. I don't think accepting evolution or not accepting it, will make or break your spirituality or salvation.

you know that is a good question. I dont think it will, but then Im not God I dont know. I think though that it devalues God's power by not beleiving in the literal six days, thats just my opinion though.

and as far as oral traditions go, many oral traditions (especially religious ones) maintain to the first time its told until they are written down.

Desert Wolf

09-20-2008, 07:43 PM

you know that is a good question. I dont think it will, but then Im not God I dont know. I think though that it devalues God's power by not beleiving in the literal six days, thats just my opinion though.

and as far as oral traditions go, many oral traditions (especially religious ones) maintain to the first time its told until they are written down.

The way it was always explained to me was like the mystery of the Holy Trinity. There are certain things that don't make sense to us because we aren't divine creatures. Six days of creation scientifically look impossible. However when we look at science, we can see how things could develop over thousands or billions of years. What may appear to take billions of years may only take six days for God of 24 hours. How God consolidated billions of years of creation into six days is a mystery and will forever be a mystery. However evolution explains how it happened not how long it took.

dayhawk68

09-20-2008, 07:54 PM

The way it was always explained to me was like the mystery of the Holy Trinity. There are certain things that don't make sense to us because we aren't divine creatures. Six days of creation scientifically look impossible. However when we look at science, we can see how things could develop over thousands or billions of years. What may appear to take billions of years may only take six days for God of 24 hours. How God consolidated billions of years of creation into six days is a mystery and will forever be a mystery. However evolution explains how it happened not how long it took.

That is interesting, but wouldn't God mention that he works on a different timeline that us? I dont think he does, in fact he lives out of time. So if a God so powerful can live out of time, dont you think he can create the world in six days? Infact why did it even take him that long?

Desert Wolf

09-21-2008, 03:58 AM

That is interesting, but wouldn't God mention that he works on a different timeline that us? I dont think he does, in fact he lives out of time. So if a God so powerful can live out of time, dont you think he can create the world in six days? Infact why did it even take him that long?

I don't think he has to mention it. Just think how short the average life is when compared to how long the earth has exsisted.

dayhawk68

09-21-2008, 03:17 PM

I don't think he has to mention it. Just think how short the average life is when compared to how long the earth has exsisted.

Well is it thousands or millions you are talking about?

FatherChristmas

09-21-2008, 03:32 PM

I guess the ultimate question you have to answer of yourself as a Christian is whether you take a literal interpartation of the bible or a metaphorical interpartation. Taking the literal would rule out evolution, metaphorical would allow the acceptance of evolution. Personally I take most of the Bible literally, Genisis however I tend to take in the metaphorical sense, this mainly because most of the religion classes I've taken have told me that Genisis came from oral tradition stories that were passed down for many generations before actually written. As a Christian I also feel that there are more important things to discuss in the Bible then to argue about creation. I don't think accepting evolution or not accepting it, will make or break your spirituality or salvation.
How would you like YOUR writings to be interpreted? In order to make sure we give God as much respect as possible, the safest thing to do is interpret literally unless it is necessary to do otherwise. As for that stuff about the oral tradition, that's an assumption based on no evidence. But again, Genesis is from God. It represents a communication from Him to us. If you were the one writing, how would you like it to be interepreted? Since there is no evidence that the book of Genesis is meant to be interpreted figuratively, I am going to err on the side of maximum respect for God and His word.

Sunrise

09-21-2008, 03:38 PM

That is not what the scripture says. Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin". You're making an assumption that he is talking about spiritual death.

As you are making the assumption that it is physical. Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they ate the fruit, contrary to God's warning. Is God a liar? No. They died spiritually. Christ redeems us from death, but we all still die. Is Christ a liar? No. We die physically, but our spirits are saved.

And yet you treat it as if you were absolutely certain that there was death before sin.

No, I merely open up the possibility. Ultimately I don't think I'll ever know these answers this side of Heaven.

As for the design of creatures, we have no idea what kinds of lizards and arachnids were around back then. It's all just speculation on your part.

Um, yes we do. It's called the fossil record. If you are suggesting that herbivorous creatures evolved into predators, it seems to contradict your insistence that evolution is false. And if predators did not evolve from herbivores, where did they come from? Why would Scripture be silent on the creation of an entirely new type of creature when it made no bones about God's curse upon the ground?

Except that it is based on the assumption that there must be a natural cause. Therefore, if a person believes in God, then he/she believes in intelligent design, not the big bang or evolution.

Your continuing to insist this does not make it true. There are many, many people smarter than both of us who believe in God and also believe that He used the mechanism of the Big Bang and all or some evolutionary process during creation. Intelligent Design proponents do not reject evolution offhand - they only reject evolution with natural selection/random chance as its only driving force.

Regarding your beef with the assumption that there must be a natural cause: you don't seem to understand that the nature of science MUST assume a cause to be natural because it is otherwise untestable. You cannot conduct an experiment where you throw a bunch of elements in a petri dish and then demand that God come into the lab and throw some of that Breath of Life stuff around. That is not science, so it is unfair of us to expect it of scientists.

It's also why secular evolution still has no good explanation for the origins of life or the organization of simple life into complex - scientists can't recreate it in a lab. This results in an attempt to extrapolate and make assumptions beyond what the evidence really tells them, and is where intelligent design proponents rightly call foul.

Now back to what you were saying, no the Bible CLEARLY states that ALL creatures lived in harmony and (though not the actual phrasing) herbavors. The T-rex (im sure) loved fruit salad. And If God is so powerful to create the world dont you think he created T-Rexs to adapt to their new eating habbits? I mean Adam and Eve were herbivors too and they too had to transition to becoming omnivors. With the fall of man came sin, death and hunting. Says it all right there in Genesis.

If the Bible states this so clearly, can you give me a reference? There are passages in Isaiah describing the New Creation that says the lion will lie down with the lamb and eat straw like the ox, but I see nothing that indicates this was the case on primeval Earth, except perhaps in Eden itself.

Desert Wolf

09-21-2008, 04:42 PM

How would you like YOUR writings to be interpreted? In order to make sure we give God as much respect as possible, the safest thing to do is interpret literally unless it is necessary to do otherwise. As for that stuff about the oral tradition, that's an assumption based on no evidence. But again, Genesis is from God. It represents a communication from Him to us. If you were the one writing, how would you like it to be interepreted? Since there is no evidence that the book of Genesis is meant to be interpreted figuratively, I am going to err on the side of maximum respect for God and His word.

God created humans with the ability to question and have free choice, if he wanted robots he would have created robots. As such, science questions God's creation and how it came to be. I am not debating the length of time it took to create the world.

My arguement is that I believe God created the world, all that is seen and unseen, and that he created creatures that question their surrondings. As such science is a natural quest for answers about God's creation and evolution seeks to explain how God created the world. However since none of us are divine creatures, none of us will ever trully understand everything about creation. One of those things we will never understand is how science says it takes billions of years for species and a planet to evolve, while the Bible provides us with a six day and 24 hour explanation. I believe God is all powerful, which means if he wants to do 10 Billion years of evolution in a second he can.

Sunrise

09-22-2008, 08:55 AM

Well said, DesertWolf.

Everybody, I'm done here. Sitting in front of the computer so much is aggravating my morning sickness, and I need more productive channels for my energy than continuing to debate the same topics over and over. I know it's unreasonable to expect newcomers to read this entire thread from the beginning, but really, there's been nothing new added to the discussion in months.

Father Christmas, I salute you as a worthy debater. Of the many Creationists here you've been one of the most articulate and well-reasoned. While we will likely never agree, I respect your zeal and devotion to your position.

I believe that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and that it tells us all we, in our human limitations, need to know about Him. I also believe that, as far as all there actually IS to know about God, we are like a man who has never seen the ocean trying to imagine it by studying a drop of water. When we who are here today and gone tomorrow meet on the other side of eternity, I daresay we will all laugh at how little we understood.

Peace, all :cool:

~Sunrise

FatherChristmas

09-22-2008, 10:56 AM

As you are making the assumption that it is physical. Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they ate the fruit, contrary to God's warning. Is God a liar? No. They died spiritually. Christ redeems us from death, but we all still die. Is Christ a liar? No. We die physically, but our spirits are saved.

God's warning in Genesis 2:17 is a Hebraism that is known as the "infinitive absolute". For a detailed discussion of this type of phrase, check out this link (http://www.textexcavation.com/infinitiveabsolute.html). The best translation of the phrase into literal English would be "dying you shall die". To understand why their immediate physical death not happening is not a contradiction, see this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/02/dying-you-shall-die) from AiG.

No, I merely open up the possibility. Ultimately I don't think I'll ever know these answers this side of Heaven.

Can't disagree with that.

Um, yes we do. It's called the fossil record.

Fossils are not dated, and trying to date them is a highly speculative enterprise. To say that we can pin them down precisely to the time of the creation before the fall is even more speculative.

If you are suggesting that herbivorous creatures evolved into predators, it seems to contradict your insistence that evolution is false.

I would certainly not say that they "evolved", since that means it had a natural cause. I would say that in the DNA of the first lizards that God created, there was enough material to produce all of the varieties that we find today. Genetic variation has been observed in many species (including humans) when large populations become separated from each other. The separate populations then develop distinct characteristics. There is no mystery here, it has been observed. The idea that this could have happened with the large lizards seems logical to me.

And if predators did not evolve from herbivores, where did they come from? Why would Scripture be silent on the creation of an entirely new type of creature when it made no bones about God's curse upon the ground?

No new creation was necessary because genetic variation is sufficient to account for the differences.

Your continuing to insist this does not make it true. There are many, many people smarter than both of us who believe in God and also believe that He used the mechanism of the Big Bang and all or some evolutionary process during creation.

Evolution is used during creation? If you continue to blur the distinctions between the terms they will rapidly become meaningless.
Evolution = the origin of life from natural causes (i.e. mutations preserved by natural selection).
Creation = the origin of life by the word of God.
Intelligent design = life is too complex to have occurred by a natural process like evolution, so it must have been designed by an intelligent entity of some sort.

It's not me who has insisted that evolution is defined in only natural terms. That is how it has been used in scientific literature, and of course Dr. Behe backs me up on this as I demonstrated in the previous post. And of course, if you mention the idea of God's creation to an evolutionist, he will gasp with horror and immediately correct you. What I am asking is that on this thread the terms would be used consistent with their established meanings which are independent of us.

Intelligent Design proponents do not reject evolution offhand - they only reject evolution with natural selection/random chance as its only driving force.

In answering the question "Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?", the Discovery Institute (the intellectual home of the ID movement) had this to say (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php):
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
You can talk all you want about "non-darwinian evolution", but the kind that is taught in schools, discussed in scientific books and articles, and basically rammed down our throat 24/7 by most forms of media, is Neo-Darwinism. That is why it is inaccurate to claim that God created by using evolution.

Regarding your beef with the assumption that there must be a natural cause: you don't seem to understand that the nature of science MUST assume a cause to be natural because it is otherwise untestable. You cannot conduct an experiment where you throw a bunch of elements in a petri dish and then demand that God come into the lab and throw some of that Breath of Life stuff around. That is not science, so it is unfair of us to expect it of scientists.

I'm not begrudging scientists their assumption. I'm just saying that Christians need to understand that this assumption is there before they go throwing the term "evolution" around in connection with God's creation.

It's also why secular evolution still has no good explanation for the origins of life or the organization of simple life into complex - scientists can't recreate it in a lab.

But that's not what they're saying. They claim that they DO have good explanations, and that they HAVE "evolved" life in a lab.

This results in an attempt to extrapolate and make assumptions beyond what the evidence really tells them, and is where intelligent design proponents rightly call foul.

That's fine for the ID guys, because their goal is limited. But I'm going beyond that because I'm asserting the idea that God is behind it. So I call foul at the very beginning of the process, which is the assumption that the cause is a natural one. If they weren't making that assumption, then they wouldn't be proposing evolutionary theory in the first place.

If the Bible states this so clearly, can you give me a reference? There are passages in Isaiah describing the New Creation that says the lion will lie down with the lamb and eat straw like the ox, but I see nothing that indicates this was the case on primeval Earth, except perhaps in Eden itself.
I don't know who you are quoting here, but it's not me! :D
Well said, DesertWolf.

Everybody, I'm done here. Sitting in front of the computer so much is aggravating my morning sickness, and I need more productive channels for my energy than continuing to debate the same topics over and over. I know it's unreasonable to expect newcomers to read this entire thread from the beginning, but really, there's been nothing new added to the discussion in months.

Father Christmas, I salute you as a worthy debater. Of the many Creationists here you've been one of the most articulate and well-reasoned. While we will likely never agree, I respect your zeal and devotion to your position.

I believe that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and that it tells us all we, in our human limitations, need to know about Him. I also believe that, as far as all there actually IS to know about God, we are like a man who has never seen the ocean trying to imagine it by studying a drop of water. When we who are here today and gone tomorrow meet on the other side of eternity, I daresay we will all laugh at how little we understood.

Peace, all :cool:

~Sunrise
Fair enough, it's been fun. Hope you feel better.
God created humans with the ability to question and have free choice, if he wanted robots he would have created robots. As such, science questions God's creation and how it came to be. I am not debating the length of time it took to create the world.

My arguement is that I believe God created the world, all that is seen and unseen, and that he created creatures that question their surrondings. As such science is a natural quest for answers about God's creation and evolution seeks to explain how God created the world.

Not true. Those who promote evolution have specifically stated that they are seeking a natural explanation for everything. They reject creation.

However since none of us are divine creatures, none of us will ever trully understand everything about creation. One of those things we will never understand is how science says it takes billions of years for species and a planet to evolve, while the Bible provides us with a six day and 24 hour explanation. I believe God is all powerful, which means if he wants to do 10 Billion years of evolution in a second he can.
In that case, it would be creation in one second, not evolution at all. Scientists proposing evolution assume that only natural processes are available, hence their claim that it takes billions of years. But with God all this can be done in any time period that He wants. All the natural rules are irrelevant when you're talking about the Author of nature.

Desert Wolf

09-22-2008, 05:16 PM

Well I come from a school that teaches both.

Knight of Narnia

09-22-2008, 05:49 PM

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to interject some questions that have been posed to me recently about this topic. I wanted to get some help coming up with answers.

1) If absolute creationism is true (the theory that God created everything as it is) then why do we see evidence of species changing in the fossil record? Why do we have fossils of human-like creatures such as the Australopithecus and Homo Erectus?

2) If absolute evolution is true, (no God, just a big bang, bacteria, and a lot of evolution and time) then where did everything come from? One of the principle rules of science is that matter cannot be created or destroyed - only changed. If matter cannot be created, where did the matter that 'banged' come from? How did a bunch of amino acids in a pool that was struck by lightning become a living organism? I know that absolute evolutionists believe that species change and grow due to the influence and demands of their environment, but what triggers that change? If evolution happens by natural selection and random restructuring of DNA, how did a single-celled bacterium evolve into a complex organism that has the ability to reason and think?

3) If intelligent design is true (the God used evolution as a tool of Creation theory) then how do we know who the intelligent deity is? Humanity has experienced hundreds of known religions and innumerable unknown religions, all of which have concerned themselves with the question of "why are we here, how did we get here?" The ancient Greeks believed we came into existence because the sky (Uranus) fell in love with the earth (Gaea) and created the titans, the gods, and the humans. What about our claim to intelligent design makes it different from the ancient Greeks or any other religion?

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope to get some valuable feedback from everyone.

dayhawk68

09-22-2008, 07:33 PM

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to interject some questions that have been posed to me recently about this topic. I wanted to get some help coming up with answers.

1) If absolute creationism is true (the theory that God created everything as it is) then why do we see evidence of species changing in the fossil record? Why do we have fossils of human-like creatures such as the Australopithecus and Homo Erectus?

Well you see that is only a matter of view. If you have ever looked at an Australopithecus(ATLCS) dna sequence its code is VERY different from ours. And how, persay, can this dna code transform into something else when there is no evidence of something adding to it. And also it is clearly not a mutation that allowed the ATLCS to transform into something else, otherwise there would be many many variations. Not only that but recent studies have shown that the ATLCS is more directly related to the orangatang than us humans. Plus as far as the other missing links, there are many that have not been found and the ones that are, are related the primate species.
Homo Erectus, however, is human but was muted by "inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment," according to the scientist Morris (first name idk). Plus the H.sapien brain and the H.erectus brain are the same size. But there is no evidence that H. erectus has any primate dna or had any habits of a primate.

FatherChristmas

09-22-2008, 09:54 PM

Well I come from a school that teaches both.
Sorry, I was speaking of public schools here in the U.S.
Hello Everyone,

I wanted to interject some questions that have been posed to me recently about this topic. I wanted to get some help coming up with answers.

1) If absolute creationism is true (the theory that God created everything as it is) then why do we see evidence of species changing in the fossil record? Why do we have fossils of human-like creatures such as the Australopithecus and Homo Erectus?

Australopithecus is an extinct ape. The idea that it is related to homo sapiens is pure speculation. As for homo erectus, I think you will find your answer by following this link (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html).

2) If absolute evolution is true, (no God, just a big bang, bacteria, and a lot of evolution and time) then where did everything come from? One of the principle rules of science is that matter cannot be created or destroyed - only changed. If matter cannot be created, where did the matter that 'banged' come from? How did a bunch of amino acids in a pool that was struck by lightning become a living organism? I know that absolute evolutionists believe that species change and grow due to the influence and demands of their environment, but what triggers that change? If evolution happens by natural selection and random restructuring of DNA, how did a single-celled bacterium evolve into a complex organism that has the ability to reason and think?

3) If intelligent design is true (the God used evolution as a tool of Creation theory) then how do we know who the intelligent deity is? Humanity has experienced hundreds of known religions and innumerable unknown religions, all of which have concerned themselves with the question of "why are we here, how did we get here?" The ancient Greeks believed we came into existence because the sky (Uranus) fell in love with the earth (Gaea) and created the titans, the gods, and the humans. What about our claim to intelligent design makes it different from the ancient Greeks or any other religion?

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope to get some valuable feedback from everyone.
ID theory is built on a foundation of opposition to evolutionary theory. They are not proposing to answer all questions, but only to make sure everyone is aware that evolution does not hold up under close scientific scrutiny.

How do we know who the intelligent deity is? The Bible tells us, because He wrote it.

Desert Wolf

09-22-2008, 10:18 PM

Sorry, I was speaking of public schools here in the U.S.

No offense taken. Baylor University, being a baptist school, requires all of its students to take Chapel and take religion classes. Plus everyone has to take science as well, which most professors try to explain evolution in a way that leaves it open to Christianity. I know, its weird.

Truman

09-27-2008, 02:10 AM

FatherChristmas

09-29-2008, 08:39 AM

Actually, I believe that "ID" is more of a problem-mover. Frederick Hoyle denounced evolution, but then went on to say that an "intelligence" from far away created us (since we are obviously intelligently designed). But that only moves the problem. Where did those alien creators come from? And from there on where? And where? It's a neverending cycle, really. That's where "ID" pretty much falls flat, IMO.
That's because, unlike evolution, ID theorists are not trying to answer all questions. They are only answering the one question: is there intelligence behind all of nature and was it made for a purpose. Viewed in this way, "moving the problem" is the whole point. But I'm glad you brought up the concept of a "problem-mover". That's what I've always thought about evolution. It doesn't answer the question of how life came about, it only pushes the question back into a pre-historic time period. And once there, evolutionists can fill in the blanks with whatever they fancy, since no one could ever prove it wrong. Only creation answers all of the questions you and I have raised.

EveningStar

09-29-2008, 02:15 PM

FatherChristmas

09-29-2008, 03:09 PM

ADDRESSING THE "BIG BANG"

Genesis is the story of THE beginning, right? No, it's not. It's the story of OUR beginning. There is no "THE" beginning since the Bible itself contends that God existed before our universe was made and that he always has existed. There is no "THE" beginning if God has always existed.

How much did God do before he made our universe? If he's always existed, are we to believe that an INFINITELY long time passed of absolute nothingness, God sitting about on his hands bored stiff and that one day at the end of INFINITY God decided to become materialistic and have lots and lots and oh lots of stuff everywhere? Do we really think we are so all fired important that God never thought anything worth making until he made us? We used to believe the Earth was the centre of the universe, about which everything else revolved. Now we even want to think we are the centre of all God's attention and existance. Is that not human arrogance speaking? Our tendency to think that we and we alone were enough to get God off his rocking chair to make something after billions of dark, empty years?

The Bible does not say that God did absolutely nothing whatsoever in the time before he made our world. And it doesn't say if those other things still exist, if they were recycled, if the angels originated there as people like us who over billions of years became far, far more spiritual and wise than even Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer?

If so, where would the stuff for the big bang come? There is probably thousands of times enough stuff to do that. Chances are God makes universe after universe, collapsing the old, revealing the new.
I am often intrigued by the thought of what God might have been doing prior to creation. But that doesn't mean that I should build a theology around it, nor should I refer to my own speculations as "science". I realize you are doing neither of these things. However, it is not arrogance to say that as far as my faith goes, I will believe only in what the Lord has revealed in His word. Fair enough?

As far as science goes, I will accept only that which can be proven using the scientific method. If I'm having a conversation with a friend at a coffee shop and he wants to entertain some speculations about what God might have been doing prior to creation, I will not interrupt. But I don't have to accept something as "science" unless it qualifies as such. And there is no need to assume that there is a "natural" explanation for something when God has already given an explanation in His word. Our universe and everything in it came about by the word of the Lord, not from an explosion.

lieke

09-29-2008, 04:52 PM

Even if one believes in literal 6-days creation, that doesn´t mean that the Big Bang theory can´t be true. In the beginnings God created heaven and earth, it doesn´t say how He did it. If you believe in literal 6 days creation you don´t believe that there was a process of evolution, species changing and such. But Big Bang doesn´t fall into that category.

(Personally, i'm leaning a bit more towards 6 days, not sure of it, since i do see some things that might say otherwise, but i have other issues with the whole old earth than 'it says six days' (though that might be an issue too), but they've been talked about and such, not neccesary for repeating, i'm just stating where i stand in the discussion).

I agree with something someone said, i don't remember who (and i am too lazy to look for it), that if the 'create a small bang' thing works, that is actually proof that there is intelligence needed for it. I love that! :D

What God did in infinity before us i don't know, and it's really too complex for me to think about it, since i cannot grasp infinity itself anyway:rolleyes:

dayhawk68

09-29-2008, 06:53 PM

its debates like this that makes me want a time machine. lol

EveningStar

09-29-2008, 06:59 PM

I too draw the line between what I "believe in" and what I speculate about. I believe my home is on Greymont Drive. I speculate that at one time Mars may have had a warmer, wetter climate.

For me it is important to be open minded about the "before", because I can't imagine God all alone in the blackness of space doing absolutely nothing. Christ said you know a tree by the fruit it bears. What I know of God through the glories of nature is the host with the most, whipping up a new recipe in the oven while talking on the cell phone and brushing the cat. He's very vivacious, busy and very creative. I can't imagine him any other way.

Truman

09-30-2008, 12:56 AM

Well... Here are a few things I'd like to comment on.

Genesis is the story of THE beginning, right? No, it's not. It's the story of OUR beginning. There is no "THE" beginning since the Bible itself contends that God existed before our universe was made and that he always has existed. There is no "THE" beginning if God has always existed.

"In the beginning...", to me, and probably to most people who have read the Bible means "the beginning." Getting a guru to say it doesn't isn't going to make it true; the way someone else portrays it.

The Bible was inspired by and written through men by God. If God said, "In the beginning..." then I really can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that. "The Beginning" is, by obvious implication, the definate article of the passage and does not indicate otherwise. Therefore, "the beginning" is exactly what it says it is. Whether He existed or not is beside the point. We're talking about the Bible, and the Bible is pretty clear.

How much did God do before he made our universe? If he's always existed, are we to believe that an INFINITELY long time passed of absolute nothingness, God sitting about on his hands bored stiff and that one day at the end of INFINITY God decided to become materialistic and have lots and lots and oh lots of stuff everywhere? Do we really think we are so all fired important that God never thought anything worth making until he made us? We used to believe the Earth was the centre of the universe, about which everything else revolved. Now we even want to think we are the centre of all God's attention and existance. Is that not human arrogance speaking? Our tendency to think that we and we alone were enough to get God off his rocking chair to make something after billions of dark, empty years?

The phrases "sitting about," "bored stiff," and "human arrogance" caught my attention. Those are some pretty provocative thoughts... if you don't think further. God is infinite, yes, but infinate to your knowledge as well as mine. Implying that "He must've been bored, 'cause I would've!" doesn't make Him you. He's God: infinate.

Only a finite being would consider such actions being the Creation as "boredem" since he wouldn't fathom it himself. If it's pretty hard for you to understand (as well as it is for me; don't think that I don't wonder either) that's your business, but declaring that God, in all His infinate wisdom and knowledge would be in such a finite state as "bored," is a foolish thing and shouldn't be considered. Didn't you ever consider that God created time? "In the beginning..." (time) "...God created the heavens..." (space) "...and the Earth." (matter, by definition).

God wasn't compelled (as you seem to believe) by anyone to create man, but chose to. That's God, the one who says, "Poof, there's the world." And if that sounds too fantastic to you, does God care? :rolleyes:

As for "We used to believe the Earth was the centre of the universe..." I really don't understand the "we." Who is this "we"? That's like saying "We used to believe the earth was flat." Who is the "we"? If you mean "we" as in "the Christians" then I'm sure you would know that that was a false teaching made up in the late 19th century by Darwinists who wished to ridicule Christians. Washington Irving wrote a fictional novel about Columbus, indicating that he was told not to make the journey for fear he'd be killed by falling off the end. In reality, he was discouraged not to go by not only people who knew the earth was round, but by people who estimated how big it was, fearing not that he'd "fall off" anything, but that the ocean would be too large to cross, which is a little more reasonable. The Greeks even knew the earth was round, and in Isaiah it says the earth is a sphere (to those who know the literal Hebrew meaning).

This is off topic from your opinion about people believing the earth being the center of all, but I think you get my point, being that "we" is not a very wise word to use, because you really don't know who the "we" was. Sure, it was taught by the Catholics for a long time, but who was the "we" who believed it, really? You'll probably cite Joshua about the "sun standing still" and all, but Joshua was written by an observer. Obviously, we see the sun rise and fall during the day, and to an observer, the sun would metaphorically "stand still." It was the earth that caused the event. The false teaching about "computer models calculating the day when it did stand still" is beside the point, and I will not cite it; that was debunked years ago and I've never believed it, even before it was proven wrong.

"...get God off his rocking chair to make something after billions of dark, empty years..." That really gets my goat. You talk about "human arrogance" and then make such a statement. :rolleyes: Human arrogance... Really, if there were other events, why would God be so arrogant as to keep this hidden from our knowledge? I go so far to think you might even believe in "aliens." Right. I'm sure you wouldn't believe that. ;)

Now, if you do, you'd probably get up and say something like, "Why not? After all, 'God is God' as you say, and can do whatever He wants. He need not make all secrets of His apparent to us, and He probably wants us to look deeper." Bold words... but then, I really don't actually know what you would've said. But if you had said that, or part of that, I'd have to say, "Why would God play games with us? I think you're after some hope of something beyond yourself. Sure, He hasn't revealed certain things, like the date of when the world will end and what not, but God focuses His view on us, and us only. There is no indication of another. Wouldn't it occur to anyone that that means, even if He did create other worlds, that He wouldn't want us to find out? There is something out there: God."

...where would the stuff for the big bang come? There is probably thousands of times enough stuff to do that. Chances are God makes universe after universe, collapsing the old, revealing the new.

Four words: What a vivid imagination.

Especially the fact that you said "...chances are...", as if it's so obvious.

Even if one believes in literal 6-days creation, that doesn´t mean that the Big Bang theory can´t be true.

You are correct in your logic. However, there are many scientific flaws with the big bang anyway, so why compromise a perfectly good Bible with something like the "big bang"? I've written much on this subject; here's some of my research on the "evidences" for the idea. CMB radiation is among them (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

There is a miniscule amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It comes commonly from every direction and is believed that it is the same everywhere else in the universe. But, this is an exeedingly tiny amount of "heat," and is only a little less than 30 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. This radiation is only a microwave kind of "heat," but there isn't much "heat" in it at all. The temperature of background radiation comes out as being -2700 degrees Celsius.

The problem? Background radiation comes from every direction, but the Big Bang theory demands that it come from only one direction: from where the supposed explosion took place. According to physicist Hannes Alfven and Professor Asoka Mendis from the UCSD (both evolutionists, in case some were wondering), "The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents.. The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."*

Science News had a few words for Blackbody CMB, how the radiation is (quote) "...of the universe itself," and not from any "big bang," but I'm sure I've said enough already. But I'd be glad to post much more on what I've written for my studies. :)

What I know of God through the glories of nature is the host with the most, whipping up a new recipe in the oven while talking on the cell phone and brushing the cat. He's very vivacious, busy and very creative. I can't imagine him any other way.

Exactly. You certainly can't [B]imagine it "any other way." Of course He's creative and busy, but He's also finished. Remember, God created time. He isn't bound by it. He can be in yesterday, tomorrow, the end days, or right here with us. He isn't subjected to His creation. Now you'll say, "Wouldn't that mean we don't have free will? If he knows the future?" Actually, no. God knows everything, and has prophesied it, but He's prophesying what He knows we will do.

The future can't be changed. We can almost do something and then, just before we carry out anything, we can change plans and decide another choice, but this doesn't change what was going to ultimately happen in the end. We will do things. Whatever we do God knows, but that doesn't mean He's making us do anything. The future just is. Making a quick change of plans isn't ever going to change the outcome of the decision you ultimately make.

-------

Reference: *Hannes Alfven and Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698

inkspot

09-30-2008, 10:39 AM

Of course He's creative and busy, but He's also finished.
? What does this mean? Finished ... creating?

Sorry I have been so long out of the discussion. I have been sick, and after that dizzy ... so maybe I am not following Truman's idea here. :(

EveningStar

09-30-2008, 10:52 AM

lieke

09-30-2008, 01:56 PM

I´m not a scientist, so i´m not going into scientific details. But just to comment on this:

You are correct in your logic. However, there are many scientific flaws with the big bang anyway, so why compromise a perfectly good Bible with something like the "big bang"?
I´m not compromising anything at all. I believe the bible to be a 100% true and all that. God created heaven and earth in the beginning of our time, well, i´m not compromising the fact that He created it by saying that He might have created it by using a big bang, i could also say that he might have created it by something else. The bible tells us that God created heaven and earth, it leaves the options when it comes to how He did it. As i said, i´m not a scientist, so i´m not qualified to comment on anything like big bang theories, but let´s just say that it would be proven that there was a big bang (don´t know how they would do it, but let´s just say), then that wouldn´t take anything away from the fact that i believe God created heaven and earth. Obviously God didn´t think it was either usefull for us to know how He created it, or He thought that we could figure it out ourselves, but He left the options open there.

EveningStar

09-30-2008, 02:52 PM

I was there. I wouldn't exactly call it a big bang, more of a tooth-gritting squeeking sound..... :p

dayhawk68

09-30-2008, 02:53 PM

I was there. I wouldn't exactly call it a big bang, more of a tooth-gritting squeeking sound..... :p

What the duce? how did you get the time machine before me??:mad::p;)lol

lieke

09-30-2008, 03:07 PM

I was there. I wouldn't exactly call it a big bang, more of a tooth-gritting squeeking sound..... :p
Hehe, a spiritually tooth-gritting i suppose :p

Truman

09-30-2008, 09:42 PM

Are you saying that God has retired from creating? Certainly after some of the things I've seen in this world, I could understand him getting fed up with making worlds full of Democrats and Republicans :D but I doubt that any eternal being...God or any of his creations...would be content to do nothing for all eternity but look at albums and home movies of what used to be.

I'm kinda getting fed up with both parties too. ;)

I can't understand much of God's ways, but I do know about Hebrews 4:4, which states (referring to the creation),
"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." [emphasis added]

I really couldn't argue with that, especially considering the Bible constantly affirms that God rested on "the seventh day". The word "the" makes all the difference. "The" is the definate article; it's not like it could mean a long period of time. I read one Bible said "...and it was evening and morning one day." One day? There're a lot of "one days," but there's only one "the first day" or "the second day." Words mean a lot, especially when talking about specifics.

lieke: By definition, the big bang requires trial and error. I wouldn't worship a God that can't do anything right the first time. No one should have to. Hugh Ross advocates the big bang. Gleason Archer supports the the earth is old. These are men who've been products of their times, brought up to believe such and such, then turning to Christianity. Then "science" (evolutionary pseudo-science, not real science) conflicts with their beliefs, so they try to say the Bible is saying something that it clearly doesn't.

No one should have to have a guru tell someone what something obviously says. The Bible doesn't indicate a big bang. In fact, in a way, it goes against this teaching because the Bible says the earth was "without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." It says the "spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." If the world was water, how exactly would a big bang produce such? Water is "cool" by definition. The earth was a hot, molten mass in the beginning from the bang, according to evolutionists. Someone's wrong.

inkspot

10-01-2008, 10:27 AM

Sorry, I am coming late to your contributions here, Truman, and I didn't mean to offend you. I was actually trying to figure out what you meant.

If you believe God ceased from all His works after the 7th 24-hour day of creation, how do you account for everything He has done since then? Maybe I am not understanding you, and if not, sorry. As I say, I experienced significant blood loss with my surgery, and my head may not be back on straight!

Also, how do you suppose the "Big Bang," by its definition, implies trial and error? Have you read The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski? He shows how such a thing a Big Bang, or actually the belief that there was a beginning surely shores up the idea that there is a God -- so taking shots at Big Bang is actually counterproductive to creationism, as I understand it ... Again, blood loss, etc.

EveningStar

10-01-2008, 04:11 PM

People read too much into what the Bible says or does not say.

I remember an old friend of mine who was married to a very uptight woman. He once came to our house on Christmas and said of my mum's sage dressing that it was the best he had ever eaten. His wife never spoke another word for the duration of the visit, and for the entire rest of his life, his wife staunchly refused to ever serve him sage dressing again, at all, period.

There is a proper way to regard remarks as to what they do and do not mean. She made entirely too much out of his polite remark about mum's dressing. I think we make entirely too much out of why there are 10 commandments instead of 11 or 9. It says nothing in the Ten Commandments about dropping bowling balls off the bridge on people's cars, but that does not mean God approves of it. It only means that these ten things, among others, are rules.

To say that the Big Bang is an anti-God statement, or that "On the seventh day God rested from all his labours" means God is permanently on Social Security is a bit like insisting that we never, ever, ever again fix sage dressing.

To say that you don't personally believe in the Big Bang or that God is still creating is another thing entirely, because you are couching that as your opinion, not established fact.

I attempt to buttress anything I say in the form of established fact with the proof. Perhaps I fail sometimes, but not from lack of trying.

dayhawk68

10-01-2008, 04:25 PM

People read too much into what the Bible says or does not say.

I remember an old friend of mine who was married to a very uptight woman. He once came to our house on Christmas and said of my mum's sage dressing that it was the best he had ever eaten. His wife never spoke another word for the duration of the visit, and for the entire rest of his life, his wife staunchly refused to ever serve him sage dressing again, at all, period.

There is a proper way to regard remarks as to what they do and do not mean. She made entirely too much out of his polite remark about mum's dressing. I think we make entirely too much out of why there are 10 commandments instead of 11 or 9. It says nothing in the Ten Commandments about dropping bowling balls off the bridge on people's cars, but that does not mean God approves of it.

Well thats why there's the new testimate (omg spelling?) to show us how to handle ourselves. That wife of his clearly forgot to 1 forgive. 2 pride comes b4 the fall and 3. not to be jealous of others.

And the 10 commandments are general enough for you to know that doing that is a sin. Plus Jesus said to do the will of ceaser (meaning follow the law (but to the extent of killing innocent ppl)) and Im sure dropping a bowling ball off a bridge on ppl's cars is not following the law.

And as far as God still creating...where in the Bible does it say that he is? Now he is intervening (spelling?) of course, but still creating?? What is he creating?

Anyways all I know is that "In the begining there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Meaning what ever is said in the Bible (especially in Genesis) is true. No reading in between the lines (if there is something that seems left out God did that for a reason) and taking things out of context.

inkspot

10-01-2008, 05:51 PM

Of course there are galaxies younger than our own, so I assumed God was still creating. I mean, the Bible says He created the heavens and the earth on day one, but the heavens are still expanding, so it seems He is still up to something, right? I don't think you have to read it so literally that God's hands are tied after day one as far as any new galaxies and whatnot?

Maybe I am not understanding the argument right now ...

dayhawk68

10-01-2008, 06:53 PM

dayhawk68

10-01-2008, 06:58 PM

Truman

10-01-2008, 09:20 PM

Sorry, I am coming late to your contributions here, Truman, and I didn't mean to offend you. I was actually trying to figure out what you meant.

Oh no, no. To me, I don't think anyone's really obligated to say "no offense" here (particularly at the Stone Table). I mean, we're all gentlemen and ladies; just having discussions. I know you weren't trying to offend me. :)

If you believe God ceased from all His works after the 7th 24-hour day of creation, how do you account for everything He has done since then?

The scripture from Hebrews refers to the creation. God ended His creation on the seventh day. Sure, He's been busy doing many things afterward: founding Israel, destroying the Egyptians, sending His Son to earth, sure. But since the first seven days God hasn't created anything new.

Also, how do you suppose the "Big Bang," by its definition, implies trial and error? Have you read The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski? He shows how such a thing a Big Bang, or actually the belief that there was a beginning surely shores up the idea that there is a God -- so taking shots at Big Bang is actually counterproductive to creationism, as I understand it ... Again, blood loss, etc.

The big bang is an explosion. Trial and error is required for an explosion. "But God is God, He can do anything!" you might say. Think about it logically. The creation of the stars, sun, planets and their moons were created on different days. Did this explosion last for several days before He finally got it right? If so, why would God require days to do that? Couldn't he have just made all the heavenly bodies on one day, thus making the big bang a feasible event?

You'd have to twist the scripture quite a bit for the big bang, as you can see. God said He created the earth and all that is in it in six days, and rested on the seventh. Call me crazy, but I think that means... God created the earth and all that is in it in six days, and rested on the seventh. :rolleyes: Why is that so hard to believe?

To say that the Big Bang is an anti-God statement, or that "On the seventh day God rested from all his labours" means God is permanently on Social Security is a bit like insisting that we never, ever, ever again fix sage dressing.

I'll say it again. Hebrews, as well as other scriptures, indicate that God finished creating on the sixth day. He hasn't made anything new since then. Sure, He's been doing a lot since, but no new creations of His. And the scripture did not say God rested "from all his labors," it said "works." Big difference. His creation works are complete. His deeds are not.

I didn't say the big bang was anti-God. I said I wouldn't worship a God who couldn't do it right, first time. If God created the world with a great explosion, wouldn't He have said so? Why would God be so vague about that? The Bible says what it means, and if you give that book to anyone of average intelligence and no biases, he won't come back saying God made the universe with an explosion. That's just silly.

To say that you don't personally believe in the Big Bang or that God is still creating is another thing entirely, because you are couching that as your opinion, not established fact.

Why do you think the big bang is possible? Did someone teach you about the big bang? Was it the Bible? Couldn't have been; it mentions no such thing. I'm assuming you were taught the big bang was true when you were little, then became a Christian, but still believed certain things taught by the evolutionary community because they had "evidence" and "logic" to back it up.

I don't believe the big bang, not because I don't it's true, and just that opinion alone. I don't believe the big bang because it is scientifically impossible, and I can prove it. However, I won't post on that now because my post'll become very lengthy (since it's already pretty long as it is). If anyone's interested on my research, say so and I'll post it down. I don't want to post anything no one will read.

Of course there are galaxies younger than our own, so I assumed God was still creating. I mean, the Bible says He created the heavens and the earth on day one, but the heavens are still expanding, so it seems He is still up to something, right?

Sorry. I just had to chuckle. :D You answered your own question in the same paragraph. Yes, God is finished creating. The heavens are expanding as well, but you're confusing the word's meaning. "Expanding" also means "widening," meaning the space. The stars and planets are still the same. Just the heavens (as in outer space itself) is just expanding outward. Evolutionists say it's because of the big bang, which is a big mistake (no pun intended). They base this on redshift theory, which... I'm going to go off for a while on that if I continue. If you're interested, I'll post more. :)

EveningStar

10-01-2008, 11:08 PM

The big bang is not an explosion that resulted in formed galaxies and stars. You're in the mindset of an explosion as something bad guys' cars do when they get hit by 007's rockets. This forum is not the place to get into a detailed discussion of quantum singularity. But it's not a blast in the sense of blowing up a pile of stones and hoping to see a cathedral form. That would, of course, be ridiculous.

The Big Bang is the idea that material in the universe came into being suddenly and dramatically the way "let their be light" brought light into the universe suddenly and dramatically.

I do hate to see the theory of quantum singularity being equated to what Al Queda "martyrs" do when they get on a crowded bus and push the red button. It's not like that, and it's sad that it's been wrongfully portrayed by pop science.

Truman

10-01-2008, 11:36 PM

The Big Bang is the idea that material in the universe came into being suddenly and dramatically the way "let their be light" brought light into the universe suddenly and dramatically.

Huh? If that's your definition then I agree totally, because the evolutionary community believes it was a random explosion. Now, some adhere to the "superstring" theory where condensed branes of gravity exploded when they made contact with each other.

But your definition is entirely different and I have no problem with it. :) I think it's misleading to use that term, though, since most would think of the evolutionary model.

~Lava~

10-01-2008, 11:36 PM

For any non-intelligent design, Big Bang Theorists out there, I have a question. What caused the Big Bang?

Protagonist

10-02-2008, 01:21 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/17/bullying_1705_narrowweb__300x352,0.jpg
we don't fully understand it yet to release an accurate answer.

EveningStar

10-02-2008, 06:56 AM

One current theory is that all the matter in the universe stops expanding, then contracts back upon itself and is crushed back to quantum singularity only to expand again. This repeating pattern has been compared to the beating of a heart.

Thing is, the expansion of the universe is fast enough that it calls into question whether gravity can ever reverse the tide. Certainly not without divine intervention.

When you go to Heaven, ask Him. I still think it was a loud squeaking sound rather than a bang. Either that or a rattling the way wrapped hard candy makes so darned much noise when you're unwrappng it during a boring sermon on Stewardship Sunday.... :D

Doffen

10-02-2008, 11:04 AM

For any non-intelligent design, Big Bang Theorists out there, I have a question. What caused the Big Bang?

I think I can counter that. What caused God?

inkspot

10-02-2008, 11:56 AM

I think I can counter that. What caused God?
Doffen! Good to see you, sweetie. :)

Nothing cause God. God caused everything else.

OK, Truman, I get you. You don't really have a problem with the Big Bang. You have a problem with anyone saying it was a random beginning rather than a planned one. Of course scientists who don't believe in God have to cling to that random idea, but most of us here (excluding Doffen!) believe it was anything but random.

I still think, though, that "new heavens" can't be appearing if God finished creating the heavens and the earth on Day One of a literal 6-days of creation. It would be going against the literal interpretation if any new "heavens" showed up. And they have.

Doffen

10-02-2008, 06:47 PM

Doffen! Good to see you, sweetie. :)

Nothing cause God. God caused everything else.

Good to see you too Inkspot! How're you doing?

Alright, what I meant was: Creationists tend to accuse the evolutionists of not having enough proof to their statements, though what I find a bit bizarre and even funny is that the same people doesn't have to answer their own claims with proof. evolution is ALWAYS the thing that needs defending, not the other way around. Evolution is the theory that the creationists feels so strongly against, and they LOVE do say that we lack the evidence for it, though when the evolutionists responds and wants cold-hard evidence for creation, the creationists lack even more evidence then the evolutionists. How come?

While evolution is the theory made by humans who've really deepened themselves into it and really tried to get evidence for their claims (which I think is pretty well proven already), creationists stands there, clamping their boots and refusing this to be true because the "lack of evidence", while the creationists holds on their theory with blank belief. How come creation can be backed up with belief while evolution needs to be PROVEN, even though the people who asks it to be proven doesn't even hold evidence to their own claim?

If people tell me to prove big-bang to have happened, then, as a counter, I'd like the same people to prove me how God "happened" instead.

EveningStar

10-02-2008, 07:04 PM

I actually do not believe that time is linear, a meaningless line that never ends back into the past or forward into the future.

I believe time is a volume. A volume in which there are an infinite number of possible points to hover, and thus it is possible to travel for eternity and never be in the same EXACT time twice.

People don't move along time, they move through it, as fish swim about in a tank. So you don't have to see time as a series of things past that are gone forever or things yet to come that cannot be foreknown.

We were made to experience time in a linear fashion, probably to keep our primitive minds from being overwhelmed. I believe in Heaven we can not only go ANYWHERE but also ANYWHEN, with a particular set of anywhere/anywhen being a LOCUS. Such as "The Arc de Triomphe on May 12th, 1947 at 7:35 pm DST".

Truman

10-03-2008, 12:07 AM

Doffen: The burden of proof is on the evolutionist because the evolutionist demands that the tax payers pay to teach it in the schools, when it has no more proof than creation. Did I say that? No proof for creation? Yes I did, because there isn't any. There's evidence, but no proof. Proof is something you can subject to testing, while evidence is something you can find to support your model of a theory. Creation does contain this evidence.... however I wouldn't know where to begin. Just point me in the direction you wanna start and we'll take it from there. ;)

Also, I believe that logic does not dictate there is a God. "Woah!" many would exclaim, but there really isn't any logic behind it. I'll make a topic in the Socratic Club about that, since that doesn't really apply to the evolutionism/creation debate. :)

EveningStar: Actually, there have been two movies made that, to me, depict time the best, if one was to actually travel backward (or forward).

First off, there's "The Time Machine"... the remake. Ah ah, before you start talking about how you thought it was terrible (most thought it was; I loved it, though :D) let me make my point. Alexander's girlfriend dies, which drives him to build a time machine to change the past and bring Emma back. Personally, I think that's a better reason than the novel, to just say in so many words, "Hey! How about I build a time machine? That'll be fun," and have no real important reason. Anyway, he succeeds, goes back, and she dies again at the same time on the clock, only in a different way. All through the movie he tries to have his question answered: "Why can't one change the past?" He gets his answer almost a million years later from an uber-morlock, who gives him the most educated answer. He can't change Emma's death because he built his time machine for the very reason she died, and if she hadn't died, he would've never built the machine. Sure, he would live the life Emma had then until that moment, but she would have to die or there would've been no rational way he could have arrived there to witness her life and death again in the first place.

The second movie: "The Langoliers." Stephen King gives an excellent proposition of what the past and future would be like. When the people on the plane pass through the time rip and enter the past, everything is dead. Not dead, like everyone is laying around dead, but everything is gone. The beer is flat; fire can't be created. Anything alive or any object containing a mechanism to create an action is no longer existent. Why? Well, since time is constantly in action, every moment passed no longer needs the ability to support any form of action. Fire requires time to burn, just as beer requires time to fizz and people require time to live. If the time is gone into the past, the past is useless and everything in motion moves on into the next second, and the next moment, and the next. Time doesn't stop. The future, King portrayed the same way. The future world is waiting for the present to catch up to its existence, and once caught, instantly becomes the past, but anything alive in that time is also caught and pushed back into the stream of time. That's the best definition, I think, of time as a whole. If we were ever able to build a time machine (which, IMO, I don't think God would allow to happen), that's what the past would look like: dead. Used. Unneeded. And the future: void. Unused. Awaiting.

...Wow, this is really off topic. Sorry, I hope this issue about time is closed soon. :o

EveningStar

10-03-2008, 07:16 AM

Truman, I'm glad you used H.G. Wells and Stephen King to refute my view of time. But I'm going to come right back at you by quoting Dr. Seuss. He was an equally gifted scientist. :p

Remember that in Stephen King's "The Langoliers" each moment is built separately and used once, then demolished by a lot of little buzz bots with fangs for skin. Oh he also said that anyone who had enough intelligence would naturally develop powerful psychic powers that can, with practice, be used as a weapon. I trust this man...he's not a fool like Einstein or Hubble. And furthermore I fully accept that any given airplane would list, among its few survivors, a mystery writer, a hitman, a doctor, a psycho, and a skilled Air Force pilot. I also take it on faith that they would intelligently discuss the possible explanations of a rip in space-time and the theory of discrete chronons vs. continuous time flow and arrive at a plan to escape. :D

Let's skip the novelists. The theories of time I discuss here are based upon the work of theoretical physicists, not Edgar Allan Poe and H. P. Lovecraft. ;)

FatherChristmas

10-03-2008, 09:58 AM

Good to see you too Inkspot! How're you doing?

Alright, what I meant was: Creationists tend to accuse the evolutionists of not having enough proof to their statements, though what I find a bit bizarre and even funny is that the same people doesn't have to answer their own claims with proof. evolution is ALWAYS the thing that needs defending, not the other way around. Evolution is the theory that the creationists feels so strongly against, and they LOVE do say that we lack the evidence for it, though when the evolutionists responds and wants cold-hard evidence for creation, the creationists lack even more evidence then the evolutionists. How come?

You are confusing evidence with proof. Neither side can prove their claims because there is no way to travel backwards in time. Any logical proof would rest on the truth of the assumptions at the beginning of the argument, and these assumptions cannot be proven. However, there is plenty of evidence for creation. Strictly speaking, everything you see is evidence for creation. Or, if you believe in evolution, it is evidence for that. How you evaluate the evidence all depends on what you believed before you encountered it. As for why evolution is held to a higher standard, it is because evolutionists claim that their theory is based on science, whereas Christians accept the reality of God's creation based on faith in the creator. If you want to go ahead and admit that your belief is based on faith, then you won't get any argument from me. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But as long as you insist it's based on science, then the burden of proof is on you and only you.

While evolution is the theory made by humans who've really deepened themselves into it and really tried to get evidence for their claims (which I think is pretty well proven already), creationists stands there, clamping their boots and refusing this to be true because the "lack of evidence", while the creationists holds on their theory with blank belief. How come creation can be backed up with belief while evolution needs to be PROVEN, even though the people who asks it to be proven doesn't even hold evidence to their own claim?
We are not "clamping our boots" and we do not have a "blank belief". We know the One in whom we believe. He is real. If you choose not to exercise faith in God, that is your right. But try not to be so dismissive of those who are doing nothing more than respectfully disagreeing with you.

EveningStar

10-03-2008, 11:09 AM

In some ways insisting on hard evidence is a sign of immaturity. And trust me, as a trained scientist I know and respect the scientific method, and I'm not knocking it. I'm addressing the basic human desire for proof that can be touched.

When I was a child, I was afraid of the dark. Mum would come in and turn on the light, and I felt much better. I'd address my concerns to her, she would explain that there really are no monsters under the bed, and I WOULD BELIEVE HER, yet I still was afraid of the dark, and monsters that I knew were not there would continue to frighten me.

God is that mother. He knows there are no monsters under the bed. Still we cannot trust him but continue to fear the monsters we know are not there unless the light is on. Blessed is the man who can get a restful night's sleep with the lights turned off, for that is the most restful of all sleep.

So, you say, science is not frightened by the lack of knowledge, merely curious, and so this analogy does not apply. But I would say you were wrong. One thing many scientists actually fear is the belief structures that arise in the gap between what is and what of it we know. They imagine a world where there were no religious "superstitions" to make terrorists want to cut the hands off robbers, blow up busses, or overthrow governments. They imagine a world where there were no religious scruples to keep people from accepting an international ID card, a one world government, or "practical" forms of government like socialism or communism. If everything could be explained away by science, the whole debate about gay marriage would dry up and blow away, and books and movies rated more "reasonably".

Without a God, they feel the world would be a more practical place ruled by humanistic ideologies designed around keeping you entertained, safe and well fed. Only we keep letting religion get in the way....my my. Funny thing is that I'd rather die than live in such a "paradise".

inkspot

10-03-2008, 11:17 AM

Doffen, I am doing so much better, thank you! We have electricity in out house, so I am back home, and I am feeling lots better, too. :)

I totally get where Doffen is coming from: there is no empirical evidence that God exists, yet many Creationists insist the empirical evidence for an Old Earth is faulty (although accepted by the scientific community at large). Of course, this makes the relatively small number of YEC scientists look kind of, well, as if they are putting their blind faith in God above the empirical evidence and at the same time demanding the evolutionists come up with empirical evidence. I see what he is saying.

This is one reason that earlier in the thread, rather than arguing the scientific evidence (which is all squarely on the side of Old Earth), we were arguing the Scriptures: whether Genesis 1-2 compels believe in a literal 6-day Creation. This is much easier for us to debate because there is no hard empirical evidence one way or another.

So, Truman can argue for the 6 days based on that "evening and morning, the first day," and I can argue against it based on the many usages of the Hebrew "yom" as a much longer period of time. Neither of us looks like an idiot.

But when YEC's start arguing the science as opposed to the Scripture ... well ... in the scientific community, they do tend to look as if they are willfully not allowing the evidence to sink in, as if they are afraid to confront the truth.

EveningStar

10-03-2008, 11:32 AM

We must regard all of God's creation as a form of scripture, including the fossil record. The proper interpretation of it is a matter of some dispute, but we cannot turn our back upon it.

I believe what is written in the Gospel of John, that Christ is the living word who both SPOKE the word in our Bible and MADE the word when all things were created through and for him. This is Biblical. God's word is not like man's babbling, but is a living truth which takes on both written form and testifies to us through the infinite expanse of stars, the rebirth of life after the death of winter, and the majesty of a thunderstorm. Yes the word was made flesh and dwelt among men. But that word also lives in the perfect movements of the heavenly bodies, the precision of hydrocarbon molecules, the incorruptability of gold and the astounding energy output of the sun.

Look till your eyes fall out. You won't see anything in the heavens or the earth or the depths of the sea that should give you any reason to fear. "For what shall separate you from the love of God? Shall angels, or principalities or nakedness or peril or sword? No! For in all things you are more than conquerors throught Christ Jesus the righteous."

Let nature speak to you. Refuse not its wise counsel. For in its richness is the living word of God. And of course what is not perfectly obvious to your senses in the world around you is most generously and wonderfully explained in the Old and New Testament.

Truman

10-03-2008, 12:20 PM

Let's skip the novelists. The theories of time I discuss here are based upon the work of theoretical physicists, not Edgar Allan Poe and H. P. Lovecraft. ;)

Coming from me, I'm sure you would know that I excluded the events of both movies that were obvious poppycock for a reason. No, I do not believe in big time-eaters or evolution making morlocks have telepathy. That's a little out of my league of belief. :rolleyes: I'm just pointing out the writers' views on time; nothing else.

I never intended to debate your views, ES. Just to point out a few other reasonable theories that I believe in. You, yourself said you believed, "People don't move along time, they move through it, as fish swim about in a tank," which is rather a mirror definition I gave about time as King put it. So there's really no difference between "science" and "fiction" when it comes to the subject of time. I chuckle at the thought that you seriously think that the study of "time" can actually be analysed through scientific investigation when it cannot. Time is a subject as fit to interpretation as the Bible is. Hypothesis is as far as the subject can get.

I totally get where Doffen is coming from: there is no empirical evidence that God exists, yet many Creationists insist the empirical evidence for an Old Earth is faulty (although accepted by the scientific community at large). Of course, this makes the relatively small number of YEC scientists look kind of, well, as if they are putting their blind faith in God above the empirical evidence and at the same time demanding the evolutionists come up with empirical evidence.

I'm gonna have to blow the whistle on that one. I do not agree with that. Most creationist arguments are completely opposite of the definition Doffen gave. People like him are constantly giving this example. Casey Luskin nailed it(on ID but still applying):

"Intelligent design is not merely a negative argument against evolution, but uses positive arguments based upon detecting in nature the types of information known to come from intelligence..."*

I became a Christian through evidence of creation, not blind faith. The reason I became a serious Christian was because of evidence, not faith. I'm going to blindly accept a belief in the Bible. Those who would are probably going to lose their faith later as many do who enter college, like Tom Hanks, who was actively involved in the church, as well as writing papers on how much he loved God. College destroyed that, and now he's in the film business making movies from "Philadelphia" to "The Da Vinci Code."

We demand evolutionists come up with empiracle evidence because they force taxpayers to pay for this belief to be taught, when there's nothing to back it. They should work for Congress and borrow their way out of debt. :rolleyes: I think that the subject of "origins" should just be left out of the science classroom. Left out. Both views are religious and someone's going to get offended either way you put it. Leave it out. Evolution theory does not follow the rules of the scientific method, contrary to what most people think.

Evolutionism is still being taught for two reasons:

1) They don't have a replacement belief theory other than creation

2) This belief rises to universal relativism, which supports the idea that justice can be dictated, and man is the master instead of God. If there is no God, we must do what we think necessary.

Theistic evolutionism is virtually the same. God wound up a time bomb with the big bang and everything evolved through a gradual trial/error process which required death to those who didn't survive. If God is such a being than He is stupid, foolish, unintelligent, wicked, and does not care for His creation. I would never worship that God.

Truman can argue for the 6 days based on that "evening and morning, the first day," and I can argue against it based on the many usages of the Hebrew "yom" as a much longer period of time. Neither of us looks like an idiot.

Ah, now you've got me started on this one. :rolleyes: But... I wouldn't know whether you believe this, or if you're just giving a hypothetical example. So I'll just leave it there.

Reference: *Casey Luskin, From "Whose War Is It, Anyway? -- Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design" in Discovery Institute, September 15, 2006, p. 4

EveningStar

10-03-2008, 12:29 PM

It is counterintuitive to believe in a series of separate identical worlds being constructed and demolished in order for us to experience time. Why? The assertion was that each "world" was meant to last for a "moment" which I would say works out to about one minute.

If worlds can last for a minute rather than an instant, why not make them last two minutes and cut the work in half? You can see where I'm going with this, can't you? I'll skip the obvious steps and get on to a world that lasts one year could be made to last two....

As intriguing as it was, the eerieness of The Langoliers does not translate into full logic. You can't light a match but you can burn calories (the same thing, chemically speaking). You can't get soda to fizz but carbon dioxide does leave through the lungs and oxygen does come in. A-la-carte eerieness does not cut it for someone looking for answers rather than a case of the willies.

Truman

10-03-2008, 01:10 PM

The people's actions were done because their time was brought with them. The--- Whatever. I'll just drop it. I meant for certain ideas which came from the movie, not every idea like how the worlds were destroyed; just that nothing would be there in the past. Nevermind. :D We should just keep it with the evolutionism/creation debate. I'm getting a bit off-topic with it. :rolleyes:

inkspot

10-03-2008, 03:20 PM

Theistic evolutionism is virtually the same. God wound up a time bomb with the big bang and everything evolved through a gradual trial/error process which required death to those who didn't survive. If God is such a being than He is stupid, foolish, unintelligent, wicked, and does not care for His creation. I would never worship that God.
I don't think God did anything through trial-and-error -- you brought this up with the Big Bang, too. But if God is a careful Maker who took His (infinite) time to perfect His creation, how is that the kind of God you don't want to worship?

In fact, if you are wedded to the 6 days of creation (literal 24 hour days) because that is the only way to intuit that God never does anything through trial and error, how can you account for His allowing that snake to talk to Eve? That was indeed a trial, and she did indeed error ...

But that's another subject.

Truman

10-03-2008, 09:11 PM

I don't think God did anything through trial-and-error -- you brought this up with the Big Bang, too. But if God is a careful Maker who took His (infinite) time to perfect His creation, how is that the kind of God you don't want to worship?

In fact, if you are wedded to the 6 days of creation (literal 24 hour days) because that is the only way to intuit that God never does anything through trial and error, how can you account for His allowing that snake to talk to Eve? That was indeed a trial, and she did indeed error ...

But that's another subject.

I believe in the literal six-day interpretation because the Bible doesn't interpret otherwise on that event. And if you're going to bring up the "yom" arguement, you oughta know that "yom" is always put into context with its meaning. "The evening and the morning" is that context, and I'd like to see some Biblical indications on your part. Remember, the Bible also says, "the first day" and "the second day." Many newer Bibles change this to "one day." One day? The Bible says "the first day." I don't know how anyone could look over this. As far as I know, you keep to the idea of "why not?" while I hold on to "the Bible says..." arguement.

Also, don't bring up the scripture with "a day is as a thousand years..." because of the scripture afterward, "...and a thousand years is as a day," which cancels it out. First of all, this is just showing how time means nothing to God. This isn't referring to the creation, and even if it was, it says "a thousand years," not million or billion. Plus, there're many evidences against the idea of an old earth anyway. To me, it's a useless arguement. :rolleyes:

inkspot

10-14-2008, 01:49 PM

Claiming that evolution happened is implying that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. In other words, you're calling Jesus a liar. How do you explain Matthew 19:4?
Quote:
"And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female."
or Mark 10:6?
Quote:
"From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female:"
Was Jesus lying? Did he not understand modern science?
Well, now here you have raised an interesting point. If Jesus, like you, believed in a literal 6-day Creation, and knew that man came along on the last of those 6 days, then He was mistaken in these passages! God didn't make male and female anything until at least 72 hours into Creation, right, and here Jesus is saying from the beginning of creation just as if He never heard of a literal 6-day Creation. :) The Beginning of Creation was, of course, Day One -- 24 literal hours with an evening and morning, and Jesus either thinks that male and female somethings were created on that day -- the Goof ... or else

... or else ... He realizes the importance of what He is saying here lies in the idea that men and women were meant to go through life, generally, as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and that these passages have nothing to do with creationism and evolution. :p
How do you explain sin? This "long process" of evolution (even with God involved) would require death. It would also nullify all scriptures that say Adam caused death. Romans 5:12?
Quote:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
or 1 Corinthians 15:21-22?
Quote:
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Apparently there were other people before Adam, because this long process of evolution of man would demand such, although Genesis 3:20 says,
Quote:
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."
For saying that true Christianity"...is the belief that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, a member of the trinity, and the means of grace which saves fallen man..."

I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here.

Many people who believe in some form of the long process of evolution as the means God used to bring about the variety of species of life we have on earth today also believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were the two upon whom God breathed His breath of life, just as Genesis says. You are tilting at a straw-man if you think that we don't believe in Adam and Eve. We do, we wholly believe in every word of Genesis. We just don't think the yoms were literal 24-hour days ... and there is ample evidence in Scripture that we aren't obligated to believe it. That changes nothing about the doctrine of grace which is the foundation of our salvation.

FatherChristmas

10-14-2008, 02:54 PM

"In the beginning" does not specify a day, and indeed it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus meant to refer to the creation period, rather than just to the first day. Also, it is inaccurate to say that you believe in "evolution" as a means for God to create life, since this is a contradiction in terms. "Evolution", as defined in every scientific book or journal, refers to a natural process (i.e. a process that does not involve God). If you believe in the Genesis record, you are a creationist. You may believe it took longer than 6 days, but you still believe it was God who did it. This is creation, not evolution. The terms are mutually exclusive. I believe in creation. Inkspot believes in creation. We just disagree about the length of time involved, which is not a salvation issue or a heresy of any sort.

Truman

10-15-2008, 12:14 AM

Well, now here you have raised an interesting point. If Jesus, like you, believed in a literal 6-day Creation, and knew that man came along on the last of those 6 days, then He was mistaken in these passages! God didn't make male and female anything until at least 72 hours into Creation, right, and here Jesus is saying from the beginning of creation just as if He never heard of a literal 6-day Creation. The Beginning of Creation was, of course, Day One -- 24 literal hours with an evening and morning, and Jesus either thinks that male and female somethings were created on that day -- the Goof ... or else

You're nitpicking. :rolleyes: That's just stupid, and you know it. Anyone who reads the Genesis account with no bias to any theory will not come back saying the days represent anything other than 24-hour periods (and no, I'm not ignoring "yom").

Please think outside the box, and please expound on why you believe the earth is older than 6,000 years. I'd love to know why you think so, and I'd be glad to answer. ;)

... or else ... He realizes the importance of what He is saying here lies in the idea that men and women were meant to go through life, generally, as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and that these passages have nothing to do with creationism and evolution.

:rolleyes: Ugh, why do you think Jesus would just include a fact in a statement He made just for the hell of it? Jesus isn't a guy who throws around statements and really doesn't care about certain parts of His statement, as long as the message gets out. There is a reason why He included the phrase "at the beginning," this isn't a random plus sign He just threw in to make Himself sound smart.

Many people who believe in some form of the long process of evolution as the means God used to bring about the variety of species of life we have on earth today also believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were the two upon whom God breathed His breath of life, just as Genesis says. You are tilting at a straw-man if you think that we don't believe in Adam and Eve. We do, we wholly believe in every word of Genesis. We just don't think the yoms were literal 24-hour days ... and there is ample evidence in Scripture that we aren't obligated to believe it. That changes nothing about the doctrine of grace which is the foundation of our salvation.

Think about it logically. Day 3: plants. Day 4: the sun, moon, and stars. I guess those plants are gonna be waitin' an awful long time (perhaps a couple million years) for the sun to come up, you think? You'll say, "Well God did it!" Yeah? Well I like to think about facts, and the fact is that plants need the sun's radiation to convert into chlorophyl to survive. "Well God did it!" "It's a miracle!" "The Lord works in mysterious ways!" If that's what you want to believe, that's fine. But that's not gonna hold up in a science classroom. I prefer to believe God created the plants one day, and the sun the next. That's the logical way; the smart way; the easy way. That's God: practical, not "miracle-bound."

Then you have to consider certain insects that pollinate certain plants. Wait a couple million more years, yeah! "Well God did it!" :rolleyes: I'll say it again. You seem to keep to the idea of "why not?" while I hold on to "the Bible says..." arguement.

As for "ample evidence in Scripture" for supporting an old earth, I'd like to see that. And don't give me the "day is as a thousand years," I've already discussed how that's not referring to the creation, and it's cancelled out with the following "and a thousand years is as a day." This is talking about how time means nothing to God, not the creation.

FatherChristmas: The fact remains with the countless verses (I think about 50, by my count) that talk about God resting on the seventh day. I don't think it could possibly be more clear, and anyone who comes back from reading simply will not come to the conclusion of "long periods," which would require a guru to make them believe. I believe God made the Bible clear, and the clear statement in the Bible is that God made the universe in 6 normal, 24-hour days. How could it be clearer than what's been said already?

FatherChristmas

10-15-2008, 08:02 AM

FatherChristmas: The fact remains with the countless verses (I think about 50, by my count) that talk about God resting on the seventh day. I don't think it could possibly be more clear, and anyone who comes back from reading simply will not come to the conclusion of "long periods," which would require a guru to make them believe. I believe God made the Bible clear, and the clear statement in the Bible is that God made the universe in 6 normal, 24-hour days. How could it be clearer than what's been said already?
You won't get any argument from me on that point.

Now let me address the rest of your post. You have a lot of strong arguments, but that is no excuse for using the word "stupid" when referring to someone else's comments. This is not consistent with the idea of demonstrating love for a fellow Christian brother or sister. Furthermore, your tone at times is that of a hectoring professor talking down to the ignorant pupil. I think if you soften your tone and avoid insulting language, then your arguments will speak for themselves. You have a lot of good things to say. Don't ruin it by forgetting to honor the idea of civility and politeness. :)

Truman

10-15-2008, 02:40 PM

Of course I didn't mean they were stupid, I meant the idea was stupid (without intelligence), and Inkspot probably knows what I meant (no hard feelings, ink). :)

Lucy but Taller

11-20-2008, 07:31 PM

evolution is wrong!:mad:

Protagonist

11-20-2008, 07:39 PM

yeah well creationism is wrong so no u!

theorangejello

11-20-2008, 07:41 PM

evolution is wrong!:mad:

I'm really not in the mood to discuss this topic, but yours caught my attention Lucy - Why is evolution wrong? I'm curious to know why.

Truman

11-20-2008, 10:42 PM

I wouldn't choose "wrong" as the word... It has too many problems with the many illogical claims it makes. I could go on for days about them...

I sort of hope this thread bites the dust hard, because I've debated about this so many times and I'm tired of posting the same things over and over again, and getting the same dumbfounded responses that never answer the questions I pose. Even my sister, whenever she gets involved in this sort of debate, she copy/pastes the essays I've written onto other sites. :rolleyes: Sometimes she doesn't do that, but whenever she doesn't she instead asks me, and I tell her what to write. Then they give the same responses, sometimes with a few people saying, "Hey, thanks! You really boosted my faith!" when in fact, it was what she used (my material) that did the job.

So... could someone move this to the CP library or something? I'm quite tired of doing this sort of thing, and I'm sure no one else cares much either.

FatherChristmas

11-20-2008, 11:11 PM

I'm really not in the mood to discuss this topic, but yours caught my attention Lucy - Why is evolution wrong? I'm curious to know why.
She believes in God, which means that "evolution" is not the correct explanation for the origin of life. That is what she meant to say.

FunkyFawn

11-21-2008, 09:26 AM

I believe in a literal six day creation.
I also believe evolution happens.

G Ledyard Stebbins, a prominent evolutionist, has the best definition of evolution that I have come across.

When a population has developed new genes in response to new conditions and shifted to the point that it would have to adapt to the former conditions in a new way rather than reverting, then evolution has occurred.

That's a paraphrase, I need to get his exact words.

Example of what is NOT evolution.
Anoles living on an island. A predatory bird is introduced. To avoid the bird, the anoles develop longer legs and live primarily in trees. That shift has actually been documented, and even called evolution, though no new genes were documented. Remove the birds, and the population would shift back to its former state - thus no evolution has occurred.

I breed snakes. The new world constricting colubrids (corn snakes, king snakes, etc.) and known as the lampropeltines. Kind of a sub family of the colubrid family, though it's not classified that way.

You can cross them and produce fertile young. King Snakes and Corn Snakes are very different animals. Different shape to the heads, kings are smooth scaled while corns are keeled, kings have a single anal plate while corns have a divided anal plate, kings have a body structure suited for terrestrial purposes while corns have a body structure for climbing trees.

They have a common ancestor, no doubt about it. The split didn't happen that long ago, you can trick them into breeding and they produce healthy fertile young. I have no doubt they have a common ancestor, and that the process of natural selection with random genes resulted in evolution to the point of speciation. Their common ancestor quite possibly was an old world rat snake. Lampropeltines do not have an organ that old world rat snakes have, so their common ancestor probably lost that organ before the split between kings (genus Lampropeltis) and corn/nw rats (genus Pantherophis) and pits (genus Pituophis).

Do snakes and cows have a common ancestor?
I don't believe so. But cows and bison and water buffalo very well may.

I believe Noah's flood happened. I believe the world has been in a state of change since then. I believe evolution is designed into life in order to deal with a changing earth with changing climate and changing habitat.

I do not think evolution is as slow as evolutionists think, I think (speculation) that when conditions demand it, it can happen quite rapidly, and that there was a lot of rapid evolution post flood.

However, I also think it is somewhat limited by the kind of animal. Snakes may all have a common ancestor, but they are still snakes, they still bring forth after their own kind.

That's my philosophy on the whole thing.

Fascinating note -
This year I crossed Mexican Black Kingsnake with California Kingsnake.
This is a cross that naturally happens in south eastern Arizona.

Anyway - the young came out patterned very similar to young Florida Kingsnakes.

The Desert Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula splendida) is thought to be the common ancestor for all other Lampropeltis getula ssp. The Mexican Black Kingsnake is very closely related to the Desert Kingsnake (sometimes hatch out looking just like them and turn black as they grow). It was interesting that combining two western subspecies demonstrated the look of young from an Eastern subspecies. I doubt they will go through the same pattern change Florida Kings go through, but it is still interesting.

FunkyFawn

11-21-2008, 10:06 AM

I actually do not believe that time is linear, a meaningless line that never ends back into the past or forward into the future.

I believe time is a volume. A volume in which there are an infinite number of possible points to hover, and thus it is possible to travel for eternity and never be in the same EXACT time twice.

My physics professor (who was a Christian) described time as a measurement of the entropy of the Universe. Time flows forward as entropy increases. There was more to it that, I must confess I didn't comprehend a word he said, he didn't expect us to, he just like to bring stuff like that into his lectures to stimulate our minds.

CS Lewis has a very fascinating concept of time in The Great Divorce.
I have to read that book again, I can't adequately explain it. Anyway, it's a cheap book at most book stores, and a quick read that is well worth it.

FatherChristmas

11-21-2008, 12:59 PM

EveningStar

11-21-2008, 02:23 PM

This year I crossed Mexican Black Kingsnake with California Kingsnake.
Once I actually crossed a bridge with an automobile. No, I'm quite serious.... ;)

FunkyFawn

11-21-2008, 09:05 PM

FF, when we speak of "evolution" in this context, we're talking about it as it is defined in science textbooks. That is, an explanation of the origin of all life by natural means. Since this definition excludes God from the process, it is inaccurate. What you are describing is also known as genetic variation, and that term is more accurate because it identifies the genes as the source of the change, thus preserving the understanding that God has designed all life with the ability to adapt to changing surroundings.

I've never seen evolution describe the origin of life in textbook, only what happens after life was present.

What I am describing is different than genetic variation. The anole example was genetic variation. Evolution requires the development of new features, and I do believe that happens.

I do not believe it happens to the extent of a t-rex becoming a hummingbird or an amoeba becoming a trout. However, new genetic material that natural selection selects resulting in a new species that is without question different from the species the ancestral population belonged to I believe does happen.

EveningStar

11-21-2008, 11:36 PM

One might question why God wouldn't put all the species he wanted here fully formed from the first moment.

To that I would ask why God wouldn't put all the human beings here fully grown from the first moment instead of wasting all those years building each new generation from a single cell.

Just as childhood seems to have a greater purpose than simply resulting in an adult, the childhood of life on earth--for such it would be--would seem to have a greater purpose than simply resulting in the present flora and fauna.

Exactly what that would be, I'm not sure. Who can be? Yet it is a lot easier to imagine it having some sort of purpose IF one sees value and worth in other forms of life besides humankind. I don't see humans as the only reason there is an earth or...for that matter...a universe. We chafe at the idea God "wasted time" to do things on an "Old Earth" if the end result were simply to make a home for man. Yet we don't chafe at the idea that God "wasted space" or "wasted stuff" to create entire galaxies full of billions of stars that look like a single dot to us, no bigger than the stars we see from our own galaxy. As a home for man, the universe is RIDICULOUSLY overdone. A simple globe with a "celestial sphere" dotted with equidistant stars and a sun and moon that rolled about Earth on a track would have been more than sufficient.

We must stop seeing our species as the centre of things. For one thing, as long as God's around, we...or our home...could never be the centre of things.

God made birds because he could, not because he wanted birdwatchers to have something to do. God made raccoons because he could, not because Davy Crockett would otherwise have to wear a rhinoceros-skin cap. He said they were good. He took pleasure in them. They belong to God and we are only lent some jurisdiction over them for a while. We shouldn't put on airs when we shouls be cultivating our humility as creatures dependent upon grace, not good works, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

FunkyFawn

11-21-2008, 11:43 PM

One might question why God wouldn't put all the species he wanted here fully formed from the first moment.

Adam and Eve sinned, and when they sinned, death and decay enter the world, it was no longer perfect.

The world may have been fairly stable before the flood, I don't know - but post flood, the way the world works is clearly not a static environment, it changes. God thus created the ability for his living creation to change with it.

Truman

11-21-2008, 11:52 PM

Dernhelm

11-22-2008, 08:14 PM

You're nitpicking. :rolleyes: That's just stupid, and you know it. Anyone who reads the Genesis account with no bias to any theory will not come back saying the days represent anything other than 24-hour periods (and no, I'm not ignoring "yom").

This issue is often brought up. Augustine was not affected by these theories though, so it's worth taking a look at his thoughts on the matter.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html

I think that this bit is particularly important:
Consistent with the claim that Genesis 1-3 is difficult and obscure, Augustine repeatedly urges restraint, flexibility, openness to new interpretations, and openness to new knowledge that may provide insight into the text. He says that "in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture" (p. 41).

This is another interesting article: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14745.htm

Good to see all the good discussion lately! Haven't looked in here in a while. Do be careful to avoid making comments on the wisdom of people's views--it's better to show them where they are wrong than to simply tell them they are. ;)

Charn_Tim

11-23-2008, 03:19 PM

Great point, Derny! :) And St. Augustine was not the only early church leader who thought this (for example: St. Jerome one of the greatest Christian apologists of the first few centuries of the Church thought something similar).

Truman

11-23-2008, 03:59 PM

:rolleyes: Because Augustine said something on virtually every spiritual matter, like others who say similar as him (i.e. Gleeson Archer or Norman Geisler), this does not condone his words. Again, bringing up the "Why not?" arguement, instead of looking at the clear Bible. I do not follow the Bible "headlong," but rather look into the Hebrew texts when concerning the OT (there's a website I particularly enjoy called "Navigating the Bible"). When looking there you usually look for originally used words.

Sure, "yom" could mean a 12-hour day, a 24-hour say, or an undetermined period of time. But the context of that word clearly gives its meaning. Widening one's knowledge of the Bible's ideas does not necessarily mean to change every aspect of its original interpretation. If we did that we'd have the Book of Urantia (which I could go on for pages about). Augustine was right to question a few of the popular teachings. I question some myself, like the "rapture" theory. But in the case of 6 days, some have grasped to the gap theory, the day-age theory, or the progressive creation theory. Every one of these was started because Christians got afraid of the evolution theory when it became popular, saying, "Ooh, science isn't agreeing with our teachings; we better do something!" Augustine was not ahead of his times to question the days of creation. Plato and similar philosophers had their own ideas of an old universe way back when. This idea is not entirely new.

I believe it was John Knox (or Calvin or Luther; not sure which) who scolded the Catholic priests during his trial when they quoted against him, using such people as Augustine, by saying that the Bible is the final word, not man. Now, I know Knox is also just as fallible as Augustine, but I admire the zeal he took toward the Bible's clear teachings, unreliant on past teachers. The same examples lie in science, when for 2000 years the official doctrine of gravity was that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, taught by Aristotle. He was a brilliant philosopher, but he was wrong.

Such people that teach or believe the day-age theory or progressive creation, etc., IMO, are products of their times. They've been taught certain things for so long that when they turn to Christianity (like Hugh Ross) they tend to merge "new stuff with old stuff," thus, trying to splice the two teachings that conflict in their minds to satisfy the scientific side with the religious side. The Bible is not a science book. But when it speaks of science it's right. I think it is possible that God could have created the earth in 6 literal 24-hour periods. I know it is probable that the God spoke as clearly as He could to relay this message in Genesis. If He wanted a different message He would've made it plain, just as He made it completely evident that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If we can't trust the vivid message of the creation, then we might as well deny that Jesus is Lord, even when it is so apparent.

Dernhelm

11-23-2008, 04:48 PM

Thanks! I'll have to look at what Jerome said. Good to see you back, by the way. :D

EDIT: Sorry, missed your post because I had this page up too long. It is good to recognize that Augustine is as fallible as any man, but I think we should also consider his arguments carefully. He did get a lot right. I have to say, much as I enjoy science, I am not all that concerned with which theory is correct. It seems to me far more important to consider the way we're treating scripture. It's important not to ignore what the bible says. It is equally important not to add to it. I am not (at this point) going to argue for or against a particular understanding of the word 'yom.'

Here's what I think: it is impossible to prove either view. And this ambiguity existed in the Hebrew also--it's not something to which the meaning was once clear. Therefore, I don't think either side should try to argue that the opposing side is being unbiblical. Obviously, each side will want to show that it's more likely that the text meant thus-and-such, but I don't think that either side can make it absolute. Personally, I prefer to take a definite stand. But I will not do so when the bible itself is not unambiguous. I think that the old earth views are probably correct, but I'm not going to stand or fall on that belief. If I turn out to be wrong, so be it. I think that to say that to say the text definitely says one way or that other is adding to Scripture, which is why I'm belaboring this point so much. I'll stop now. ;)

Truman

11-23-2008, 05:41 PM

Oh there's no question we can't prove either view, and there's no question that either view isn't unbiblical. I just think it's more logical to conclude that 6 days means what it says. Not that other views of Genesis are inferior (I by no means think that at all), but that it seems more obvious that the Bible meant what it said. That's my take on it. :)

FunkyFawn

11-24-2008, 08:47 AM

FF, I don't think there are too many who would disagree with you about your definition of evolution, meaning "micro-evolution," which does happen. The dog, fox, and the wolf probably all came from some generic dog type in the beginning; no YEC disagrees with that. I enjoyed reading your input. :)

The term "micro evolution" is really only accepted by creationists.
For the old earth evolutionists, macro evolution is nothing more than a series of many micro evolutions, so they do not distinguish between the two, to them they are the same thing, just less time has elapsed for what creationists call micro.

FunkyFawn

11-24-2008, 08:50 AM

Oh there's no question we can't prove either view, and there's no question that either view isn't unbiblical.

With respect to the origins of man, Adam had to be a literal man biblicaly speaking because Paul argues that just as through one man, Adam, sin entered the world - and from him we inherit our sinful nature - through one man, Jesus, righteousness entered the world, and from him we can inherit righteousness.

I don't know how that passage (which I paraphrased) could be theologically interpreted if Adam was not a literal man.

EveningStar

11-24-2008, 12:04 PM

Truman

11-24-2008, 01:22 PM

I believe it was indeed the earth being referred to. Why else would God curse the ground with "thorns and thistles" for Adam to toil over? Gotta think about it logically; it doesn't make sense. Yes, through Adam's sin, death came into the world, meaning earth.

FunkyFawn

11-24-2008, 01:37 PM

As long as we nitpick about "Yom" et. al., let's nitpick about "the world."

Some folk are so certain that because Adam brought death into "the world" that tigers must have eaten green beans and broccoli till Adam ate apples.

Tigers are not of "the world" but of "the Earth". Every single place in the scriptures where "the world" appears, the word "mankind" could be substituted without changing its meaning. "For God so loved mankind that he sent his only son..." Whereas when referring to the planet, or everything contained in the planet, the word "Earth" is used. You can substitute "planet" or "our planet" for every occurance of "Earth" and not change its meaning.

Therefore...without saying he did or he didn't...the Bible does not explicitly state that Adam brought death into the Earth, but rather into the World.

Nitpickingly yours,

John

You might be right - I'll have to look at (concordance, the Greek/Hebrew word/phrase, where else the Greek/Hebrew is used, etc.) but to nitpick - John 3:16 is Greek, Paul wrote in Greek, Genesis is Hebrew, so a little more research is due.

That being said - biological death likely was here, the death in Genesis was a spiritual death.

With respect to Tigers eating Brocoli - the Lion lying down with the Lamb is a picture of things returning to how they were before the fall. Lions laying down with Lambs, was that literal or figurative? - that's another debate.

FatherChristmas

11-30-2008, 08:25 PM

I've never seen evolution describe the origin of life in textbook, only what happens after life was present.

FF, sorry to take so long to reply. Hopefully you haven't lost your train of thought. :)

To answer the above challenge I'll quote someone else who put it better than I can (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php). This is the Discovery Institute answering the question of whether or not "evolution" is compatible with Intelligent Design:
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

My contention is that a theist should never use the term "evolution" because it is inherently naturalistic. It does, after all, depend on something called "natural selection", which I think is an absurdity since "nature" is not intelligent and therefore it cannot "select" anything. If you view this "selection" as part of God's design, then the proper term is "divine selection". I don't like to confuse the term "evolution" with anything having to do with God because He is supernatural whereas "evolution" is natural.

What I am describing is different than genetic variation. The anole example was genetic variation. Evolution requires the development of new features, and I do believe that happens.

I do not believe it happens to the extent of a t-rex becoming a hummingbird or an amoeba becoming a trout. However, new genetic material that natural selection selects resulting in a new species that is without question different from the species the ancestral population belonged to I believe does happen.
Speciation has been known to occur by genetic variation, but there are limits. The change in question never gets beyond the family barrier. Of course, we don't really know what taxonomic level is specified by the biblical term "kind". Is it phylum, family, genus? In any case, I'm not trying to start a big argument. I pretty much agree with you on everything else.

Korkoa

12-09-2008, 12:18 PM

I think it's literal, six day creation. My Bible teacher says that the Hebrew word used for "Day" literaly means a twenty-four hour period.

Truman

12-11-2008, 11:59 PM

My contention is that a theist should never use the term "evolution" because it is inherently naturalistic. It does, after all, depend on something called "natural selection", which I think is an absurdity since "nature" is not intelligent and therefore it cannot "select" anything. If you view this "selection" as part of God's design, then the proper term is "divine selection". I don't like to confuse the term "evolution" with anything having to do with God because He is supernatural whereas "evolution" is natural.
Well, we're still stuck with "micro-evolution," which really does happen (variations within different kinds: felines, canines, etc.) It's an annoying term, but nevertheless it is still a term. If you start a debate on evolution you'll win in the first 5 minutes if you remember to define your terms. Micro-evolution is the only term young-earth creationists agree with.

As for "natural selection," I thought the same until I studied the term a bit more. Natural selection keeps the species strong, like quality control. Say you're building a car. You can inspect the car all you want. Let's say you produced the perfect car; nothing wrong; everything exact in its design. Say you produced a thousand such cars. Say you produced completely perfect cars of this kind for a million years. How long would it take to change the car into an airplane?

That's my point. Natural selection selects. It keeps birds birds, and dogs dogs. If a certain squirrel changed its environment, the selection process (created by God, true) goes into motion. If that... version of the squirrel decides to migrate somewhere else, the selection process will occur again. This variation of squirrel could continue migrating until the selection process prevents further reproduction between the original squirrel and the new squirrel. It could now be classified as a different species, but it's still a squirrel, and no new genetic information has been added to the new squirrel. Nature selected that squirrel's new environment capabilities as it moved on, but the original genetic code hasn't been altered. That's where evolution stops; or should I say, that's how "micro-evolution" happens. ;) Kinda what you said about limits, FC. :)

EDIT: Just wanted to add... I doubt too many people actually read this thread, but if they do they might catch how I said, "...no new genetic information has been added..." and followed up with, "Nature selected that squirrel's new environment capabilities..." I want to make myself clear (if anyone sees that as a contradiction): the genetic code for any organism contains countless capabilities.

The squirrel might take on "new" abilities that its gene code had never used before, but it was still "written" in the code. However, no new genetic information was aquired, meaning no part of the original code was altered or increased. The information stayed the same, whereas the capabilities, whether they were ever used before or not, changed for the envirmonment. No new coded info, just new cababilites discovered in the code that were there all along. :)

FatherChristmas

12-15-2008, 04:11 PM

Well, we're still stuck with "micro-evolution," which really does happen (variations within different kinds: felines, canines, etc.)

Seems like you're conceding my point, that what is called "observed evolution" or "micro-evolution" is actually just "variations within different kinds". So why not just call it that? I'm not stuck with anything. I choose my words deliberately so that I do not rob the Lord of the credit He deserves.

It's an annoying term, but nevertheless it is still a term. If you start a debate on evolution you'll win in the first 5 minutes if you remember to define your terms. Micro-evolution is the only term young-earth creationists agree with.

But you see, I don't want to end the debate in 5 minutes. Any person who believes in evolution either doesn't believe in God or he believes in a God that is just an impersonal force who just sits up in heaven watching everything happen without lifting a finger or getting involved in any way. In short, he is either an atheist or an idolator. I want him to understand that his denial of the creation is based on his rebellion against God, and he needs to repent from that or he will suffer the consequences for all of eternity. I'm interested in saving souls, not winning arguments. If we, as Christians, allow the evolutionists to control the terms of the debate, we will allow them to conceal the inherent rebellion of their argument. I want to make their sins obvious to them, not cover them up.

As for "natural selection," I thought the same until I studied the term a bit more. Natural selection keeps the species strong, like quality control. Say you're building a car. You can inspect the car all you want. Let's say you produced the perfect car; nothing wrong; everything exact in its design. Say you produced a thousand such cars. Say you produced completely perfect cars of this kind for a million years. How long would it take to change the car into an airplane?

That's my point. Natural selection selects. It keeps birds birds, and dogs dogs. If a certain squirrel changed its environment, the selection process (created by God, true) goes into motion. If that... version of the squirrel decides to migrate somewhere else, the selection process will occur again. This variation of squirrel could continue migrating until the selection process prevents further reproduction between the original squirrel and the new squirrel. It could now be classified as a different species, but it's still a squirrel, and no new genetic information has been added to the new squirrel. Nature selected that squirrel's new environment capabilities as it moved on, but the original genetic code hasn't been altered. That's where evolution stops; or should I say, that's how "micro-evolution" happens. ;) Kinda what you said about limits, FC. :)

The problem is that the typical evolutionist believes that "natural selection" is not just a controlling mechanism, but that it has guided the evolution process from a pool of slime all the way to homo sapiens. If you concede the term, you allow them the luxury of thinking of it as a "natural" process (i.e. apart from God).

EDIT: Just wanted to add... I doubt too many people actually read this thread, but if they do they might catch how I said, "...no new genetic information has been added..." and followed up with, "Nature selected that squirrel's new environment capabilities..." I want to make myself clear (if anyone sees that as a contradiction): the genetic code for any organism contains countless capabilities.

The squirrel might take on "new" abilities that its gene code had never used before, but it was still "written" in the code. However, no new genetic information was aquired, meaning no part of the original code was altered or increased. The information stayed the same, whereas the capabilities, whether they were ever used before or not, changed for the envirmonment. No new coded info, just new cababilites discovered in the code that were there all along. :)
Very well done.

EveningStar

12-15-2008, 04:27 PM

Any person who believes in evolution either doesn't believe in God or he believes in a God that is just an impersonal force who just sits up in heaven watching everything happen without lifting a finger or getting involved in any way. In short, he is either an atheist or an idolator.You mean, like, for instance, the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher? Was he an athiest, or was he an idolator?

Evolution can be one of two things, depending on your view. It can be an automatic tool like the CAD/CAM Router blade that operates on its own or it can be a manual tool that in the hands of a master craftsman can shape and polish. I would be loathe to say that evolution is a programmed router. But I would NOT be loathe to say that evolution was a chisel and mallet waiting for the master's hands.

I am reminded of equally cogent arguements, with Bible verses to back it up, why the Sun travels around the Earth rather than the other way around. Reasons strong enough to accuse Galileo of heresy. Reasons sufficient to put him to death unless he recanted and signed a document that he would not only never teach it again but also REPORT ANYONE HE CAUGHT DOING IT. So he swore on the Bible that the Earth was stationary and in the centre of the solar system. But as he left the room he looked about and shouted, "Eppur se movere!" (Nonetheless IT MOVES!).

Nonetheless, it moves.

Truman

12-15-2008, 10:09 PM

I remember reading he whispered it, not shouted.

Your definition of evolution may be slightly moving the problem (He guided it) , But no such definition of evolution is accepted by the scientific community (the majority, at least). As far as the popular consensus among the scientific world goes, FC is right; either there is not God, or there is a God, but a God who's lazy and allows suffering, misfits, and death to accommodate the process of creation.

I'm reminded of evolutionist David Hull, who said,
"What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin’s Galápagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror..."
He continued on,
"Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions..."
"The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.

Neither evolution, nor progressive creation is ever implied in the Bible. Thus, the teaching must be derived from another source: man. That's not just my take on it, but my knowledge as far as scripture goes. I've never seen such a verse that would suggest anything rather than "6 days," which is constantly mentioned throughout the Torah, as well as Jesus' teachings.

EveningStar

12-16-2008, 06:50 AM

I treasure your faith with all my heart and I am sure it is sweet incense to the Lord Almighty. And you know, I hope, that I am an equally dedicated and conservative Christian. Trust me, I do not argue out of vehemence but out of a thirst for truth.

This being said, it is quite clear to me that the explicit references to a six day literal creation are no stronger (or weaker for that matter) than the explicit references to the sun travelling around the earth. The ONLY difference is that we've had a few centuries longer to get over "dealing with it". It is OK to be Jesuit Catholic and believe the Earth goes around the Sun. It is OK to be Seventh Day Adventist and believe the Earth goes around the Sun. Even the Amish admit that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Evolution is the new "Earth goes around the sun" and chances are if there is a world in 200 years people who call themselves conservative Christians will think the anger of our debates is somewhat quaint. I'm not saying that 200 years from now ALL conservative Christians will believe in an old earth, only that they will wonder why people kicked other people out of denominations or threatened them with hell and damnation over their opinion.

At the end of the day, everyone who believes Jesus Christ is the son of the Most High, God of God, Light of Light, the Saviour, and who follows his teachings and meditates them in the heart will be saved. Whether or not they know exactly when Lincoln was a US President or exactly how many bills Queen Victoria signed into law or how exactly how God created the world.

People talk about accepting the Bible as the word of God. I do. Whether people think God was speaking literally or figuratively is an opinion separate and apart from whether people think of the Bible as the word of God which appears the way it does because of God's will. It's not a mistake that I said a mind is like a parachute, it works best when open. But I would be appalled if someone were put to death for not thinking the mind was made of silk and packed in a rucksack with a ripcord attached to a large metal ring.

FatherChristmas

12-16-2008, 11:23 AM

You mean, like, for instance, the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher? Was he an athiest, or was he an idolator?

No, I don't mean him. Based on what I know of his sermons, he seems like he was a Christian, which means that he actually believed in creation and not evolution. But like many Christians, he used the language of evolution to avoid arguments over science. I am saying that this is conceding the argument to the naturalists and therefore it's an unproductive practice. The evolutionists of his day, like the evolutionists today, were atheists and idolators, and he didn't do them any favors by giving them a pass on those sins so that he could preach about others.

Evolution can be one of two things, depending on your view. It can be an automatic tool like the CAD/CAM Router blade that operates on its own or it can be a manual tool that in the hands of a master craftsman can shape and polish. I would be loathe to say that evolution is a programmed router. But I would NOT be loathe to say that evolution was a chisel and mallet waiting for the master's hands.

As Truman and I have tirelessly pointed out, there is no scientist who defines evolution as a tool for God. They all define it in terms of "natural" causes, and so no Christian can believe in "evolution" as defined. In order to say they believe in it, they have to redefine the term to suit their liking. Why should we do such a thing? Why not just use biblical language and say that God created everything including all life? If you want to say it happened over a long period of time, then so be it. I don't believe that, but I can't prove you wrong and it's not a sin to believe it. But to accept everything that the evolutionists say and then say something like "But God was in control of it all" is accepting something that neither the Bible or science is proposing. This practice is pejoratively described by the evolutionists themselves with the phrase "God of the gaps". You're not winning any points with them by conceding their language and trying to reconcile it with your faith. They may salute you in public, but they're ridiculing you in their journals and writings.

I am reminded of equally cogent arguements, with Bible verses to back it up, why the Sun travels around the Earth rather than the other way around. Reasons strong enough to accuse Galileo of heresy. Reasons sufficient to put him to death unless he recanted and signed a document that he would not only never teach it again but also REPORT ANYONE HE CAUGHT DOING IT. So he swore on the Bible that the Earth was stationary and in the centre of the solar system. But as he left the room he looked about and shouted, "Eppur se movere!" (Nonetheless IT MOVES!).

Nonetheless, it moves.
Please don't paint me with the false accusations of others. This is the definition of a straw man. As for the verses about the sun and the earth, I'll deal with that in a minute. First I want to print the rest of your comments on the subject.
I treasure your faith with all my heart and I am sure it is sweet incense to the Lord Almighty. And you know, I hope, that I am an equally dedicated and conservative Christian. Trust me, I do not argue out of vehemence but out of a thirst for truth.

This being said, it is quite clear to me that the explicit references to a six day literal creation are no stronger (or weaker for that matter) than the explicit references to the sun travelling around the earth. The ONLY difference is that we've had a few centuries longer to get over "dealing with it". It is OK to be Jesuit Catholic and believe the Earth goes around the Sun. It is OK to be Seventh Day Adventist and believe the Earth goes around the Sun. Even the Amish admit that the Earth goes around the Sun.

The only verse I know of that could possibly support the notion of the sun going around the earth is Psalm 19:6. But Psalm 19 is clearly written in figurative language, as you can see from the very beginning ("The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands", etc.). I think I've been through this literal/figurative discussion before. The Bible consists of both literal and figurative language. If you assume that any piece of it can be taken as figurative then you can't be sure about anything, even the things we take as gospel truth (life of Jesus, resurrection, etc.). If you take it all as literal, then it is impossible to reconcile many phrases with reality ("take up your cross daily and follow me", etc.). The only solution is to determine by the language and the phrases used whether the passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively. Genesis is a history book. It is generally interpreted literally because that is what it appears the author meant for it to be: a literal history of the events described. You can say you disagree with us about the literal days of Genesis 1, and that's OK. But you can't say our view is unreasonable.

Evolution is the new "Earth goes around the sun" and chances are if there is a world in 200 years people who call themselves conservative Christians will think the anger of our debates is somewhat quaint. I'm not saying that 200 years from now ALL conservative Christians will believe in an old earth, only that they will wonder why people kicked other people out of denominations or threatened them with hell and damnation over their opinion.

Is this what you think I am arguing for? It seems to me that I've gone to great lengths to say that the old-earth view is not heresy and that no one will go to hell because of it. As for your prediction, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But it seems to me that the debate has been moving the opposite way for about 40+ years now and so it seems more likely to me that the evolutionary view will be the one that is ridiculed 200 years from now.

At the end of the day, everyone who believes Jesus Christ is the son of the Most High, God of God, Light of Light, the Saviour, and who follows his teachings and meditates them in the heart will be saved. Whether or not they know exactly when Lincoln was a US President or exactly how many bills Queen Victoria signed into law or how exactly how God created the world.

People talk about accepting the Bible as the word of God. I do. Whether people think God was speaking literally or figuratively is an opinion separate and apart from whether people think of the Bible as the word of God which appears the way it does because of God's will. It's not a mistake that I said a mind is like a parachute, it works best when open. But I would be appalled if someone were put to death for not thinking the mind was made of silk and packed in a rucksack with a ripcord attached to a large metal ring.
An open mind still has a door, and it's not a screen door. The mind must be filled with truth in order to shut the door tight against heresy and false teachings.

EveningStar

12-16-2008, 12:23 PM

Please, friend, don't say that because scientists don't understand the significance of evolution that evolution itself does not exist. Scientists also had faulty theories about fire, gravity and electricity, theories long proven to be false. But I strongly advise you not to get burned, fall down, or stick a screwdriver into the wall socket. Those hokey theories all had roots in very real natural phenomena. It could be that some hokey theories about evolution being the cause of life on earth will fall by the wayside. But there is life, and there is an earth, and there may also be evolution too, outside the bounds of the theory and quite independent from the will or ways of man.

inkspot

12-16-2008, 12:42 PM

Sorry I have not had time to look over this thread lately! I must say it appears as if semantics are bull-dozing truth here.
No, I don't mean him. Based on what I know of his sermons, he seems like he was a Christian, which means that he actually believed in creation and not evolution.
So much is being said here! First, that we will judge who is a Christian; Second that if someone is a Christian they must believe in Creation and not Evolution ...

But you can believe in both. God is Creator, and the means He employed to do His creating are ultimately at His disposal. As for the 6 days of Genesis, of course I completely concur with John (ES). There is figurative language in the Bible, and the 6 days seem to be just that.

EveningStar

12-16-2008, 12:50 PM

It baffles me how the very existance of evolution as a natural force frightens some people of faith.

If I formulated a theory that the wind and rain created life on earth, would people try to prove there was no wind, no rain? Or would they be content to show that these forces of nature did not create life on earth?

Truman

12-17-2008, 12:58 AM

As far as you can go with "it could happen," you still will always have the problem with the evolution teaching itself. The idea of an old earth came long before Darwin. Even Plato supported this idea. But the fact that it has existed as a hypothesis over two millenia ago does not mean it was ever, in any way, proposed by the Bible.

You must understand, this teaching was never brought to the public's mind from the Bible. It was not Bible believers who proposed this hypothesis.

Moving the arguement to such things as wind and the sun is a far cry from the teaching of evolution. There are serious problems with the theory, scientifically speaking. I'm reminded of a debate I had where I used the simple term "evolutionists," which he replied that that's like calling believers in gravity "gravitists." The two terms are totally inadequate to even begin to describe anything relatively close to an analogy. Gravity is observable while evolution (excluding micro-evolution) is not. Gravity and evolution are not the same thing, just as geocentrism and evolution aren't either. Respectfully, if you're going to give examples you're going to have to do better than that.

The theory does not frighten me, but rather concerns me. The believer of evolutionism (and you can't deny this) will tend, almost every time, to become an atheist, or believe that the Bible is a good book, but contains errors. Tom Hanks is a good example of a devout Christian in his teens. He exclaimed in a paper he once wrote about how much he loved the Lord. Next year he went to college and his faith was destroyed.

This tale is not a first, but has happened inumerable times to so many young people; this is the reason I'm strongly against "amen-ers" who never question anything, accept Christianity, and then enter the real world where they're vulnerable.

Evolution, in the scientific community, tends to discourage such "immature fantasies" as Christianity, saying the old world needed a "god" to explain natural phenomena, but that we're now much more intelligent, understanding that we need not to grasp such "childish" beliefs as "god," but to embrace the atheistic, scientific world of reason and knowledge. That's evolutionism in the scientific community.

No ES, I'm not frightened, but the idea itself, even just as an idea only (as you put it), tends to promote atheism, which leads more away from Christ. No layman anywhere will pick up Genesis and say "6 days" doesn't mean precisely what it says. You'd have to be a product of your times, like Hugh Ross, to believe it indicates otherwise.

EveningStar

12-17-2008, 06:38 AM

The only reason why evolution as a theory leads anyone toward athiesm is because the Christian community leaves it up to the athiests to teach the theory, therefore they only get an athiest's take on it. That's like leaving the sex education solely to perverts, drivers ed. only to drunks, or marriage counseling to philanderers. Not a pretty thought, that.

If parents associate evolution and athiesm so strongly, any child that finds the fossil record compelling has little choice but to say, "Well, Dad, I guess I'm an athiest, huh?" If you teach a child that accepting the most empirically straightforward interpretation of the fossil record means giving up religion, they will go through a crisis, pray about it, can't get the neat sequence of fossils out of their head, turn bitter and resentful toward religion and start thinking every war is based on religious differences and that church going folk burned witches, and it's all a lot of rot. It happened to one young man that went from writing "Let it be" to "Imagine if there's no religion..." And then John Lennon got shot outside the Roosevelt Hotel and the music all died and his immortal soul died with it. I consider his death a failure of the Christian community to properly come to grips with movements in science. Neither accepting nor rejecting evolution, but also not demonizing the very concept of animals and plants changing over time. The Christian community should treat evolution as a theory, not a doctrine.

When an idea isn't simply true or untrue, when it becomes a matter of whether it is convenient or inconvenient to the beholder, that's when I lose interest in debate and walk away. I'm not angry, but I'm finished. The defence rests.

inkspot

12-17-2008, 05:28 PM

Truman

12-17-2008, 07:14 PM

Well I can't argue with your beliefs. I sincerely ask, however, why do you believe evolution to have happened? Is there a reason why you believe the earth is old? What evidence is there to support these ideas? Just wondering what your convictions are. I'd love to discuss these subjects. :)

FatherChristmas

12-17-2008, 08:07 PM

Please, friend, don't say that because scientists don't understand the significance of evolution that evolution itself does not exist.

I'd like to remain friends if possible. That being said, I really wish you wouldn't act as if I had said things that I never actually said, and I never said either of the two things you have listed above. I have said that I don't believe in evolution, but I never said categorically that it didn't exist. I certainly can't prove that. I freely admit that my beliefs are based on faith. I believe in God, and specifically the God of the Bible who claims to have created everything. Because of that, I believe in creation. If I thought that there was a natural cause for everything, then I would believe in evolution because that is what evolution is for. That is why it was invented and that is why it persists. As long as there are people living in rebellion against God, there will always be people supporting evolution or some equivalent belief system.

Scientists also had faulty theories about fire, gravity and electricity, theories long proven to be false. But I strongly advise you not to get burned, fall down, or stick a screwdriver into the wall socket. Those hokey theories all had roots in very real natural phenomena. It could be that some hokey theories about evolution being the cause of life on earth will fall by the wayside. But there is life, and there is an earth, and there may also be evolution too, outside the bounds of the theory and quite independent from the will or ways of man.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Sorry I have not had time to look over this thread lately! I must say it appears as if semantics are bull-dozing truth here.

So much is being said here! First, that we will judge who is a Christian; Second that if someone is a Christian they must believe in Creation and not Evolution ...

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't know if he is a Christian or not, but ES brought him up and I was trying to answer his question. What I said was that based on his sermons it SEEMS LIKE he is a Christian. My other statements were based on that assumption. If it turns out that he wasn't, then what I said is irrelevant as it pertains to him.

As for the thought that "if someone is a Christian they must believe in Creation", that is axiomatic. Christians believe the Bible to be true, and the Bible says God created everything. Seems pretty simple to me. And since evolution proposes that everything came about by natural causes and not supernatural causes, then evolution excludes the possibility of creation. And again, when I speak of "evolution", I am using the definition that is well established in the scientific community.

But you can believe in both.

Only if you redefine evolution to include God as the cause. And I know that this is what you are doing. But you need to realize that your version of evolution is not what is described in mainstream scientific literature (i.e. Nature or Scientific American).

God is Creator, and the means He employed to do His creating are ultimately at His disposal.

Right. You and I both believe in creation. I thought this was the case.

As for the 6 days of Genesis, of course I completely concur with John (ES). There is figurative language in the Bible, and the 6 days seem to be just that.
If you want to believe that I have no problem. As I said before, it's not heresy and it doesn't affect salvation. But I think all the evidence points to a literal interpretation so that's where I place my faith.
It baffles me how the very existance of evolution as a natural force frightens some people of faith.

Frightens? Oh boy. Argumentum ad hominem.

If I formulated a theory that the wind and rain created life on earth, would people try to prove there was no wind, no rain? Or would they be content to show that these forces of nature did not create life on earth?
I would just say what I always say: God said that He created everything. What is your objection to that?
Nicely said, Badger.

One of the problems with this is that there is a whole Christian industry based on making sure Christians don't ever hear the truth about the theory of evolution -- that it does not comment one way or another on the existence of a Creator and that it offers no explanation for the beginnings of life.

Au contraire! Have you never heard of the pre-biotic soup (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/300/5620/745.pdf)? As for not commenting one way or another on the existence of a creator, what do you think they mean when they talk about "natural" explanations for everything? God is supernatural. Therefore, He does not fit into naturalistic explanations.

What "truths" about evolution do you think are being withheld? I never even saw creationist literature until I was over 30. Prior to that I was indoctrinated into the "fact" of evolution even at my Catholic high school. But I'd have to say that I learned way more about evolution from the creationist books than I ever learned from my high school or college (large public university) biology classes. In fact, Darwin On Trial has more information on evolution in its scant 190 pages than any science book I saw in high school or college. You should check it out sometime.

As long as believers insist that it does and refuse to truck with it because of this insistence, they are ceding the scientific high ground to the atheists. :(
An atheist by definition has already ceded the highest ground that there is: the ground of following the word of God. God's word is higher than any man-made theory, even the ones that sound impressive. Your view of evolution-as-a-tool-of-God cannot be found in mainstream science, nor can it be found in the Bible. It, like evolution, is an invention of man.

Shadow Hawk

12-18-2008, 10:35 AM

Nicely said, Badger.

One of the problems with this is that there is a whole Christian industry based on making sure Christians don't ever hear the truth about the theory of evolution -- that it does not comment one way or another on the existence of a Creator and that it offers no explanation for the beginnings of life.

Truth? What is Truth? Is not that the bases for many stories? The searching of truth? A theory is nothing more than a series of educated guess, why it remains that? Is because it is possible they are wrong? Unsure? In ways, perhaps, the main reason lies in the fact that they cannot prove it either way. evidence always is there however how one interprets it, is a main factor in the theory, which is also known as conclusion.

Lets stop playing these games... answer the following questions.

What is life?

What is the worth of life?

You can answer those many ways, but there is only one that is true. If you have found it, among the riddles in the bible. Then you have found purpose.

inkspot

12-18-2008, 11:54 AM

And since evolution proposes that everything came about by natural causes and not supernatural causes, then evolution excludes the possibility of creation
Theistic Evolution, as I understand it, does place God as the Cause of the creation of life, and the guide of how the variety of species came to be. I thought that pretty much the only people who were defending evolution here (myself, John/ES, sometimes Sunrise, Ephinie and Charn Tim) were all believers in Christ and the Bible who said (repeatedly in the past, I know) that we believe God is the Creator.

I didn't realize anyone was defending godless Darwinism in this thread. As I say, I have missed out on several pages of debate, and maybe some non-believers have been posting, and I missed it. If so, sorry. I did not know we had redefined Evolution to mean only atheistic evolution. Previously in this thread, we had not defined it that way. That said, of course I agree with you: Evolution on its own didn't create life on earth.

And while I have heard of the various weird proposals for how life came to be without God (I did see that movie Expelled), I wasn't aware that Evolution was defined as espousing one or all of those theories. There are so many of them (just from the movie I heard about the primoridal soup, the backs of crystals and ET's), I don't know how Evolution on its own can be defined as espousing any or all of them.

change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
This, to me, does not indicate that Evolution proposes any account of how life was at first infused into matter. Rather, it points to change, which we know has come about on earth. Most of us in this thread that I know of (Doffen excluded) believe the changes were brought about by God.

So, again, that said, for the purposes of this thread, let's go with the dictionary definition above for Evolution. Let's not presuppose that Evolution purports to explain how life began, because clearly it can't explain that.

Now, Truman, for evidence of the Old Earth, there is plenty. If you go back through the thread, you will find it. Or if you like, check out:

www.answersincreation.org and
www.reasons.org

Shadow Hawk

12-18-2008, 12:08 PM

Evolution has many definitions. However I will side with the father of biology and call it mathematical chance.

FatherChristmas

12-18-2008, 10:27 PM

Theistic Evolution, as I understand it, does place God as the Cause of the creation of life, and the guide of how the variety of species came to be.

I feel like my previous discussions on this very topic must have been with a different Inkspot. We've been over this before. Let me quote Behe yet again:
Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean something as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community. And that is the sense in which I use the word evolution throughout this book.
(Darwin's Black Box, from the preface)

"Theistic Evolution" is not mainstream science. And it is not in the Bible.

I thought that pretty much the only people who were defending evolution here (myself, John/ES, sometimes Sunrise, Ephinie and Charn Tim) were all believers in Christ and the Bible who said (repeatedly in the past, I know) that we believe God is the Creator.

If you believe God is the Creator, then you believe in creation. Evolution, as defined in mainstream science, is opposed to the idea of God as Creator. That is why I oppose it.

So, again, that said, for the purposes of this thread, let's go with the dictionary definition above for Evolution. Let's not presuppose that Evolution purports to explain how life began, because clearly it can't explain that.

I can't go with that definition because it is incomplete. When I talk about evolution, as with Behe, I mean the way it is used in the scientific community. And I would be delighted if the scientific community would refrain from presupposing that evolution can explain how life began. Unfortunately, they won't.

skandar_hh10

12-19-2008, 12:03 AM

If you believe God is the Creator, then you believe in creation. Evolution, as defined in mainstream science, is opposed to the idea of God as Creator. That is why I oppose it.

Exactly!
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. "
His Words, not mine.

Truman

12-19-2008, 02:01 AM

Now, Truman, for evidence of the Old Earth, there is plenty. If you go back through the thread, you will find it. Or if you like, check out:

www.answersincreation.org and
www.reasons.org
Oooh, now here comes the info. :rolleyes:

I've tirelessly written many essays concerning "evidences" for an old earth. Here are a few of them. This is gonna be long... I think I might have to split this up into two.

On the Big Bang Theory

For those of you who believe the bang theory was guided by God, I won't post the evidences for the mathematical and scientific reasons it couldn't have possibly happened. If there was a God involved, who's not to say that God did it? As far as evidence goes for the theory, here's what I gathered and wrote from extensive research. These are the only two evidences (besides redshift, which I'll bring up in a bit) that are cited in support of a "big bang" to have occurred.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation-- There is a miniscule amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It comes commonly from every direction and is believed that it is the same everywhere else in the universe. But, this is an exeedingly tiny amount of "heat," and is only a little less than 30 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. This radiation is only a microwave kind of "heat," but there isn't much "heat" in it at all. The temperature of background radiation comes out as being -2700 degrees Celsius.

The problem? Background radiation comes from every direction, but the Big Bang theory demands that it come from only one direction: from where the supposed explosion took place.

I leave this subject alone now with a quote from evolutionary physicist Hannes Alfven and Professor Asoka Mendis from the UCSD.
"The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy... is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents... [But] The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."

-- Hannes Alfven and Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698
Blackbody CMB-- According to Science News,
"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions... Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.

"Not any more. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy... A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself."

-- Science News, 1981
As far as redshift goes, most everyone knows that relatively white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to starlight. Dark, upright bands mark the spectrum at diverse points. Examining these dark bands, the type of elements in each star can be identified. Spectral type is a star's classification-- based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A spectrogram is a photograph of a star's spectrum.

Ultraviolet is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light (violet). Infrared is the other end of the visible spectrum (red; used in redshift theory). Every star is redshifted to some degree (or in another way of explaining, the entire spectrum of that star is shifted towards the red end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Thus, we have the "redshift." However, this is not accurate because the astronomer is still not really accurate by measuring the color of a star a long way off, just because its color changes when farther away.

The evolutionist claim of the Big Bang is very faulty, and goes against many laws of physics, but the evolutionists try and back up the claim with the concept of redshift theory. They say that this redshift shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion. They base this on the thinking that the "speed theory" of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift (notice the word "only"). This means that if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is shortened a little. This would cause the light to be "blueshifted" (shifted toward the ultraviolet, which is purple in the spectrum). If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched, which causes a redshift.

But we have six serious problems with this theory.

1. Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted. If the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this (remember that word "only"), nearly all the universe is moving away from our planet. A true expanding universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common center somewhere else, not from our planet. If this was true we would be experiencing some serious turbulence down here on earth from all the comets and things coming toward us and hitting us. If there was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But yet, we only find evidence that every thing in space is redshifted; everything is moving away from earth.

2. The closest stars and galaxies to earth are the least redshifted, and some of the closest stars are actually moving toward our planet. Even so, they still seem redshifted. Why?

3. There is evidence that light particles slow down.

4. The discovery of quasars in 1962 strongly disproved the speed theory of redshift. Quasars are unknown objects which show rigorously shifted spectrums toward infrared. But if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200% and 300%, which would equal distances up to 12,000,000,000 light-years and retreating speeds surpassing 90% the speed of light.

When this was learned of, many evolutionary astronomers renounced the speed theory. Then came the discovery of quasars with even higher redshifts: 300% to 400%. In the end, observers found three quasars which, according to the speed theory, are moving faster than the speed of light. One of these is eight times faster than the speed of light. The evolutionists tried to save their theory by recalculating the the formula for the speed of light. But they were, and still are unable to change it. Now they're really in trouble.

5. According to Einstein and many other scientists today, light can be pulled by gravity because it has weight. Because of this, it can be pulled by matter and can push matter. Because light has weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly redshifting it. Even Asimov said light has weight, and he's evolutionist!
"If a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light has 'weight.' The pressure of light on the Earth’s surface is calculated as two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km2]."

-- Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 330

6. No one has ever observed a blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. If the speed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is moving away from earth.

...As far as "proving" the earth is old, what will be brought up most often is the dating methods. Carbon dating! Potassium-Argon dating! Lead 208 dating! Lead 206 dating! All are based on the geologic column, which was invented by creationists because they got scared of evolution theory when it became popular.

But if you just go to the "evidence" evolutionists have for showing the carbon-14 method to work pretty well, the problems pile up almost forever.

The earth's atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. It is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.06% carbon dioxide, and 0.0000765% radio-active carbon (carbon 14). This radio-active carbon 14 mixes with oxygen, and mostly becomes carbon dioxide, which the plants breathe. Carbon 14 is formed when radiation strikes the atmosphere. The nitrogen gets overwhelmed by cosmic rays and bombards the upper atmosphere producing fast-moving neutrinos which collide with nitrogen, which, in turn, produces carbon 14.

---
Continued on the next post...
---

Truman

12-19-2008, 02:04 AM

Continued...

If you look at the table of elements you'll see that nitrogen normally has an atomic weight of 14 and carbon normally has an atomic weight of 12. But if the nitrogen gets blasted with these neutrinos, it produces carbon 14, which is a very rare and radio-active element; that's how it's made. You can hear it as it decays or breaks apart, which I'll get into in a little while.

Now, carbon 14 breaks back down into nitrogen at the rate of one half about every 5,730 years, which is estimated to be the half-life of carbon 14. I don't know if this is a correct analysis; they haven't been around for 5,730 years, but it's a pretty good estimate so let's assume it's correct.

During photosynthesis, plants are breathing in CO2, which makes it part of their bodies, so you and I probably have carbon 14 somewhere inside us, since animals eat plants, and sometime in our lives we have eaten plants or animals that have eaten plants. So, these plants are absorbing carbon 14 from the atmosphere and becomes part of their tissue, as I explained before. Therefore, it is assumed that the ratio of radio-active C14 to normal C12 in the atmosphere would be the same ratio found in living plants and animals.

For example: if the atmosphere is 0.0000765% C14 it is assumed that the plants and animals have the same percentage. This has never been demonstrated, but it's still a reasonable assumption. hen the plant or animal dies, it stops taking in new C14, so in theory you can tell how long it has been dead by measuring how much C14 is left.

This entire process was invented by Willard Libby, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing carbon dating. From 1947-1953 he worked on this method of dating.

Anyway, carbon 14 continues to decay after it dies. If half of it is gone, you'd assume it has been dead for 5,730 years. It get anymore, so it will go out of balance. Carbon dating is actually a comparison of the carbon 14 in the object with the carbon 14 in the atmosphere; it's a ratio. If it's 0.0000765% it is still alive. If it's only 0.00003825% it is 5,730 years old, etc. The less it has, the older it is. This is how the theory works; it goes from a half, to a fourth, to an eighth, to a sixteenth, to very little. You get the idea. It sounds like a good dating method, but there are some assumptions that destroy the entire method.

If someone told you to fill a barrel with water, but there were holes in the barrel, as you're filling the barrel, it's leaking out. At some point you're going to reach what is called "equilibrium," where the water line in the barrel will never get any higher, unless you speed up the intake or cut down the outgo. The earth's atmosphere is going to have the same problem.

If you took a brand new earth, stuck it out into the solar system, going around the sun, 93,000,000 miles away, with a moon included, it would start developing C14 from radiation and start losing it to decay. So the question is: How long will it take earth's atmosphere to reach equilibrium? They wondered the same thing back in 1950. The concensus was that it would take about 30,000 for the earth to reach equilibrium. Then, Willard Libby and the scientists in the lab made a horrible mistake: they made two fatally flawed assumptions. They said, "We know the earth is millions of years old." Mistake #1. "So we can ignore the equilibrium problem." Mistake #2. They ignored it.

The problem is,
"Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying."

-- R. E. Taylor et al., "Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," American Antiquity, vol. 50, no. 1 (1985) p. 136-140

*****
This proves, not only supports, but proves the earth is less than 30,000 years old, or else it will be completely stabilized by now. It isn't though, so I'd like to get an explanation on how this is not proof for a 6,000 year old earth.
*****

Usually, if an animal is still alive, it should give you about 16 clicks on a geiger counter. If it's only giving you 8 you're going to say it's 5,730 years old, if it's only 4 you'll say it's 11,460 years old, etc. This is how carbon dating is done.

Now I'll show you how it is definately a false way of dating things.

In 1963, living mollusk shells were dated to be 2,300 years old. (from M. Kieth and G. Anderson, Science, vol. 141, 1963, p. 634-637) It's not working.

In 1971, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated to have been dead for 1,300 years." (from Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, September-October, 1971, p. 211)

In 1975, it still wasn't working. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, aother part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (from Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 826 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30)

In 1984, shells from living snails were carbon dated to be 27,000 years old. (from Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 58-61)

In 1992 it still wasn't working! "The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850± 670 and 16,150± 230 years respectively." (from Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammmoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, (March, 1992), p. 214-228) They were side by side.

Here's the backstory on what really happens when the evolutionists date a fossil:
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."

-- T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden), "C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology", Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p. 35
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

-- Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error" Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19(3), 1981, p. 9-29

Same thing with potassium-argon dating. 1.3 billion years is considered the half-life, and I can explain a whole lot more on that if you'd like, but I assume you're tired from the carbon dating.

Here's what they say about the potassium-argon dating,
"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale."

-- A. Hayatsu, "K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, April, 1979, p. 973-975

There they go again with the almightly geologic column. Here are a few examples of its inaccuracy.

The KBS (Kay Behrensmeyer) tuff was dated at 212-230 million years, with potassium-argon, according to Nature Magizine, 1970. No one argued with this date, and everybody was "pretty sure" that the KBS tuff was this age. No one argued until a problem came up in 1972. Richard Leakey found one of the acclaimed missing links, KNM-ER 1470, under the KBS tuff.

They checked all around the area to see if someone had buried it there previously, but didn't find anything like that. It was a pretty normal human skull. So then, they dated the tuff as being 2.9 million years old. Later, 10 different samples were dated from 0.52-2.64 million years, down from 212 million. Even with the new dates given this is still a 500% error from only 5 million years to 2.6 million years. And it's a gargantuan error from 212 million down to 2.6 million. This is a scientific method of dating?

Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 million years. A known eruption. (from Funkhouser and Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, July 15, 1968, p. 4601 & G. B. Daylrmple, 196, 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47, 55)

Basalt from Mount Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (A.D. 1959) gave a K-Ar date of 8.5 million years. (from Impact #307, January 1999)

Basalt from Mount Etna, Sicily (A.D. 1964) gave a K-Ar date of 700,000 years, and the 1972 eruption gave a K-Ar date of 350,000 years. (from Impact #307, January 1999) (same as above)

Fresh lava from Mount St. Helens was potassium-argon dated, and it gave ages of 350,000 years-2.8 million years. Same rock. (from S. A. Austin, Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, CEN Tech. Journal, 10(3):335-343)

I can go on. There are other minor examples such as lunar movement, solar sizing, and polonium halos, but that'll take another post or two to get going. I'll leave it here.

The evidences for a young earth are stronger than you think. Try looking up some stuff. Don't waste time believing like-minded people. "Well God did it!" God? Why compromise a perfectly good Bible with a theory that has no evidence to back it up anyway? Some theory. Do your homework.

inkspot

12-19-2008, 11:21 AM

Yah, I'm sorry, I can't read through all that. I don't have the scientific mind you do ...
:)

This insistence that Evolution = Atheism is just what ES and others here have been saying is a detriment to sharing the Gospel. There are real scientists, our own Charn Tim is one of them, who believe that the earth is old and that God is the Creator.

The two websites I mentioned are full of legitimate scientific and biblical arguments for that case, and it is counterproductive for other believers to come along and cast stones because "that's not the way Science defines it." There's no such person as Science, there are just scientists and some believe in God and some don't ... but nearly all of them believe in Old Earth! :)

This is stuff that has all been said before. If we're going to insist in this thread that Evolution =Atheism, then I have nothing further to contribute.

Truman

12-19-2008, 01:49 PM

I have indeed read a little from the links, especially from www.answersincreation.org/ about the dating. They assume that young-earthers (YEers) believe that the dating methods are faulty, but that we have no actual reason or example of how. If carbon-14 is forming 28-37% faster than it's decaying, then it's not just an evidence on the YE's part, but it's practically absolute proof that the earth is not old. The website shows how YEers give "incorrect" dates as examples for the method not to work, but what they don't show you is why the dates don't work, and what the explanation is behind the incorrect finds.

Quote from the website:
"Why was supposed 230 million year old coal dated at 33,720 years? I haven't a clue. Supposedly, 'accompanying checks' showed it was not due to contamination...I'd have to see the documentation. After all, to say that the lab did not contaminate the specimen proves nothing. You would have to prove it was not contaminated from the moment it was excavated. In fact, you would have to excavate it in a vacuum to be 100% sure, because once it is exposed to the atmosphere, it is exposed to more Carbon-14. In fact, I don't mind if you ignore all Carbon-14 evidence. It doesn't matter...remember context, context, context."
This statement clearly shows the disregard for the reasons and facts YEers pose on why radiometric dating doesn't work. Sure, YEers show the bad dates, but they also show why many of the dates are bad. It isn't about context, it's about the assumptions made by the method, which is "radiocarbon as stabilized" when it has not, proving a young earth. This website never addresses that issue, and that disturbs me.

FC may be saying that atheist=evolutionist, but I don't. Gleeson Archer and Norman Gysler were incredibly intelligent devout Christians, and they believed an old earth, so I believe you can believe the earth is old and still be a great Christian. However, I think the scientific evidence (formation of carbon-14 at a quicker rate, speedshift theory errors, etc.) points to a young earth. The websites you gave do acknowledge the arguements YEers pose, and address them, but they do not address the rebuttals we give to the evolutionist/scientific community, which most of the time shows the real evidence that should be posed toward the OEers, not just Biblical reference.

If we're going to insist in this thread that Evolution =Atheism, then I have nothing further to contribute.
I don't insist that. :) (See above paragraph.)

EDIT: Oh by the way! Happy birthday, ink! :D :)

Riversong

12-19-2008, 04:32 PM

Evolutionists believe that life began on Earth as long as 4 billion years ago. “These early organisms must have been simpler than the organisms living today. Furthermore, before the earliest organisms there must have been structures that one would not call "alive" but that are now components of living things”(Steering Committee on Science and Creationism). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God made man in His image from the very beginning. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Holy Bible, Gen. 1.27). It also describes exactly how God made the first man and woman: “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being… Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man” (Holy Bible, Gen. 2.7,22). The Bible is very clear that God made a physical man, not a primordial soup of organisms that were not quite alive.

Some might argue that the Bible is merely presenting metaphorical representation of what might have happened, but that God really just set evolution in motion. This is not true. “Darwinian evolution in both its original and its modern form proposes evolution only by completely random chemical and physical processes. In this theory no trace of intelligent purpose, plan, design or goal is allowed. Therefore, theistic evolution which assumes divine direction to achieve divinely ordained goals is an entirely different and incompatible theory” (Robert E. Kofahl).

It is true that there is no hard evidence in favor of creation, but it is also true that there is no hard evidence to support evolution either. “For thousands of years intelligent humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals to develop varieties which are of special value to man. So there are 150 varieties of dogs, scores of varieties of roses, many different varieties of cattle and sheep, of apples and potatoes, etc. But they are still dogs, roses, cattle, sheep, apples and potatoes. There is much variation under artificial selection. Also, there is much variation in nature in the wild. But the changes are always limited. Genetics teaches that there are barriers through which genetic change cannot go” (Creation Science Research Center).

If we are to study mankind as an evolved being, we should have confidence that this is what actually happened. However, there are too many facts missing for us to be able to do that. “If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record” (Creation Science Research Center). How can evolutionists explain this absence? The fact is, they cannot. Another instance of the absence of scientific evidence for evolution is the fact that there are such complex life forms living on Earth at all. “Darwin's own theory predicts that such a complex combination of complex, interdependent parts could not evolve. This is because if any of the parts began to evolve, they would be a costly, useless burden to the organism. …. and therefore would be eliminated from the population by natural selection. Thus evolution would be stopped in its tracks” (Robert E. Kofahl). There is simply too much contradiction and lack of evidence to have any confidence that this hypothesis of evolution could in fact be a dependable theory.

FatherChristmas

12-19-2008, 09:24 PM

Yah, I'm sorry, I can't read through all that. I don't have the scientific mind you do ...
:)

To be honest, I don't blame you. I'm rather awed by Truman's contribution.

This insistence that Evolution = Atheism is just what ES and others here have been saying is a detriment to sharing the Gospel.

Now I know for a fact that this is false. I have witnessed to over 200 people over the past two years and evolution has only come up twice. You can listen to one of those two encounters at this link (http://missinglink.mypodcast.com/2007/08/Backslidden_Catholic_and_Methodist_Sharon_Wayne_wi th_Joe_and_Tamara-35855.html). It's only a 5-minute+ conversation because the two people I'm talking to are hardened atheists unwilling to entertain the possibility of God's existence. If you scroll to about the 3:30 mark you can hear my friend Tamara trying to use the teleological argument for the existence of God. But when she argues that the creation is evidence of a creator, the man responds by saying it could all have come about by evolution, thus setting up the conflict that you keep insisting does not exist. Nevertheless, the issue of evolution almost never comes up in witness encounters. I know this from experience, and it's not just me saying it. Ask these guys (http://www.wayofthemaster.com/) if you don't believe me.

There are real scientists, our own Charn Tim is one of them, who believe that the earth is old and that God is the Creator.

As I have said repeatedly, I've got no problem with your old earth views. I don't share them, but they're not heresy and they don't affect salvation. We can just agree to disagree on that point.

The two websites I mentioned are full of legitimate scientific and biblical arguments for that case, and it is counterproductive for other believers to come along and cast stones because "that's not the way Science defines it." There's no such person as Science, there are just scientists and some believe in God and some don't ... but nearly all of them believe in Old Earth! :)

This is stuff that has all been said before. If we're going to insist in this thread that Evolution =Atheism, then I have nothing further to contribute.
It's not me that is insisting on it, it's the same majority of scientists that you are citing as support for the old earth view! Hugh Ross is the exception, not the rule. What I'm insisting on is that we not re-define it in order to fudge the difference so that we can avoid arguments with atheists about evolution. They're in rebellion against God, and we need to tell them about it.
FC may be saying that atheist=evolutionist, but I don't. Gleeson Archer and Norman Gysler were incredibly intelligent devout Christians, and they believed an old earth, so I believe you can believe the earth is old and still be a great Christian.
All I'm saying is that in mainstream science, evolution means that life came about by natural causes. If God is the cause, then it's not evolution. Atheists ridicule Theistic Evolution as "God of the gaps". All of this is easily verified by just checking out some mainstream scientific publications. I never said that an old-earther is not a Christian. In fact, I have said many times that a person's view of the age of the earth is not a salvation issue. How many times must I repeat it before it sticks? And by the way, it's Geisler (http://www.normangeisler.net/), not Gysler. ;)

Quentilian

12-19-2008, 09:49 PM

first off READ THE BIBLE!!!!!!!! if you dont think its scientific than consider just one of the many scientific theories that came before all others: the earth was said in the bible to be round! not flat like the people in early AD thought. and secondly, why would God created the world in any other way then 24 hr days? hes omnipotent so dont tell me he couldnt do it! besides that we live in the 24 hr day and the whole "day is like a thousand years" speech was totally just so we could understand how God is ETERNAL and that He listens to us each and every day and that He exist outside of time... ps it was created and anything can be created by God so the three things that "can't" be created were created in the first place.

EveningStar

12-19-2008, 11:34 PM

I can't help mentioning, despite my hiatus, that an omnipotent God can create the world in JUST ONE day. So just because he COULD do something doesn't mean he MUST do it. The Bible doesn't say God created the world in one day, either literally or figuritively. That opens the door to God taking longer than absolutely necessary for whatever reason. And it's in the Bible that he took longer than absolutely necessary, unless you think he couldn't have done it in five, three or two days, or even 15 minutes. Or even said, "Let their be Universe." Which of course he could have done, but CHOSE NOT TO.

I go back to lurk now.

Truman

12-20-2008, 12:03 AM

Again with the "why not?" arguement. Why didn't he do it in a day? Well, because the of the mathematical sum of 52 weeks around the sun, the 7-day week is the only solution to correctly calculating the year. Napoleon even tried making a 10-day week, and that failed dramatically.

Why 7 days? There are so many other reasons how 7 days are the true indications in Genesis. Why should we remember the Sabbath? "For the Lord made the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th." Does that mean the Jews really had to work 6 million years before taking a break? The sabbath day alone is proof enough. If God says He did it in "7 days".... maybe He's saying He did it in 7 days. God wrote this on a rock, and He don't stutter. ;)

Why would God fine-tune the earth to orbit the sun mathematically proportionate to a 7-day week? You could go a bit further and say God made the 7-day weeks to equal 52, taking the two numbers out of 52: 5 + 2 = 7, the magic number (;)), but that's taking it too far out on the ledge there.... or is it? You never know. :rolleyes: But still, why a 7-day sum for the year? Why does it exist?

Now you'll bring in other examples like the jubilee given to slaves on the 7th year; maybe that means each day was a year and "see? this proves the days might not've been days!", but this has nothing to do with the creation. Why, in scripture, is the term "7 days" always used? Do you think, maybe, that God would try to make it clear to a reader? The context is key, and there is no indication anywhere that the 7 days of creation, in the dozens of times they were mentioned, did not mean what they meant. There is no contradiction to this teaching anywhere in scripture. Where you get the idea God was speaking in riddles, I have no clue. But I think your hypothesis has some serious holes. There's no reason not to believe Genesis meant literal 24-hour periods, and there's radiometric proof that the earth is less than 30,000 years old. So why bother believing so anyway?

Riversong

12-20-2008, 02:21 AM

Unfortunately, it is not true that the Bible is always clear. It is not. It is full of mysterious passages that are never explained. However, it is true that God's purpose and character remain unchanged since the beginning of time. He is consistent throughout the ages. Although it is arguable that he could have meant a longer period than a day during the creation story, it is unlikely that is what is meant. That is why this is such a controversial subject in the first place. It is not clear in either case if you think of the Bible as something that must be interpreted. In many instances, this is true. Certain passages of scripture do need interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this is an historical account and as such can be taken as fact.

Truman

12-20-2008, 02:28 AM

Yes, it is unclear about many of things. I just asked why wouldn't God make something as important as the creation of the universe clear. To me, it's apparent. That's all I'm saying; but yes, the Bible isn't straightforward about many things; you're right.

Doffen

12-20-2008, 07:39 AM

Ephinie

12-20-2008, 08:57 AM

I didn't understand this at all. If my logic doesn't fail me dramaticly, 10-days weeks would only mean that it would take 34 weeks in a year instead of 52 ... Or am I just a real nutcase here..?
Uh... yeah, I'm with Doffen on that one. I would think that Napoleon's 10 day week failed because the cultural background for 7 days was too ingrained into the world's psyche for anything else to work. But the idea of adding or taking away days should theoretically work fine as long as the divisibles are correct.

FatherChristmas

12-20-2008, 12:11 PM

I didn't understand this at all. If my logic doesn't fail me dramaticly, 10-days weeks would only mean that it would take 34 weeks in a year instead of 52 ... Or am I just a real nutcase here..?
Even though I don't have a horse in this race, I have to wonder about your example. We know that there are 365 days in a year, right? 34 weeks of 10 days would only be 340, so I don't see how that could work.

EveningStar

12-20-2008, 12:46 PM

Let's not get too Newtonian. There are not exactly 12 lunar months in one trip around the sun. There isn't even an even number of days in a year. We're talking about 365.25, and not even precisely that. So if he were making a point using math, he would have made the world in 5.59056122449 days and rested on the following day.

I think we can give up on God intentionally making the year an even multiple of 7, or for that matter an even number of days. Because had he been trying to, he would have done a better job, I'm sure.

Doffen

12-20-2008, 12:49 PM

Even though I don't have a horse in this race, I have to wonder about your example. We know that there are 365 days in a year, right? 34 weeks of 10 days would only be 340, so I don't see how that could work.

Okey, now that we've concluded I AM a nutcase (trying to do math in your head isn't easy when you almost failed at it in school), may I conclude though, that even if we have 7 days a week for 52 weeks to make it a year, that isn't correct either? There is a reason to why we have an extra day every fourth year, right?

When I did my math on 52 weeks, that didn't conclude with 7 either. It concluded with 7,019 days a week. Am I still way out sprawling?

EveningStar

12-20-2008, 12:55 PM

The point is that the number of weeks in a year, months in a year, or days in a year don't signify anything. The number of days in a week have religious significance, but God could have made the Sabbath the 8th or 6th day of the week had he seen fit. I think 7 was chosen simply because he thought it best for human need for a sabbatical. Remember Christ's words that "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

Truman

12-20-2008, 01:51 PM

ES, you must understand that it doesn't make any difference at all what you or I think God could have done. He said "7 days," not 8 or 6. FC has explained the belief of the "God of the gaps." I propose you believe in the "God of riddles," because apparently, God has no plans at all. "Gee uh... 7 days looks good. I think I'll use 7. Good number for a sabbath week. Maybe 8? ... Nah, 7's good enough." No, ES. God does everything for a reason, not just "His best interest." Remember, God created man for His pleasure. He may have done things to help man, but He doesn't need us. The sabbath was created for a reason. "...Because He rested on the seventh day." Come on! You can't pass that up. That's the context. Look at Exodus 20:10-12 and tell me that this doesn't mean He modeled the sabbath day after the seven days it took His to create:
"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed."
This is a straight quote. The context is phenomenally clear and easy to understand. They layman of every culture of the world would not read that and say "day" means "age." Take it from James Barr:
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew of Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguements which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be merely a local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by such professors, as far as I know." [emphasis added]

-- James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at Vanderbilt University and former Regis Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, in a letter to David Watson cited in That Their Words May be Used Against Them, Henry Morris, 1997, p. 375
Think about the train of logic, here; you've got the wrong god.

And I'm baffled that you think Mark 2:27 has anything to do with the creation. Jesus was talking to the pharisees about sabbath restrictions, not origins. Different discussion altogether.
I think we can give up on God intentionally making the year an even multiple of 7, or for that matter an even number of days. Because had he been trying to, he would have done a better job, I'm sure.
Assuming, of course, that the day of today was pretty much the same as that of the creation. Man... you probably think the continents at the beginning looked the way they look now. You probably think a lot of things in today's world were the same (or did the same things) in creation time, don't you? :rolleyes: Boy oh boy. That's another two-part post which I won't get into now.