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

Rickb

11-29-2005, 05:22 PM

There was not and never was a big bang. The universe as we know it was spoken into existence by God in six days (earth days). I think the item that has most people confused, that believe God used a big bang in His creation of the universe is the whole space time continuum. Next, man didnâ€™t evolve. He was created by God in one day and not in stages. The last item we should address, that the big bangers tend to point to as evidence is dinosaurs.

Yes, time maybe relevant in this universe and may occur in a linear fashion. In the bigger scheme of things time is illrelevant and does not occur in a linear fashion. It is all but impossible to measure something with no beginning or end. We cannot even understand this concept as we all have a beginning and end and assume that everything does. God created â€œThe Heavens and the Earthâ€ Genesis 1:1. â€œHeavensâ€ means our space and everything in it. God already had His space called â€œHeavenâ€ with Him and the angles already in it. The Bible didnâ€™t say God created angles, and His Heaven on the first day. Genesis 1: 1-5 clearly provides and a clear descriptor of a night and day, a 24 hour period based in our solar measurement and lunar measurements of time. The rest of His creation takes place in that framework as well Genesis 1: 6-31.

One 24 hour day on the earth that God created does not equal a million years. If it took God millions of years to create, why make reference to night and day and light (sun) and fit all the events into that context. Saying that God used a big bang to create the universe and us trashes and make the whole Bible a book of lies, which it is not.

So, that puts creation into the proper linear six day context for our solar and lunar measurement system (which was created by God).

Next, man didnâ€™t evolve in stages from a single celled thing. God created man using His hand out of the dust of the earth Genesis 2:7 No evolution here.

Dinosaurs another misunderstood item, that big bangers and evoluations like to use as part of their aguments. First lets put the word â€œDinosaurâ€ in its proper context. â€œDinosaurâ€ is a word created by man in the last century to describe biblical creatures created by God. The Bible use words like the following

â€œDinosaurâ€ Names, Then and Now

(Colume One) Name and date first written in the Bible, (Colume Two) Scientific Name (best estimate) and (colume Three)date the name appeared

tanniyn (dragon) before 1400 BC dinosaur 1841 AD
behemoth before 1400 BC brachiosaurus 1903 AD
Leviathan before 1400 BC kronosaurus 1901 AD

Tanniyns, behemoths,leviathans were destroyed in the great flood, with the exception of the ones brought into the ark. Yes, you read right the ark. Not big ones, but babies. So, yes they would fit. Yes, God created them, end of story. No evoluation here either, just God's handy work. There extinction was a result of the changed climate after the flood. so another mystery solved.

There is a ton of evidence to support the Bible account of creation. In fact volumes could be written. I don't have the time for the volumes, but it would be fun to put the lies to rest once and for all. And a final parting shot, The man that put the mathematical formula to time believed in God and creation. His name was Albert Eienstien.

Johan 72109

11-29-2005, 05:57 PM

As I pointed out... I don't believe in evolution... Frankly, I think that evolution has A LOT of holes in it. There we agree, I don't need to be argued out of it. However, I found the arguments very informative, thank you.:)

Hehe, I knew my point about the Big Bang was going to cause controversy... first I say I hate adorable little puppies in books, and now this... ;) Fair enough... For all I know, you may very well be completely correct. As in most cases however... the mechanics of creation are not important. What is important is that I believe God made it to be wondrous, just like every other Christian does.

The other point is that the Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution... the two don't necessarily have to agree.

And I didn't know that about Einstein... Cool. :) Was he actually a Christian though? I thought he was Jewish, and had a mistress as well as his wife... :confused:

inkspot

11-29-2005, 06:21 PM

And I didn't know that about Einstein... Cool. Was he actually a Christian though? I thought he was Jewish, and had a mistress as well as his wife...
Oh well, Abraham the Patriarch was Jewish and had a mistress and a wife, so I guess we can give Einstein a pass. Tee-hee. :p

Welcome Rickb. I did not see you post before. I hope that you are a Narnia fan as well as a Bible fan?

Many of us here believe in creation, because the Bible tells us so, and cuz there are lots of problems with the theory of evolution.

The Big Bang, I don't know anything about. When God began creating, though, couldn't He have used a Big Bang? What exactly is this Big Bang?

Gryphon

11-29-2005, 06:41 PM

Hehe, I knew my point about the Big Bang was going to cause controversy... first I say I hate adorable little puppies in books, and now this... ;)
WHAT?!?! ok i got to know (even though this is off topic) where in the where in the WORLD did puppies come from??? im so confused :confused:

TimmyofOz

11-30-2005, 04:04 PM

hey Rickb, your new to us so welcome. I am a creationist too, though it may have been longer ago than 6 or 7 thousand years ago (don't read into the genealogies the age of the universe). I like what you said about dinosaurs, remember some could swim and so didn't need to be in the ark. :)

inkspot

11-30-2005, 04:29 PM

WHAT?!?! ok i got to know (even though this is off topic) where in the where in the WORLD did puppies come from??? im so confused :confused:
Man, Johan notoriously HATES cute cuddly puppies and pretty butterflies. He prefers gloom, doom and darkness. It's just his nature. If Jesus hadn't redeemed him, he'd be revelling in some Pullman Dark Materials books right now. It's sad really. :p

Johan 72109

11-30-2005, 04:58 PM

I'm afraid you're wrong about Pullman, noble Inkspot, as I constantly remind you...
Pullman's not gloomy enough for me. :p

Sorry to sound like Puddleglum gone wrong, but really, Pullman writes some absolutely terrible cheesy cliches. Come on, one hero takes out a zeppelin and several hundred elite soldiers before he dies... With a handgun. Forgive me if that seems SLIGHTLY improbable. :mad:

Hehe, but apart from that... The merest whiff of a puppy or a butterfly in a cheesy book where the bad guys always get pounded into last week just makes me see red... Which earns me the ridicule and scorn of WHB, who doesn't mind any number of improbable situations, so long as everyone gets to skip through fields of daisies and be happy at the end. :mad:

Gryphon

11-30-2005, 06:42 PM

Sorry to sound like Puddleglum gone wrong, but really, Pullman writes some absolutely terrible cheesy cliches. Come on, one hero takes out a zeppelin and several hundred elite soldiers before he dies... With a handgun. Forgive me if that seems SLIGHTLY improbable. :mad:
arent MOST books "slightly" improbable?

Wallis

11-30-2005, 11:03 PM

I am going to wax philosophical here and then probably butt out.

About 300 years ago or so, a definitive line was drawn between science and religion. Up to that point, no line was drawn. Science and religion seemed to cooperate to a point and was termed philosophy.

Since that time, this line (which Dr. M. Scott Peck, author of Further Along the Road Less Traveled and other, calls an unwritten contract) has created a fence between science and religion, much to the detriment of both sides.

Obviously, we are all "late-comers" to this age-old discussion. And, we find that the "discussion field" (often termed a "battlefield") is already deeply entrenched. Both sides will claim that they are "right."

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it truncates or completely disallows any discussion. When there is no discussion, there is no learning. In learning, one does not have to accept the other view. But the benefit in learning is an understanding of the other view, AND the realization that one cannot convert the other side. At best, we will all learn that it is okay to agree to disagree while keeping a healthy respect for one another.

glamel

11-30-2005, 11:11 PM

,.. When there is no discussion, there is no learning. In learning, one does not have to accept the other view. But the benefit in learning is an understanding of the other view, AND the realization that one cannot convert the other side. At best, we will all learn that it is okay to agree to disagree while keeping a healthy respect for one another.

i like that one,.. :D
can't say anything more,:D

Ite

11-30-2005, 11:26 PM

Is it wrong to believe in creation, and later evolution occured afterwards in some little ways?

TimmyofOz

12-01-2005, 01:13 AM

Problem is evolutionist use of mutation that we might see within a specie falls apart as a mechanism to explan how we get from single cell orgins to the variety of very creative life we have now and through out time. Their only answer is to add more zero's to the age of the earth. What you need to do Ite is to try to let go of evolution and think outside the box where God is.

Pendelton_the_cook

12-01-2005, 01:47 AM

personally, i believe in god in a faithful sense as in i have faith in religion and i do believe there is a greater being, in christianitys case, god.

but i must admit i do believe in evolution, im not going to go into how we were created or the universe because i just dont know enough about it to start throwing my weight around as if i were an expert.

i believe in facts and scientific explanations i guess thats just my nature. but science and religion are 2 very different things. science relies on facts and being able to solve things logically. Religion on the other hand relies on faith, you cant prove religion, you can however have faith in it.

im must admit im not a typical christian who goes to church, i go for christmas and easter masses and we do have chapel at school but i belive the points of evolution, ive been doing biology this year and even the minor points of evolution to me make sense, but i still believe and have faith in christianity, no matter where u are, who you are or what you are you can always be accepted. thats somehting science cant do, but religion can.

facts are for science, faith is for religion. thats wat i believe in

Johan 72109

12-01-2005, 12:53 PM

Is it wrong to believe in creation, and later evolution occured afterwards in some little ways?

Of course not - it's referred to as adaptation, and it's proven fact, that all people, both religious and secular, agree with. :)

And Gryphon... on the book thing, you have a point... :rolleyes:

However, I'm still going to slag off books where the good guys win... :p

Smog

12-01-2005, 01:47 PM

i believe in facts and scientific explanations i guess thats just my nature. but science and religion are 2 very different things. science relies on facts and being able to solve things logically. Religion on the other hand relies on faith, you cant prove religion, you can however have faith in it.

PTC, I understand why you are saying this, and I have met many devout Christians who believe excatly the same thing, and I hope this doesn't come across as an attack against you, because it is not meant that way.

However in light of what I just said, I disagree with your statement; you say that science is based upon facts, however, science can only be based upon observations of the created world. A scientist will make an observation of something, and then come up with reasons why whatever has happened happens. Therefore an observation can be interpreted in anyway that the scienctist thinks it should be interpreted. Science can never really "prove" anything, because it is based upon observations, and if the observations are flawed, or they do not collect all the data, then the conclusions made from said observations will also be wrong.

Also, religion, while it is based primarily upon ones faith in God, can also be supported through science. There are whole schools of science that support Biblical claims, showing that the Bible has more truth to it than some would give credit.

im must admit im not a typical christian who goes to church, i go for christmas and easter masses and we do have chapel at school but i belive the points of evolution, ive been doing biology this year and even the minor points of evolution to me make sense, but i still believe and have faith in christianity, no matter where u are, who you are or what you are you can always be accepted. thats somehting science cant do, but religion can.

When you say, you can always be accepted, do you mean you can be accepted by God, or by others?

facts are for science, faith is for religion. thats wat i believe in

Again, I disagree with this statement, because, as I said before, religion can be backed up by evidnence, and science can be flawed. (however, certain things such as the ressurection of Christ, cannot be proven, because they are by definition, miracles ;))

I hope nothing I said has offended you, because that is not my intend, and I hope you come back to debate more on this subject. :)

inkspot

12-01-2005, 03:33 PM

Yeah, see Wallis' post on page 2 -- science and religion separated at some time in the past, to the detriment of both. In decades gone by, they weren't separate schools -- observable fact that inspired scientists related to spiritual truths that inspired believers. It's sad that now many intellectuals think they can't believe in both science and faith.

Dernhelm

12-01-2005, 06:08 PM

This is an edited bit of a book by my Grandpa â€“ unpublished, as yet â€“ a conversation between two of the characters.

"Remember when you talked of the age of the earth? Were you serious in talking about the earth being several billion
years old? How old is the earth?"

"What's your opinion?"

"I don't know, some people say that
if you believe the Bible you have to say it's only 6,000 years old.
Others say the light from the most distant stars has been traveling
for billions of years and that there's all kinds of evidence that the
earth is maybe even 20 billion years old. There are good people on
both sides. How old do you think the earth and the universe are?"

"I don't think that's a good question. As far as the Bible is concerned many of the best Christian scholars back to the time of Augustine have said the testimony of scripture permits long periods of time but maybe half the Christian scholars have said 'no it doesn't.'
The earth may only be a few thousand years old, and the universe too for that matter. But it's very easy to ask foolish questions, and maybe this is one. It's like asking, 'what was God doing before he created the universe?' That's not a good question because time appears to be a function or property of matter-energy. So before matter-energy was created time did not exist. So the best reply is 'Don't be foolish. There was no time before creation' because there was no matter.
If you can't imagine a timeless universe try to imagine a universe without matter. How could you measure time? Likewise time and space are related in a complicated way if they exist at all in the form we imagine. I worked out the mathematics of a space trip once. If you had ion propulsion so that you could travel through space at nearly the speed of light you might visit a star and find another planet. There are hazards. The light from the stars would become x-rays at certain speeds and you might not survive the trip. But let's say you do.
Much of the time on your trip would be spent getting to the speed of light and slowing down again. But we'll program you for 60 years round trip. When you come back to earth you're 60 years older but you find that on earth 5 million years have elapsed. When you ask a question about time you have to ask whose time, because the observer enters into the picture. We tend to think about absolute time. Is there such a thing? Most scientists would say 'no.' But you say 'light has been traveling a long way from the edge of the universe. How far has it traveled?' Distance is relative too.
If you visit the Stanford Linear accelerator south of San Francisco you'll fine they propel particles in a straight line, a distance of two miles through a vacuum tube. To you as an observer alongside they move two miles. If you traveled at the speed the particles travel that distance would be just a few feet, not two miles. There's no absolute distance.
"'How old is the earth?' appears to be a common sense question and you'd like to have a common sense answer. If I gave you that kind of an answer we could be sure of only one thing. Within 20 years that answer would be wrong. In the history of science no estimate of the age of the universe has lasted longer than a few decades. Even worse, if empirical science could give us truth and that's logically impossible, could science give us truth about creation, a singular event, when it deals only with repetitive events? Science deals with processes but creation isn't a process. Therefore it is the wrong question to ask of science. How could you hope ever to get the answer from science, since it is empirical and depends on unreliable sensation and on fallacious inductive reasoning? How about getting the answer to the age of the earth from the Bible? I'm not sure we understand the first chapter of Genesis. All agree that it says God created the universe by a word. Then mysteries begin. There was light before the sun was made. Was that light the same as the light we get from the sun? There is good reason to doubt it, but we don't know. Were nuclear, gravitational and the electrical forces stronger at creation than now? We don't know. Did time move at the same rate as now? We don't know."

"A lot of things we take for granted then are probably imaginary."

He grinned. "Time, space and matter may be more imaginary than Santa Claus. We do know a lot about Santa Claus don't we? Let me caution you. If science can't prove the age of the universe neither can it prove the age or extent of the flood. As you love the truth don't try to prove scripture true by inferior evidences."

"I think I'm beginning to understand you. You'd rather not answer some questions and be thought dumb than to answer them cleverly but incorrectly and really be stupid."

He answered, "A created man who thinks he can sit in judgment on the Creator is really stupid. [...] Let's thank him that he has told us all we do need to know about creation."

Grandpa thought the big bang was perfectly possible. I really don't see that it should make that much of a difference whether the universe went "Bang" when God created it, or just appeared. Of course, the theory of the big bang could equally well be wrong â€“ scientifically (sp?). I don't think one can say either way from the Bible.

Now, evolution is a completely different thing. The Bible says that God created each kind of animal individually (note that "kind" is not necessarily the same as "species"; each breed of dog is a different species, but all dogs are the same kind. So, whatever dog God originally created had, in its genetic code, all the genes necessary to produce, by selective breeding and so on, all the species of dog there are...and all that will be bred. (That's microevolution, and perfectly alright! :p) But guess what? There are recessive genes (or "alleles") that will not show up in the phenotype ("The observable expression of an organism's genes"; that is, what the dog actually looks like) until you have just the recessive alleles, no dominants. But it will never have a new gene! It can lose information; thus a mutation, but it will never gain information. I find it difficult to believe, even assuming that a "simple" life form could form out of chemicals (isn't that similar to Aristotle's belief that maggots could form out of meat?), that a loss of information could produce a more advanced life form. So the problem with this other type of evolution (macroevolution) is, first, that it contradicts the Bible; second, that it is scientifically impossible. New genes cannot be formed.

Ok; I think that was all I wanted to say! *pants* :p

Pendelton_the_cook

12-02-2005, 09:53 AM

just like to add, that smog, non of what you said was offensive, i wouldnt have posted if i didnt want others views on my on ideas. i pretty much agree with all the points you said. there is definatly facts to prove christianity and also i agree that there are more than most people think there are.

when i said accepted, i ment by both, if you accept god, not only are you excepted by god but also by fellow christians. im also interested if anyone has any good sources or peices about both sides of this argument as i believe it is a great argument and will always be a topic open for discussion :)
(btw if my grammar seems off its cos im tired lol)

waterhogboy

12-02-2005, 11:34 AM

Meh... I spose I may as well join in. If you can't beat em....... as the old saying goes.

First of all evolution is a definite thing, we have seen it firsthand in human lifetimes. The important thing is to distinguish between macro- and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a fact; animals can change within a sepcies to better adapt to the surrounding. The problem lies with macro-evolution, which states that animals can mutate and become a totally different species. We have no evidence from the present that this happens, only what we have dug up from the past.

Big Bang Theory is interesting. Personally, I dont care either way. In fact, me and moody Johan were chatting about this after church on sunday (we're so holy), and I said this to him. People who say 'God spoke and it happened in 6 days' are totally correct, but you know, when you actually start thinking about it, it becomes pretty silly-sounding. I mean god says let the water be gathered into one place so dry land appears. As he spoke this, did the water just *pop* to where God decided and suddenly bone dry land appear.... or did it move as God moulded and shaped the world according to his design. Well the answer is - I dunno. But whichever way demonstrates God's amazing power. I'd prefer the latter theory, as I believe it shows God as caring more about the world he creates, spending time rather than (and dont you HP haters come and burn me at the stake for this comment) idly waving a wand around and popping things into place.

So yeh, I was coming to big bang. In the same way, and Johan agreed, the Big Bang - if it was caused by God - shows his immense majesty and amazing planning and love when you think, he started with this chaotic explosion and then carefully crafted the ENTIRE universe with the matter he had created from it.

Now the 6 day = literal thing. Again - I dont care either way. I lean towards the more literal way, as there's no reason why God couldn't create it in 6 days. He's powerful enough. But as I remember, the Hebrew word day is actually 'period of time' aswell so it could be 6 periods that are being talked about. This I think is unlikely though, because why would you categorise them into 6 distinct periods if they were not actual days. Also it talks about morning and evening so that would suggest it was literal two.

Basically, like I said I dont care. God did it, however he did do it it was amazing and he showed his unbounded love for us in doing it. Why do Christians need to know how!??! Its not REALLY important. That's the information scientists seek. We want to know WHY? Arguing about how the world came about with science minded people isnt gonna go anywhere - we need to emphasise the why to people before the start up a creation/evolution debate...

Johan 72109

12-02-2005, 11:47 AM

*applauds* Well said sir, well said indeed! :p

WhiteWitchMeeka

12-02-2005, 02:42 PM

I've always found evolution silly to be honest. I was taught this in Science class and argued with my teacher. I may not be a Christian but I know we did not all start as monkeys. If you know your biology, you know that monkeys only have one cell and humans have 2.

The big bang theory I was also taught aswell that was the thing I ended up arguing over with my teacher. He shown us how it was done with a watch. I think I laughed too.

Pendelton_the_cook

12-02-2005, 08:08 PM

nah i rate evolution, what water hog boy said about macro and micro evolution i think is completely correct, there are numerous examples of animals and species evolving to increase tehir chances of survival.
just like to add this was copy and pasted from BBC website just so its reliable and not sum hungover teenagers views lol

now charles darwin's ideas on evolution also included his views on natural selection. a text book example of natural selection and evolution of a species is the peppered moth example.

White and black peppered moths are a classic example of natural selection in action. Before the industrial revolution in Britain most peppered moths were of the pale variety that were well camouflaged against the pale birch trees that they like to sit on. Moths with the mutant black colouring were easily spotted and eaten by birds - giving the white peppered variety an advantage.

Then the industrial revolution came along in the 19th century. Airborne pollution in industrial areas mottled the birch tree bark with soot, and now the mutant black-peppered moths blended better against the darkened bark, while the white variety became much more vulnerable to predators. Over time the mutated black peppered moths were naturally selected to survive and became far more numerous in urban areas than the pale variety.

and i also like the idea of mutation in humans, mainly because X men is so cool :)

Eve'sDaughter

12-02-2005, 09:10 PM

Yes, I can comprehend a species adapting to its surroundings, but the whole idea of one animal Example, A BIRD will NOT nor ever WILL turn into a lizard or a dog, or anything like that. I really think that evolutionists, (some, not all) take things they dig up out of the ground and say, "Oh look! The bone is like a human, but it's also like a monkey! SO that must mean that we all were monkeys."

DUH. THose people need to read Genesis. I cannot stress enough that God had a plan with every single creature he made. He gave some the ability to change and adapt, but he did not give them to ability to mutate into a different animal or being. Especialy humans.

Dernhelm

12-03-2005, 01:41 PM

Precisly. The thing about the moths is that both kinds existed; the gene was there already, so the moth could adapt. If the gene for the peppered moth had not existed, the moths would not have adapted.

Green Knight

12-03-2005, 06:22 PM

I personally believe in a combination of the two, and like Chrisitianity, there is no one true version of Evolution. One theory states that is was slow and gradual, and another states that it works in fits and spirts.

Here something, DNA has a helix shape, like some crystals. Aren't crystals earth, and doesn't the Bible state that God created man from the Earth. ;)

Mitochondral DNA, you get it from your mother, and it is only passed through women. There is the theory of the Mitochondral Eve. ;)

What is a day to a being like God? Perhaps is it only 24 hours, but what if it is longer. There was a line that George Burns says is Oh, God where he tells John Denver that when he got up this morning, Washington was crossing the Deleware. Providence is an infinite being, so his day would not confrom to our day. The day will be as long as "He" wishes it to be.

It all comes down to the point of what you believe is true for you, and other other people believe is true for them. No one person of group has the whole truth, we all have pieces of the truth.

Dernhelm

12-03-2005, 07:19 PM

Does that mean that if one person goes back in time with a time machine, they will find one thing; and if an evolutionist goes back in time, he would find something else?

And what if one person does not belive: "what you believe is true for you, and [what] other people believe is true for them." Does that then make your statement false?

I'm not trying to slam you â€“ just pointing out the problems with your belief. :)

Green Knight

12-03-2005, 09:02 PM

I'm trying to say that everybody has a personal idea of what they think happened, but nobody knows what really happened. We all have a bit of an idea, some take inspiration from the religious sources, and some from scientific sources.

Creationalists can't prove their views to Evolutionists, and Evolutionsists can't prove theirs to Creationalists. We all have an idea of what we think happened, but we have no way to prove who is right, or who is wrong. Maybe we were created in God's image, or we evolved from lesser forms, all I was saying is that there is room enough in the world for all views.

Eve'sDaughter

12-03-2005, 09:30 PM

All the proof I need is in the Bible.

Pendelton_the_cook

12-04-2005, 12:56 AM

All the proof I need is in the Bible.
yeah good call :)

Dernhelm

12-04-2005, 02:23 PM

Green Knight:

I'll give that everyone has there own opinion. :) I just wouldn't call it "their truth" as only one can be true; that's what made me think you were saying the other.

Now, I don't agree that Creationists can't prove their views. I think that Evolution was on very shaky ground just from the scientific point of view from the beginning. Now, all the evadence (sp? :o) is gradually pileing up against it...though Evolutionists won't tell you that, so it's not surprising so many people are misled. Just from a scientific point of view, it is really no longer viable (sp?).

:)

Wallis

12-06-2005, 12:47 AM

Thomas L. Thompson, in his book The Mythic Past (Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel), 1999, writes:

Does the garden story talk about the first historical human beings? Does it state that such early humanoids lived in a garden paradise at the beginning of time? Is the whole of the cosmos evoved in the space of six days, replete with geological stratification and fossils to test our faith? Or do we have to create scenarios of how seven days might somehow be God-speak for seven eras of millions of years to read geology and anthropology with intelligence? Are we condemned in each generation to argue anew that our knowledge of the great antiquity of the world and of the process of life's development in the past does or does not contradict the Bible? Surely not.

The authors of biblical texts knew precious little about the immediate past and next to nothing about the distant past. They had neither magic glasses nor any special knowledge. But they were good poets and skilful story-tellers. Their theology was adventurous and at times courageous, though their philosophy was unexceptional. With their own human limitations, their stories take us, not back to the beginning of time, but to an imaginary time, a mythical time, before the world was the way it is. Such a time is enclosed within the transcendent space of a Narnia-like, legendary land of Qedem in which our world comes into contact with the transcendent. It is here that our world was born in story and from Qedem that the narrative begins.

While there are few stories in the Bible that match the [I]tour de force of our garden story, many lesser stories use the same techniques of punning declarations of destiny to explain how our world got to be the way it is. These stories talk about the present, not the past. They talk about the real world of the story's narrator. Like the garden stroy and the creation stroy before it, they do not tell us about what God once did, but rather about how the implied authors and their audience saw and viewed their world. Puns and "cue-names" abound. As the Hebrew meaning of Adam's name ['adam for humanity; 'adamah for ground] expresses our humanity, and Eve's [hevah for mother of all living] echoes the word for "life" (Gen. 3:20), Abel's name (from hebel, "dew": Gen 4:2) reflects the fragility of his life, and Enosh's name (Gen 4:26) is the same word for "mankind" that descends from him. Noah's cue-name echoes his story in an ironic joke. Humanity finally "finds rest" (nah) from its alienation from the ground. Babylon (babel) reflects the babble (balal) of voices that once occurred within its walls, as well as the everyday experience of the alienating potential of human communication.

The stories collected in the Bible's first book opens with a poem describing the beginning of the world. In this poem, the divine spirit touches chaos, and, separating and distinguishing what hadben undifferentiated matter, brings form and order from barren darkness. It creates a wolrd that the poem presents as the work of God, a world that is understood by the divine craftsman as good. However, the following stories, from the garden story of Adam and Eve to the tale of the building of the city of Babyon and its tower, complicate the plot, long before the world comes to be anything that any of us might recognize as historical. These stories tell us of the human desire for wisdom and of the dangers of a little knowledge. The stories are humoours and ironic. They are presented in a stream of wordplay and uns. They end with a sceptical story about humans working in harmony and peace, building something for themselves. It will be a great city with a tower as high as the sky! The author, with his Babylonian mirror of Jerusalem, and with his tower hardly veiling David's Zion of legendary fame, offers us a world in conflict with God, where people do their own will and make a world that they see as good. It is a pious narrative, yet it is one that hardly expects much good to come of a creation that increasingly resembles the world we live in. The moral of this whole story from Genesis 1-11 is about conflict and alienation. It is intentionally unsettling.

[Excerpts taken from pp. 83-89]

Johan 72109

12-06-2005, 11:21 AM

waterhogboy

12-06-2005, 12:39 PM

While your points are interesting, I must point out on the topic of Babel... You realise that they've found the ruins of an enormous, semi-completed tower in Babylon, dating back to before Babylonian civilisation began...?

Exactly!!!! So don't go there sister!!!!!

Here something, DNA has a helix shape, like some crystals. Aren't crystals earth, and doesn't the Bible state that God created man from the Earth. ;)

Ahhhh, but the only reason DNA is an a helix shape is because the peptide bonds in the amino acids are attracted to each other because of 'hydrogen bonding'. This means all the H atoms in the N-H part of the link are attracted to the O part of the C=O part of the group. As a result, the molecules twist into a shape where this can happen most efficiently - voila a helix shape.

In diamonds, you do not have peptide links as these are only found in proteins. Thus your theory falls down, as how can the elements change. The shape may be similar but there is no way the helix from a diamond can be transferred to the helix found in proteins.

Johan 72109

12-06-2005, 12:42 PM

Erm...

Does anyone actually understand that post of WHB's? :confused:

Hehe... ;)

On the topic of Noah, I'll say that they've found a boat matching the exact dimensions of the ark in the Mountains of Ararat. In addition, they've proved that it certainly would be entirely possible to flood the river basins of the Tigris and the Euphrates, flooding pretty much the entirety of the Middle East, which would have been the only places inhabited by human beings if the Bible is to be believed. (Obviously, here I'm assuming that the flood refers to a flooding of the entire world as people knew it at the time, which may well be wrong - the flood may well have encompassed the entire planet. After all, we're talking about God here. :) )

PrinceOfTheWest

12-06-2005, 01:05 PM

I've always thought the interesting stuff about the early Genesis period is what we aren't told. Just looking at the story tells you there are volumes missing there. I also find it interesting that though every civilization has a flood story, the details differ depending on the culture and location. For instance, in the mountainous regions of Iran, the flood legend tells of great cold and immense snowfall that smothered everything - just what you'd expect at a higher latitude.

Now, dispute there may be about floods, where and how high and how far. But there's no dispute at all that our globe is just coming out of an ice age. In fact, the last remnants of the last glaciers of the last ice age were melting in Hudson Bay while the pyramids were being built. Geologically, that was yesterday.

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions. I just find it interesting.

Maximos

12-06-2005, 01:05 PM

On the topic of Noah, I'll say that they've found a boat matching the exact dimensions of the ark in the Mountains of Ararat.

Actually, the boat that they "found" has never been explored, measured, or even substaniated :-/. The flood myth (and I do not mean to imply it is not true, but instead adhere to the true word myth "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified") existed long before the Torah in tales like that of Gilgamesh. The important part of the flood story is not wheter or not we can find the ark or not, but instead the moral of the story and what it teaches about who man is and how God relates to man. Same things with the creation story, is it more important whether or not God created only the world and only 2 people in exactly and literally 7 days, or is the idea that we each take our own bite from the preverbal tree and fall from our innocent state and are in a place where we are in need of redemption?

As for Babylon, as a student of Near & Middle Eastern Anthropolgy, I must take up defense of the Babylonian empire. The Babylonian empire as one of the 3 most antiquated of all civilizations (along with the Sumernians and the Assyrians). Now if you mean the Tower of Babel that is a different thing and I must point out etemoligcally speaking, our word "babble" probably derived from this source.

Johan 72109

12-06-2005, 01:44 PM

On the point of the Ark... surely, if there is more ancient texts dealing with a world flood, does this not indicate that it quite possibly happened? Nor was my point that we should find the Ark - I was just suggesting that maybe the story is true, and not just a metaphor? Perhaps I misunderstood you however... (Actually, misunderstanding people's common with me... :p )

Also, I don't understand your comments about Babylon - I wasn't talking about it, or how old it was. It's just the Tower was found beneath the remains of the City of Babylon, so predates it...

However, your point about the boats dimensions... Point taken... :o My bad. Still... you've got to admit, it's interesting... :)

Maximos

12-06-2005, 01:49 PM

Oh it is very interesting and I do not discredit the possiblity of a flood by any means, just throwing that out there.

On the Babylon comments, I was actually replying to Wallis who made it sound like Babylon did not exist when he was discussing it with Noah and other topics found in Genesis, sorry for the lack of clarification. I agree about the tower predating the Babylonians, as a matter of fact, most people believe the tower was probably a Ziggarat from the Sumernian empire :)

Sorry for the confusion

Johan 72109

12-06-2005, 01:54 PM

Hehe... Sorry... silly me... :o Whoops. :o

:)

Wallis

12-06-2005, 08:34 PM

Archaeology has been able to substantiate many place names and accomplishments that are named in the Bible. Mr. Thompson points out, however, that so far archaeology has yet to confirm many historical ties directly into the Old Testament.

The flood story is not unique to the Bible, as many of you know. Legends of a great flood are abound throughout the world on every continent and every people.

I've done a lot of researching into a global flood, both for story ideas and an interest in the so-called galactic calendar.

There appears to be enough circumstancial evidence that supports three major floodings that greatly affected the ancient world: 12,000 years ago, 9,000 years ago, and 6,000 years ago. These floodings were so great that they would have made the recent tsunami pale by comparison. Apparently, the flood of 12,000 years ago was so bad that it caused mankind to have to abandon the surface of the Earth for a while. Huge caves found in Europe and the Middle East show that people lived underground for a very long time. Myths from Native Americans indicate that North Americans also had to live underground for a while.

The flood 9,000 years ago caused a great lapse in the Egyptian (or whatever they might have called themselves at the time) time line. It is interesting to find boats and piers near many of the ruins in the southern half of Egypt, when they are now surrounded by sand.

6,000 years ago, a great flood affected the civilizations of the Bosporous, Black Sea, and surrounding landmasses, causing wholesale exportations/evacuations of people.

Again, before I should upset anyone, a lot of this information is supported by some archaeology finds and geological theory. Still, it is worth exploring with a dash of speculation, and keeping an open mind.

Dernhelm

12-06-2005, 09:04 PM

I'm not absolutly certain what you're trying to support with the above...I've lost track of who is replying to who...but, I would ask...how were these things dated? Radioactive dating?

Wallis

12-07-2005, 03:23 AM

Let me get back to you, Dernhelm. I want to consolidate some research into something coherent. As an interim answer, much of the support for these three floods is archaeological and carbon dating ruins found. There is also some geological evidence to indicate that the landmass formations, especially in the Black Sea area, Turkey, and Greece, had changed considerably.

BTW, since the flood was brought up, I was responding to that sub-topic. I have a theory--or a plausible idea at this point--that much of our history and theology begin around 6,000 years ago--give or take a thousand--because of a catastrophic event. However, our ancestory as humans go back much further into antiquity. Conservative estimates are around 20-30 thousand years, and there are some scientists who feel that mankind has been around for up to a million years.

The curious point that pricks my mind is this rough 3,000 year cycle. It makes me wonder what had happened around 3,000 years ago, and there are examples of nature going beserk--as it were. Ruins now underwater, for example. There was a great decline of many cultures around 2300 B.C., thought to be brought on by a meteor strike in southern Iraq.

Green Knight

12-17-2005, 11:40 PM

Check out Wikipeida, there are all kinds of articles on the different types of Creationism.

After looking some of them over, I find that I believe in Theistic Evolution. Basically, this belief stipulates that God created the world, and the creatures therein, then left them alone to grow and change.

Saruman

12-17-2005, 11:53 PM

Curiosity compels me to write and ask, Green Knight, why it is you believe God "created" things and then suddenly allowed them to evolve in random patterns? I am just curious to know your train of thought, and what sort of particularities there are that lead you to this conclusion.

Green Knight

12-18-2005, 07:01 PM

Did I say that Providence allowed to evolve in random patterns? Humanity doesn't have fur, or claws. Our teeth are blunt, we can't see in the dark, we are not fast, and our eyesight is not the greatest, the only things we have going for us is our opposible thumbs, our ability to work together, and our ability to make complex tools. Providence has been watching our backs while we climbed up to the level we are are at now. It has been the force that has been giving us hints on how to survive, the curiosity to search for answers, and the success in our endevors. When we reach a certain pennicle, Providence inspires the search of new knowledge and answers, and then gives us the wisdom to use it.

LionessVoyager

12-18-2005, 07:09 PM

Green Knight

12-19-2005, 12:28 AM

But how would it be possible, truely, for evolution or anything similar to exist? Just take one cell, a single cell, and examine it. You will find so much complexity, and Evolutionists expect us to believe that that evolved from a... monkey?

Darwin never said that we evolved from a monkey, he said that we evolved from a "Common Ancestor". Perhaps Providence got to liking a group of these creatures, over time there descendents became Humanity, and the descendents of the others became the Prosimians, the Monkeys, and the Great Apes.

We'll only know what really went on when we shuffle off this mortal coil.

Charn_Tim

12-19-2005, 04:31 AM

Hello all,

I feel it is my duty as a christian physicist to put my 2 cents in here and weigh in on the creation/big bang debate.

First, I believe that both science and the bible are correct, and that special reveletion (the Bible-the inerrant word of God) and general revelation (the record of nature) are completely compatible with one another. I also believe that mistakes have been made by both scientists and christians in the past when it comes to interpreting the record of nature and the Bible respectively.

Having said this, I firmly embrace the "fact" that the big bang is the correct cosmological model of the creation of the universe, and that is in fact, how God created the universe-from an infinitesimal volume, with an infinite density, "evolving" into the univers that it is today with divine, intervening miracles by the hand of God along the way.

I think the reason so many christians find the big bang so hard to accept is that it requires that the universe be about 14 billion years old, and the earth about 4 and 1/2 billion years old. This seemingly conflicts with the creation in seven days account of Genesis 1. So what do we do in this conundrum? Do we reject the field of astrophysics and astronomy and say that they must be incorrect because it conflicts with the inerrant word of God? or do we reexamine our interpretation of Genesis 1?

Having undergone this same line of questioning myself (and having previously believed in a 24 hour 7 day creation about 10 000 years ago), I can tell you that it isn't easy to re-evaluate your beliefs. However, here are some biblical reasons why I believe in the big bang and the 14 billion year old universe:

1) the Hebrew word for day in genesis 1 is "yom" which is used in many other places in the old testament and depending on the context, means one of 3 things:
a) the 12-hour sunrise to sunset time period, a day
b) the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise day
c) an open ended period of time, possibly an epoch, or many (hundreds or
thousands of years). For example, Obadiah 15 " The day of the Lord is near..." or Leviticus 23:28 "Because it is the day of atonement..."

2) in the new testament, in 2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."

Clearly, one "day" can mean many different time periods, not necessarily a 24 hour time period.

One last point and I'll stop:

Finally, we have to consider the purpose for which Moses recorded Genesis 1: it was clearly not to give a 21st century scientific account of creation, but rather to paint a (100% truthful and accurate) picture of the creation story so that amazingly, all people at all times in history can understand it and find meaning in the fact that God loves and cares for them through this story. He could have described exactly the order of events in the universe's origins-when photons became transparent to the universe, when stars and galaxies formed, when our solar system formed, and when the earth was finally prepared enough to support life...etc but he left those exciting discoveries up to science.

Sorry this was so long, :) but if anyone has any further questions/disagreements/discussion, I'll be glad to respond.

inkspot

12-19-2005, 12:39 PM

Welcome Charn Tim, I didn't see you post before. Are you saying then that big bang and evolution are the correct story of life on earth?

I understand your rationale for the big bang, I just want to make sure that you also think after the big bang, life sprang into existence on its own, in a single cell, that turned into all life on earth today over millions of years (as opposed to God creating Adam and all the animals).

PrinceOfTheWest

12-19-2005, 01:10 PM

inkspot

12-19-2005, 01:16 PM

If I read Charn Tim's posting correctly, all he seems to be saying is that from what we can tell of the natural world, it's quite old and started with something like a Big Bang, and that such an understanding does not necessarily conflict with the Genesis account of creation, since the term "day" in Genesis does not necessarily mean "a 24-hour period". It doesn't look to me like he was trying to extend the meaning any further than that, at least in this post. Perhaps I should let him speak for himself? :)

You are right, in his post he didn't address evolution, but as that's the topic for this thread, I wondered if he were going there?

I can agree that a scientifc description of the creation of the universe might come out like the BIG BANG, but I can't read the rest of Genesis as the adaptation of a single cell into alll forms of life over millions of years, and I wondered if that's where Tim was heading ... :o

PrinceOfTheWest

12-19-2005, 03:31 PM

Charn_Tim

12-19-2005, 04:36 PM

That's a good point. Any thoughts, Charn Tim? For my part, my rejection of popular evolutionism lies on purely scientific grounds. Lewis makes some excellent points about the philosophical basis, but it's the genetic and microbiological advances that make it untenable for me.

Welcome Charn Tim, I didn't see you post before. Are you saying then that big bang and evolution are the correct story of life on earth?
I understand your rationale for the big bang, I just want to make sure that you also think after the big bang, life sprang into existence on its own, in a single cell, that turned into all life on earth today over millions of years (as opposed to God creating Adam and all the animals).

Thanks for the welcome, this is my new favorite website. ;)

Well, although I believe in the currently accepted scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe, I certainly don't embrace the current naturalistic "scientific" theories regarding life on earth, that is, that life sprang up into existence over millions of years on its own, without the divine intervention of a creator, because as has been stated in this thread already, even a single celled organism is just too complex. For more on this, I would consult Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box, in which he, a Christian Biologist, scientifically argues against evolution as the explanation for life on the grounds that life is "irreducibly complex." If anyone is interested I can summarize his arguments further, or you can just consult the book... :)

You are right, in his post he didn't address evolution, but as that's the topic for this thread, I wondered if he were going there?
Oh, yes, that's correct, I didn't actually address evolution in my previous point, I was more trying to clear up (what I regard to be) the false view of the creation of the universe-a 7 24 hour day creation period, which alienates the scientific community from Christians unnecessarily.

inkspot

12-19-2005, 05:03 PM

Charn_Tim

12-20-2005, 05:18 AM

I see, very good. I agree with you.
And I agree with PoTW that the evolution theory as presented today has too many holes to be a likely thing.

So that Darwin's Back Box is a good book, is it? It's on my list to read when I can get to it.
Oh, yes, it is an excellent book. I got interested in it when Michael Behe came and spoke at my school (Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo) and he very much convinced me of "irreducible complexity." His arguments are very sound, and as he said in his talk, the best arguments against his view by his pro-evolution peers was nothing other than an ad hominem argument-that is, others have said, "The only reason Behe says this is because hes a Christian, and its biasing his views." Not one successful argument to my knowledge has been launched against his idea.

inkspot

12-20-2005, 09:44 AM

Excellent, thanx. I'll check it out. :)

Elendil

12-21-2005, 06:43 AM

Charn_Tim

12-21-2005, 07:08 AM

Let God be true and every man a lier (that is in the bible, somewhere)
If you belive in God, then why not belive him. If God said he created everything in 6 days, you better belive it. If God lied in Genisis, that would mean that the rest of the bible could just as easily be a lie...
In other words:
Anyone who belives in Evalotion is a crackpot.
"Let God be true and every man a liar" - Romans 3:4, when Paul is talking about the advantages/disadvantages to being a Jew or Gentile...

Of course I believe God created everything in 6 "days." The question is, what does "day" mean. As I have stated earlier, a "day" elsewhere in the O.T. means one of 3 different things. Why should we pick out one of the three meanings over the other two? I submit that we have no reason to, except by general revelation-true science which tells us the universe is pretty old, so God must have created it a long time ago. Believing this has nothing to do with denying the inerrancy of scripture; it only has to do with how we interpret through our imperfect human minds this perfect book.

PrinceOfTheWest

12-21-2005, 07:10 AM

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.

Charn_Tim

12-21-2005, 07:25 AM

PoTW~

Excellent point...I really like that analogy of Schaeffer's with "son." I am also a big Francis Schaeffer fan, and I have read several of his books; I'm curious-which of his books was this discussion in? or maybe its not in print? It would be cool to follow his thoughts a little further on that.

inkspot

12-21-2005, 09:52 AM

[I]
Anyone who belives in Evalotion is a crackpot.
Play nice, Elindil. There are many non-crackpots who have believed in evolution, such as Isaac Asimov, a very good and renowned sci-fi writer. You have to understand that evolution is taught to kids in school as a fact, so if their parents are not interested in the subject, they grow up believing it. That doesn't make them crackpots, just deceived.

As it stands, evolution theory is full of holes, but some folks are so enthralled with the idea of denying God's existence, they have rallied around bad science in their zeal. They have gained the upper hand in education, so a generation of youngsters are being poorly educated as regards this topic. It is not their fault, and it doesn't make them crackpots. :o

PrinceOfTheWest

12-21-2005, 09:59 AM

I am also a big Francis Schaeffer fan, and I have read several of his books; I'm curious-which of his books was this discussion in? or maybe its not in print? It would be cool to follow his thoughts a little further on that.Sadly, I think I read that in a magazine interview, and it was years ago, so I don't even remember which magazine, much less which issue. Sorry!:o

Schaeffer is great - firm, uncompromising, and always scholarly. In my experience, the three greatest warriors who have helped arm me against the flood tide of modernism have been Lewis, Schaeffer, and Peter Kreeft.

Elendil

12-22-2005, 06:47 AM

Queen Swanwhite

12-22-2005, 03:07 PM

i think of it like this, if the bible says He created the earth, then He did.

Bitter Milton

12-22-2005, 03:18 PM

2 reasons why evolution is flawed

Uh, what

I suppose that might be the case if humans had existed since the formation of Earth several billion years ago, but you have to remember, from a geological perspective, humans have not been on the earth for very long at all. Also, it does not seem logical that the earth could reach a population upwards of 6 billion in only several thousand years.

Your second point doesn't really make sense to me. Could you please expand upon it a bit? Thanks

Charn_Tim

12-22-2005, 04:01 PM

There is so much proof against E. why would anyone belive it? (Okay inkspot, anyone who has reserched it and all that.)
There are many reasons that it can't possibly be true. Like if the earth was millions of years old. I read a study on it, (by scientists) and they said it couldn't be that old for 2 reasons:
1. If the earth was millions of years old the world's population would be at least 600,000,000,000. (I'm sure it was more than that but this is off the top of my head.)

2. An everlutionist did a study, on the earth. (You know how things go from good to not-so-good, to not-good, to bad, to very-bad, and so on) This study he did showed that if you went back 6,000 years, the world would have been completly perfect. (eg. Garden of Eden)

There are many other reasons, but this is just quickly. :rolleyes:

Elindil, it is important to not pick out the one thing that suits your interests that you have read by a "scientist" who claims to have "proved" evolution can't happen, and claim that it is a done deal. First of all, I would personally like to see a reference to this study, because I have never heard anything like it by a "scientist" I have ever come across from any of my classes in college. On the contrary, like it or not, evolution is a more dominant view than creationism in our country's top educators in the sciences, and to make a blanket statement that they are all "crackpots" is pushing it a little too far, and not helpful in reaching these people for Christ. :)

By the way, you also seem to be confusing the issue between how old the universe is vs. biological evolution, and assuming that believing in a universe that is around 14 billion years old and believing in biological evolution is synonymous. There are plenty of born again christians (myself included) who feel that the belief in an "old" earth (around 14 billion years) is completely compatible with Genesis 1 (see my lengthy post above) and that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God created the universe 14 billion years ago, and had been divinely creating new life forms over the period of millions of years in preparation for his ultimate creation, humankind. Where I (and others who hold this view) differ from evolutionists is that they think that these new life forms spring up "naturally" with no divine intervention from God, and I feel that is where their argument breaks down for two reasons- 1) Scientifically, it is impossible (see the work of Michael Behe on "irreducible complexity") and 2) it is contradictory to scripture (see genesis 1/2, psalms 139/104, etc. etc.) :)

Bitter Milton

12-22-2005, 04:17 PM

Gryphon

12-22-2005, 04:40 PM

You refuse to see the evidence of God when you say that there is no scientific backing for creation. In the universe there is a series of numbers that make up everything, EVERYTHING! exsactly perfect, how can this happen by chance? You refuse to see the evidence of God that we give you and you also blow off what we say so why should we try to debate YOU Bitter Milton? Also, it is possible to get several billion people on the earth in a short amount of time. What im wondering is, why dont you think its logical?

Charn_Tim

12-22-2005, 04:51 PM

wow, Gryphon, I encourage you not to overreact, it may be that we all must agree to disagree on this if there can be no civil, controlled discussion. :) Keep in mind that God does not need us to defend him-he can take care of that for himself, and if someone (I'm not saying Bitter Milton is doing this necessarily) rejects the truth, he's not rejecting you, but God.

I'm actually wondering if Bitter Milton would care to expound on his statement that "It [evolution] does not address the claim by many that God created all life, simply because that cannot be tested scientifically and has no scientific backing." It seems to me that believing in evolution alone as the cause and source of life here on planet earth does in fact contradict the Bible-see Genesis 1/2, Psalm 104 (and numerous other that I had not time to look up). Perhaps you mean that it does not contradict the fact that there is a God in general, not necessarily the specific Christian God?

Bitter Milton

12-22-2005, 05:24 PM

inkspot

12-22-2005, 05:26 PM

Just something to keep in mind: Evolution does not deny the existence of God in the least. It does not adress the claim by many that God created all life, simply because that cannot be tested scientifically and has no scientific backing.
Evolution theory may not address the question of God, in fact Darwin notes (weakly) that perhaps an intelligent creator had designed evolution to work the way it did ... but it certainly contradicts Scripture and implies that life is an accident.

Charn_Tim

12-22-2005, 05:30 PM

Yes. While the some parts of the theory of evolution may contradict the bible, this does not mean that evolution is an outright rejection of god. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how life originated, nothing more. Evolution does not adress god, because simply put, God is outside the realm of science. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
Okay, yes, I agree with you on most of this. For us Bible believing Christians, this is an important point-that evolution/science can disprove the Bible and it is important for us to interpret science and the Bible intelligently and correctly so that our beliefs correspond to ultimate reality.

PrinceOfTheWest

12-22-2005, 05:35 PM

To the people that believe it, the Creation is true, the same goes for those who believe in Evolution.That's an interesting statement. The universe is an objective reality - it only happened one way. Now, if you want to state that it doesn't matter very much how it came about, and the important thing is how we live in it now - well, that's another issue. But two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

Green Knight

12-22-2005, 05:37 PM

Science is not trying to say why Providence did it, just how it might have been done. Science has, mostly, proven the existence of Eve, via mitacondrial DNA.

Green Knight

12-22-2005, 05:38 PM

That's an interesting statement. The universe is an objective reality - it only happened one way. Now, if you want to state that it doesn't matter very much how it came about, and the important thing is how we live in it now - well, that's another issue. But two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

I was speaking of subjective reality, each person's personal reality. When it comes to that, then both statements are true. The rest is true. It is one of those arguments that piss people off, and will probably never be solved, unless someone finds away to use wormholes to travel in time.

inkspot

12-22-2005, 06:06 PM

I was speaking of subjective reality, each person's personal reality. When it comes to that, then both statements are true. The rest is true. It will probably never be solved, unless someone finds away to use wormholes to travel in time.
What, now? You are saying one thing is true for me, another true for Bitter Milton -- but in the end, one of those truths is not true? I am not getting the picture here ... :o

Green Knight

12-22-2005, 09:21 PM

Charn_Tim

12-23-2005, 03:38 AM

I was trying to be clever and say that all of us contribute, with our beliefs, ideas, and notions to what is called "objective reality". The reality that we all agree upon, and share. As opposed to our personal realities.
Yes, it is true that each of us has a subjective experience; however, metaphysical reality exists independently of our ablility/experience of observing it or believing in it. While personal reality, made up of our own individual unique life experiences, may be different from one person to the next, the fact is, that an objective universe and metaphysical reality exists, and we are simply trying to figure it out and get it straight here on earth before we die and face an afterlife for eternity (if it exists...). So we cannot just chalk up our disagreements to the attitude of, "well, that's true for you, but this is true for me."

In light of this, I'm not sure what this "objective reality" that we all agree upon and share is that you're referring to. Like Prince of the West says, because the universe and metaphysical reality exists and operates independently of our "beliefs, ideas, and notions" it is important to figure it out as best we can, and hence this discussion.

GreenKnight, after responding to some of my questions in the above paragraphs, perhaps, we should get back to the discussion which is the topic for this thread. Would you (or BitterMilton or anyone else) care to offer any ideas, theories, discussion for why you think evolution is correct?

unseen_dreams

12-23-2005, 01:19 PM

Oh man, this is one of those subjects that you can talk and talk about and never come to an agreement, but here's my view:

I have no problem believing in the possibility of evolution or any other theories about how we got to be the way we are and also believing that God is the Creator. I know that somethings in the Bible seem to be contradicted by those theories, but that depends on how you read those words. If you don't take the Bible word for word then three days could be any number of years, but, for the amount of work done, a very short amount of time. Or it could be three stages of creation. Anything. Depending on how you think about it, it may not be contradicting at all. And in any case, I believe that there has to be Someone keeping the universe from going into (as someone said earliar) total chaos. Too many things work together for a single purpose for it all to be unplanned. Even more amazing is the fact that it was all done in a way that our puny minds can even partially understand. Otherwise some of the more practical people in the world would be forced by lack of explanations into Christianity or some other religion and that would take away one of God's gifts to us: free will.

Sometimes I think about how humans can discover as much as we want about how we all got here and where we're all going, but we can never completely understand and I'm not sure which one amazes me more: the fact that we can understand so much or the that the universe is so complicated that we can never understand it all.

narnianfoxx

12-23-2005, 04:30 PM

Green Knight

12-23-2005, 05:27 PM

Charn_Tim

12-23-2005, 07:21 PM

one point that can pretty much shut down all evolutionary theories. its a scientific fact that all things in the cosmos work in a breaking down motion...everything decomposes over millions of years. how then could the theory of evolution be true? evolution is all about composition. it is a contradiction to science.

[nFx]
With all due respect, this is actually not a valid argument...How then do you explain how a little seed in the ground can "evolve" into a plant if all things are running down? or how do you explain star formation from giant molecular clouds or nebulae? Unfortunately, the argument of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that all things are running down does not contradict evolution. Fact: the entropy of the universe is always increasing, but locally, the entropy of a system can decrease, and become more "ordered," like star formation from a nebula in a galaxy provided it gives some of its entropy to the universe and the total entropy of the universe increases.

However, as has previously been stated in other threads and this one, the best argument against evolution (in my opinion) comes from Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, in which he explains (and gives examples of many of these) the fact that biological systems are "irreducibly complex" and that it is scientifically impossible for these biological systems (like a cellular component) to operate if it is missing one single piece.

These biological machines work in the same way as does a mousetrap for example; if one piece of the mousetrap is missing, you get no mousetrap. Not a half-working, incomplete moustrap, but no mousetrap working at all. It is the same for thousands (if not millions) of biological systems in your body, and I encourage you to consult Darwin's Black Box for more examples of this. Thus, the species gains no reproductive advantage by having all of the components necessary to create this biological machine in place except one or two of them, and the argument for "slowly varying gradual speciation" has no merit at all. If an evolutionist seeks a naturalistic explanation for the "evolution" of life, he must refute this point of irreducible complexity.

Charn_Tim

12-23-2005, 07:31 PM

I guess what I am trying to say is that I can believe in both evolution and creation, and that both work for me. The type of creation that I think could be possible is a theory call Old-Earth Creation. Providence created the world, and it is 4.5 billion years old.
I think I half agree with you on this. I also believe in an "old" earth of around 4.5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million years or so. I also believe that "Providence" (I would say Jesus Christ) created the universe around 14 billion years ago which he has been preparing for his ultimate creation-humankind.

I would disagree that purely "naturalistic evolution" whereby genetic material which gives a reproductive advantage has been "naturally selected" to give the diverse set of species that we see today. I think that there are gaping holes in the current naturalistic evolutionary theories which cannot be satisfied without a creator who divinely intervened and created life here on planet earth. Furthermore, I submit that both the bible and the record of nature agree on this, and I would be happy to discuss my reasons for this if you would like.

Smog

12-23-2005, 10:25 PM

Well, I am interested as to why you believe that this is what the Bible teaches; could you please explain?

narnianfoxx

12-23-2005, 11:32 PM

do you all think intelligent design (all religions aside) is plausible? or do you all think that it is all by chance?

Charn_Tim

12-24-2005, 04:56 AM

Well, I am interested as to why you believe that this is what the Bible teaches; could you please explain?
I'd be happy to :)

First of all, in the "Creation vs. Evolution Discussion" thread on page 6 (this is in the Land of the Duffers section; sorry I can't figure out how to provide a link to it), I expound upon my biblical reasoning for this assertion (that the earth is approx. 14 billion years old, like modern science has discovered). Here is an excerpt if you are interested:

1) the Hebrew word for day in genesis 1 is "yom" which is used in many other places in the old testament and depending on the context, means one of 3 things:
a) the 12-hour sunrise to sunset time period, a day
b) the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise day
c) an open ended period of time, possibly an epoch, or many (hundreds or
thousands of years). For example, Obadiah 15 " The day of the Lord is near..." or Leviticus 23:28 "Because it is the day of atonement..."

2) in the new testament, in 2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."

Clearly, one "day" can mean many different time periods, not necessarily a 24 hour time period.

Finally, we have to consider the purpose for which Moses recorded Genesis 1: it was clearly not to give a 21st century scientific account of creation, but rather to paint a (100% truthful and accurate) picture of the creation story so that amazingly, all people at all times in history can understand it and find meaning in the fact that God loves and cares for them through this story. He could have described exactly the order of events in the universe's origins-when photons became transparent to the universe, when stars and galaxies formed, when our solar system formed, and when the earth was finally prepared enough to support life...etc but he left those exciting discoveries up to science.

We as Christians have to avoid falling into the trap of using scriptures falsely to combat valid developments in science. 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.

In the same vein, we need to understand the purpose of Moses when he recorded Genesis 1. Was it to give a detailed "scientific" explanation of the origin of the universe? I submit that it was not, and that the Biblical account of creation is perfectly reconciled with modern cosmology/astrophysics.

What does this have to do with creation/evolution? Well, I think it is important to push the right things when arguing with atheists/agnostics. If you have to argue that the Biblical view of creation is that the earth/universe is 10 000 years old to combat the evolutionary theories, you don't have much of a scientific leg to stand on. But if you only argue against the falsity of evolution (see "irreducible complexity") then you are much more effective and can give a much better argument for Christianity and the inerrancy of the Bible.

Sorry this was so long; hope it helps. I'd be happy to discuss your ideas, opinions, thoughts further. :)

Gryphon

12-25-2005, 03:58 PM

Jedi of Narnia

12-28-2005, 03:02 AM

**FORGOT TO ADD... I AM GOING TO BE GONE FOR A DAY OR TWO SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO RESPOND, HOPEFULLY I WILL BE BACK BY THURSDAY**

wow... read through all the posts (well most of them) and I think I am the first aethist to take a shot... here it goes. Hopefully I will just state my general view and maybe address a couple of things I remembered reading and then we can go from there because there was A LOT of questions that people were posting... so here it goes.

I am an extremely strong aethist. I started out in Catholic church probably when I was 3 or 4 because my Mother is Catholic. I think I attended church for about 10 years. I don't think I really ever had faith in God, I can never remembering actually believing in God but I finally told my mom I was going to stop going when I turned 13. I read the Bible for Sunday school and researched when I was in High School, but I've never read it cover to cover.

One of my reasons for being aethist is just I could never understand God. It just seemed stupid to me why I would think there is an entity that is above all physical law. I mean I just can't believe that there is a thing up in the sky or in another dimension or whatever that just sits and has watched us for billions of years. I mean you actually believe there is some entity watching us right now, that created us... I take a lesson from a movie called Contact, they used a thing called Ackham's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. What more likely and simple, there is an all knowing, all seeing God that has existed forever or we simply have evolved over billions of years and we just made him up to not feel alone. A lot of people have talked about the complexity of our universe and the science of our world being impossible to have just happened. I see this as a reason why God doesn't exist, why not make our system simple. Why would God put all this complexity into the world when he created the world in just 6 days (I thought it was 7 days, doesn't really matter). Why not make things very simple?

I also think that religion was made up to make us feel good about what happens when we die. I think a lot of people, including myself are scared of death. I mean loss of conscience is a pretty scary thought but I really think it is what happens. I think religion was designed to give us a reason not to be scared, oh look there is another place to go after this and it also makes us abide by rules. I don't like it when people say that the Bible is the reason people have morals or gets morals. I don't get my morals from the Bible, I get my morals from me, from my parents, from my friends. Why is it so hard to believe that we can think for ourselves and be able to say that is right and that is wrong? And just because the Bible is old doesn't make it an authority, if I buried the Chronicles of Narnia in the ground for thousands of years, would people dig it up and believe it is true? I just don't understand where that faith comes from where you just accept the Bible as truth, it just doesn't register with me.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, possibly older. It's called carbon dating. Using radio active isotopes they date things on the earth with half life calculations. Please don't say that it isn't true because carbon dating is accurate. We also have platetectonic records of plates shifting beneath the earth. At one time these plates were very close together and over time they have separated. When people say I don't really understand what the bible means by a day and then you tell us that our argument has holes. You are actually debating what a day means, a day is A DAY. It is 24 hour period, one rotation of the earth. It has always been that way, it will always be that way until something crashes into us. Astro-physics are complicated, but they involve mass, attraction and time, things that don't change easily.

The DNA argument is one that I am surprised people are making. If you compared the DNA of a primate and the DNA of a human, they differ by only 1.2 percent. Out of 3 billion nucleotides, they only differ by 1.2 percent. People and primates differ by only 1.2 percent. Now that is actually a lot of nucleotides but scientists are learning that the vast range of nucleotides in the middle of the entire DNA strand are actually useless. They code for nothing, they are simply meant as separators. Although this isn't confirmed yet, they think it is true because it is important to the keep some coding genes far from other coding genes. So really, we aren't that far away from chimps. The farther you move away from chimps down the animal line, the more the differing percentage grows. This implies that we have mutated down the line. Mutation is part of life, mistakes are made in nature. What do you think happens when we get retardation, birth defects, etc... This is DNA mutation that occurs in chromosomes. Chromosomes are tightly wound DNA that code for everything. If you have 46 chromosomes (I think it is 46)... you have a biological organism. We are getting to the point in science where we can fabricate human beings, build them from the ground up. While I don't agree with this, it implies that we are God. How could we create human beings in a way God had not intended? It's also possible for 2 women to create conception although it has to be done artificially, it can still be done. It seems like the Bible would imply this isn't possible.

Wow... alright I wrote a lot. I have more to say but I think I will leave it at that and see how people respond and then go from there.

Charn_Tim

12-28-2005, 05:17 AM

Jedi of Narnia~

Thank you so much for openly expressing your beliefs here in this excellent post :). I appreciate your honesty and candidness, and I will respond to this thread tomorrow (hopefully morning), as it is pretty late right now and I am about to go to sleep. And of course that's cool to be out of it for a couple days...I see no reason to rush this discussion :) .

Charn_Tim

12-28-2005, 05:44 PM

Okay, here goes. If I am reading your post correctly, it seems that we have a number of issues to discuss here if you don't mind. Rather than taking them all on at once, let's take the "divide and conquer" approach-split them up and discuss these issues one at a time. So, as I understand it, here are some main points of your beliefs that I would like to discuss:

1. One of my reasons for being aethist is just I could never understand God. It just seemed stupid to me why I would think there is an entity that is above all physical law. I mean I just can't believe that there is a thing up in the sky or in another dimension or whatever that just sits and has watched us for billions of years. I mean you actually believe there is some entity watching us right now, that created us... I take a lesson from a movie called Contact, they used a thing called Ackham's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. What more likely and simple, there is an all knowing, all seeing God that has existed forever or we simply have evolved over billions of years and we just made him up to not feel alone. A lot of people have talked about the complexity of our universe and the science of our world being impossible to have just happened. I see this as a reason why God doesn't exist, why not make our system simple.

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are saying that you see no reason for a God when you look at nature, and we should explain our observations using the simplest possible theories, and you back this up with a quote/worldview from a movie/science. Furthermore, you don't see how all the complexity/science implies the existence of a creator.

2.I also think that religion was made up to make us feel good about what happens when we die. I think a lot of people, including myself are scared of death. I mean loss of conscience is a pretty scary thought but I really think it is what happens. I think religion was designed to give us a reason not to be scared, oh look there is another place to go after this and it also makes us abide by rules.

Here you seem to be saying that religion in general and Christianity in particular is made up to give us comfort/hope for when we die.

3.The earth is 4.5 billion years old, possibly older. It's called carbon dating. Using radio active isotopes they date things on the earth with half life calculations. Please don't say that it isn't true because carbon dating is accurate. We also have platetectonic records of plates shifting beneath the earth. At one time these plates were very close together and over time they have separated.
Here you are claiming that you believe in all the facts of physics/geology/paleontology, etc. that say the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that the yourg-earth creationists appeal to the flood as the source of the geological record/fossil record, etc. is invalid and contradictory to science.

4.When people say I don't really understand what the bible means by a day and then you tell us that our argument has holes. You are actually debating what a day means, a day is A DAY. It is 24 hour period, one rotation of the earth.

I believe the issue you are raising here is what the Bible means when you (and any of us) reads their english translation of Genesis 1 and it speaks of the "Days of creation" and "evening and morning on the xth day." You (and incidentally many other "young-earth creationists") submit that when Moses recorded Genesis 1 he intended "Day" to mean a 24 hour time period.

5.The DNA argument is one that I am surprised people are making. If you compared the DNA of a primate and the DNA of a human, they differ by only 1.2 percent. Out of 3 billion nucleotides, they only differ by 1.2 percent...scientists are learning that the vast range of nucleotides in the middle of the entire DNA strand are actually useless...Although this isn't confirmed yet, they think it is true because it is important to the keep some coding genes far from other coding genes. So really, we aren't that far away from chimps. The farther you move away from chimps down the animal line, the more the differing percentage grows. This implies that we have mutated down the line. Mutation is part of life, mistakes are made in nature.
Although I have not heard of this biological/DNA information regarding a human and a chimp (and if you could provide further reading on this material I would be grateful-perhaps where you got this information), I think the argument you are making here is that since the differences in genetic material are so small between chimps and humans, we can assume that we must have evolved from chimps. And subsequently, the genetic material of a chimp and other animals differes similarly, implying that chimps evolved from still lower lifeforms.

6.We are getting to the point in science where we can fabricate human beings, build them from the ground up. While I don't agree with this, it implies that we are God. How could we create human beings in a way God had not intended? It's also possible for 2 women to create conception although it has to be done artificially, it can still be done. It seems like the Bible would imply this isn't possible.
Finally it seems that you are implying that since human beings are getting to the point where we can fabricate life on our own, and since you claim that it seems against the Biblical worldview, this is another piece of evidence against the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so if I misinterpreted your words in any way, I apologize; I really just want to get what you are saying straight so we can avoid arguing past each other-I've done this many times with some of my friends and it is no fun at all :o . So in the interest of clarity and the "divide and conquer approach," I will title my posts with the number of the point that I am discussing and it might be a good idea if you do the same.

Once again, if it takes a while to finish discussing this, then so be it. If we have to put our discussion on hold for a while or indefinitely, then so be it-obviously we have our lives to go live. But I hope this will provide some civil, interesting, enlightening, and informed discussion that both sides can learn something from. It irritates me (and you no doubt as well) when people speak about these topics in vague form and misrepresent the other side so much. My purpose in this discussion is to get a better understanding of the facts of science and the Bible, which hopefully will lead to the acceptance of Theism-and ultimately Christianity. But if it doesn't, then so be it; we are all in a learning process in this life-no one knows truth exhaustively, and we have until we die to figure this stuff out :).

P.S. MODS- If you would like to move this discussion to a new thread, that would be fine. I hope this is okay what we are doing, and I hope it does not have to be closed like so many other threads that have come before. :)

P.P.S If anyone else wants to jump in, I welcome that of course. I just ask that we stay on topic and discuss facts, not feelings or emotions. :)

Charn_Tim

12-28-2005, 06:03 PM

Okay, well, I'll start by addressing this one-it's probably best to start with some common ground and go from there :) .

I fully agree with everything you have said about the facts of the record of nature-that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe is around 14 billion years old, and that tectonic activity is responsible for the current state of the continents being as they are today (and all other mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, etc.); I will later show (or perhaps I already have in a previous post) how I feel that this does not contradict what the Bible says.

However, not that it is very important to this discussion, but I learned in my nuclear physics class (and I can give references if you like) that carbon dating has a half life of only about 4 000 years and it can only be used to measure ages up to about 50 000 years. They actually use the uranium/lead radioactive decay process to determine the age of the earth and other things on similar time scales. :)

dazzascfc

12-28-2005, 07:34 PM

Jedi of Narnia

12-29-2005, 09:28 PM

Ive never understood why this is debated so much, it always seems to be one or the other.

I am a big believer in evolution, it is a subject that i have been interested in since a young age, it makes a lot os sense to be me, but i dont see any reason why it should go against what the bible says, i think that they could easily co exist and both theories be true.

See I don't think they can. God CREATED Adam and EVE, they didn't evolve. How did humans evolve from single cell organisms if God created them? If you want to the view that God created the Earth and laid the "primodial soup," that's fine, but you can't believe in Genesis and believe in Evolution. I think some sort of God creating the earth is more vialable, it is sort of an intelligent design theory.

But let me make it clear, if you believe in Genesis and the Bible, you believe in creation, NOT EVOLUTION. That's fine if you believe in creation, it's possible that it is right, but you can't believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time. Adam was create by God and then Adam's rib was taken to create Eve.

By the way, that was a good summary of my views, I mean some points were a little off but the basic idea was pretty much correct. I figure if there is a minor misunderstading we can always clear up and let me add I have a lot more reasons why I believe what I believe, I just thought of those as being some of the easiest to write out in paper. Charn_Tim was also correct about the Carbon dating, it only works for recent fossils but I was just using that as an example, they use loads of of radioactive materials and bone marrow chemicals to track age. Thanks for giving me a welcome, I think I got started off on a bad foot in the other thread...

I like the idea of titling the threads and trying to keep it organized but I think as more people post it will just breakdown, I will try to cite and address posts as much as possible. I think as long as people read every post (which I do) I think we will understand what posts are addressing what topics.

PS - the information about the chimps I found in my AP Biology book a while back but I also find it on this website. It is actually an article from a Seattle newspaper (I am from Seattle).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html

Elendil

12-30-2005, 12:53 AM

Well said Jedi!!!

dazzascfc

12-30-2005, 03:20 AM

they didn't evolve. How did humans evolve from single cell organisms if God created them?
Evolution is a proccess which happens after life has begun, about how one life form can evolve from another life form, Evolution is NOT how life started.

Humans didnt evolve from single cell organisms, humans are homo-sapiens which are a member of the monkey family, we are very very similar to the early homo-sapiens which is why its widely believed that we evolved from apes.

There was life on earth for billions of years before humans first stepped foot on the planet.

Im not very religious and i dont believe everything that is written in the bible, i do believe some stories though. But i dont see any reason whatsoever why evolution, and other scienfific reasons for how the earth was created can co-exist with some of the biblical stories.

Jedi of Narnia

12-30-2005, 03:53 AM

Well said Jedi!!!
Thanks :)
Evolution is a proccess which happens after life has begun, about how one life form can evolve from another life form, Evolution is NOT how life started.

Humans didnt evolve from single cell organisms, humans are homo-sapiens which are a member of the monkey family, we are very very similar to the early homo-sapiens which is why its widely believed that we evolved from apes.

There was life on earth for billions of years before humans first stepped foot on the planet.

Im not very religious and i dont believe everything that is written in the bible, i do believe some stories though. But i dont see any reason whatsoever why evolution, and other scienfific reasons for how the earth was created can co-exist with some of the biblical stories.
some scientific reason you can believe in while believing in the Bible. But this Genesis vs. Evolution is the main difference. Not even interpreting and twisting the words can get around that creation is set in stone in the bible.

This was taken straight from Reverand's website
"In Genesis 1: 27, it is written that when God created man in His own image"
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/bif1/BIF1-1-103.htm

"God CREATED man." It doesn't say God created apes, primates or even homosapiens as a species, it says God created man and it also goes on to say he separated them into female/male on purpose. I didn't read the entire section but its point seemed to be demonstrating against homosexuality so ignore that. The important part is the first few sentences.

This was also taken a few lines down from the Reverand's website
Needing an object partner, He created the world. Therefore, God created one man and one woman.
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/bif1/BIF1-1-103.htm

It goes on to say that God had created the Earth so man/women could inhabitat. Therefore, he created the earth and then inserted the man and women in. Even if you don't buy that God had inserted some other kind of lifeform in, how would it be possible for humans to be reponsible for original sin. If original sin was comitted by primates, then primates would have souls. I mean it's possible primates have souls, but I don't think the Bible would say they wouldn't.

It may sound radical, but if you believe in Genesis and the Bible you don't believe in Evolution. They are just two completely opposite theories. Hopefully I have demonstrated that here because it's not a matter of opinion, Genesis and Evolution are different. I will admit that it is possible to have creation and evolution. A creator could have possibly introduced organic materials which jump started the life on this planet, but this is not what it says in Genesis.

I hope the Bible people (sorry, I can't think of the word for people who believe in the Bible) agree with me. Sorry if I came across as pushing evolution onto you, I am just saying that Genesis DOES NOT mix with Evolution. I have more to say about other stuff but I will stop, this post is a little long...

Charn_Tim

12-30-2005, 04:31 AM

By the way, that was a good summary of my views, I mean some points were a little off but the basic idea was pretty much correct. I figure if there is a minor misunderstading we can always clear up.
Excellent. I agree completely.

PS - the information about the chimps I found in my AP Biology book a while back but I also find it on this website. It is actually an article from a Seattle newspaper
Thank you; I am looking this over...I am always interested in scientific studies regarding these things.

...To be continued...

Charn_Tim

12-30-2005, 06:46 AM

It may sound radical, but if you believe in Genesis and the Bible you don't believe in Evolution. They are just two completely opposite theories. Hopefully I have demonstrated that here because it's not a matter of opinion, Genesis and Evolution are different. I will admit that it is possible to have creation and evolution. A creator could have possibly introduced organic materials which jump started the life on this planet, but this is not what it says in Genesis.

I hope the Bible people (sorry, I can't think of the word for people who believe in the Bible) agree with me. Sorry if I came across as pushing evolution onto you, I am just saying that Genesis DOES NOT mix with Evolution.
Haha, I guess I am one of the "Bible people." :) Well, I would like to say that I 100 % agree with Jedi of Narnia on this point-one cannot believe in BOTH the infallibility and divine inspiration of the scriptures and believe in evolution by natural selection as the reason for the diversity of life on planet earth. Indeed, I do believe in Genesis and the Bible and I don't believe in Evolution by natural selection as the cause for the diversity of life (or the creation of life for that matter).

The issue now becomes: what mechanism is responsible for the diversity of life on earth? If the mechanism responsible for different species of life on earth is natural selection, then that discredits the infallibility of scripture, and I have to seriously question my beliefs. If it is not evolution by natural selection, then it is either a creator or (much less likely) some other mechanism that no one has thought of yet.

What remains for me now is to show why I don't believe in evolution by natural selection as the reason for the diversity of life on earth.

By the way, Jedi of Narnia (and anyone else whom this applies to), if you don't have access to a Bible, I did a google search of "Bible" and I found a website-Bible.com-where you can read the Bible in any translation imaginable. Here's the link to the NIV version (the version I recommend): http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31&lang=2
you can search by book->chapter number. I guess the main part we will want to look at is Genesis 1-2, but of course if anything comes up or you want to research/study further, here you go.

inkspot

12-30-2005, 11:41 AM

Charn_Tim

12-30-2005, 05:34 PM

Just for clarification, if I say I believe in evolution, I am saying I believe that life spontaneously sprung into existence on earth as a microbe, and then that microbe eventually became a cell, and the cell eventually became every kind of life on earth, correct?

I just want to make sure I understand the foundation of what we mean when we say evolution for this discussion.
Hmmm, it seems to me that the problem here is that scientists haven't come up with enough words to define everything we are talking about :). From my bio class, I have an excerpt from a lecture of what "evolution" means. There are three main ways in which it is used in modern conversation:

1) change over time: the diversification of life as seen in the fossil record.
2) descent with modification: that descendents, while most closely related to their parents, always differ from them. Also observable in the fossil record or in breeding domesticated animals or plants.
3) The theory of natural selection: the product of random genetic variation interacting with random environmental change resulting in differential reproductive success and has been a hypothesis of modern science for 140 years.

I would submit that the first two are facts, although many young-earth creationists would disagree with me on this. These facts are observed in nature and have withstood falsification for many years. The last one is what is in dispute here. While it has been the accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on planet earth, I believe it is a flawed theory (and I'm not alone in the scientific community on this-more to come on that later).

So in response to you Inkspot, I would say that by this definition (#3), genetic material needs to already be in place for natural selection to operate on, and I think we ought to stick to this definition in this thread as much as possible, so we don't talk past one another and avoid as much misunderstanding as possible. Incidentally, this means that those maintaining a worldview devoid of a creator of life must explain how life can arise in the first place. But I think that issue is separate from the issue of whether natural selection operates on the genetic material already in place to "create" different species. So that's what we are meaning by "evolution" at this point-evolution in definition #3.

inkspot

12-30-2005, 06:08 PM

Jedi of Narnia

12-30-2005, 06:10 PM

hey-

don't have time to post a response to anything but thanks for a link to the Bible website, I have been trying to track down something like that for reference...

Charn_Tim

12-30-2005, 07:43 PM

Thank you. Just so I am clear:
does natural selection address the very origin of life on earth, does it begin with a single cell?

I understand survival of the fittest/mutation, I just want to be sure we are talking about where life originated. Does it state that all life evolved from the first single cells?

(Sorry to be so obtuse -- I am not that scientific minded.)
As far as I understand it, the current theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to say regarding how life originated on earth, but holds that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for diversifying and creating the new species (possibly starting from the single celled organisms or something). I think on this point, it justs gets down to personal views as there is no "accepted scientific theory" as to how life originated or to what extent natural selection is responsible for the origin of species, because all past attempts by scientists to fabricate human life have failed miserably. Perhaps an atheist would wish to share their views regarding this?

haha, you're not obtuse ;) . Don't ever be afraid to ask any questions, Inspot or anyone else for that matter. Just because you don't know these things, doesn't mean you're obtuse or that your thoughts/opinions matter any less. The desire/need to form your own beliefs regarding these issues is not unique to scientists, so it is very important for all of us to get the facts straight.

Charn_Tim

12-30-2005, 07:46 PM

hey-

don't have time to post a response to anything but thanks for a link to the Bible website, I have been trying to track down something like that for reference...
Your welcome-glad to help :)

dazzascfc

12-30-2005, 08:58 PM

Thanks :)

some scientific reason you can believe in while believing in the Bible. But this Genesis vs. Evolution is the main difference. Not even interpreting and twisting the words can get around that creation is set in stone in the bible.

This was taken straight from Reverand's website
"In Genesis 1: 27, it is written that when God created man in His own image"
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/bif1/BIF1-1-103.htm

"God CREATED man." It doesn't say God created apes, primates or even homosapiens as a species, it says God created man and it also goes on to say he separated them into female/male on purpose. I didn't read the entire section but its point seemed to be demonstrating against homosexuality so ignore that. The important part is the first few sentences.

This was also taken a few lines down from the Reverand's website
Needing an object partner, He created the world. Therefore, God created one man and one woman.
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/bif1/BIF1-1-103.htm

It goes on to say that God had created the Earth so man/women could inhabitat. Therefore, he created the earth and then inserted the man and women in. Even if you don't buy that God had inserted some other kind of lifeform in, how would it be possible for humans to be reponsible for original sin. If original sin was comitted by primates, then primates would have souls. I mean it's possible primates have souls, but I don't think the Bible would say they wouldn't.

It may sound radical, but if you believe in Genesis and the Bible you don't believe in Evolution. They are just two completely opposite theories. Hopefully I have demonstrated that here because it's not a matter of opinion, Genesis and Evolution are different. I will admit that it is possible to have creation and evolution. A creator could have possibly introduced organic materials which jump started the life on this planet, but this is not what it says in Genesis.

I hope the Bible people (sorry, I can't think of the word for people who believe in the Bible) agree with me. Sorry if I came across as pushing evolution onto you, I am just saying that Genesis DOES NOT mix with Evolution. I have more to say about other stuff but I will stop, this post is a little long...
First of all, its impossible for you to be pushing Evolution onto me when i am totally for Evolution anyway, i said in my first post it is something that interests me a lot and something ive been into since a very young age, i even have a small collection of fossils.

And finally i have never once said that i believe in Genesis, i cant understand how anything that i have said makes you think that, i have only said that i dont believe that some of the stories that are written in the bible are true.

All i am doing is keeping an open mind about things, because thats how i like to be, and i dont see why there cant be other reasons as well as Evolution for the formation of life on Earth, Evolution is what happens after life has begun, but what started life i dont know.

Jedi of Narnia

12-31-2005, 01:45 AM

dazzascfc: you said why can't anyone believe in the Bible and Evolution at the same time. There is your reason right there. Genesis IS PART OF THE BIBLE and Evolution clearly contradicts it. Glad we have another evolutionist on the boards, we need all the support we can get.

I don't debate that you can believe in intelligent design or creation and believe in evolution, but if you believe in the Bible you don't believe in evolution, PERIOD.

Natural Selection Debate I will have to answer later but I do have an explanation for that...

Jedi of Narnia

12-31-2005, 06:38 AM

Natural Selection

I base my facts off what I have learned in my biology classes in high school and some work I did in statistics about animal varitions among areas.

Of course scientists can't reproduce natural selection or mutation like it happens in nature, it takes tens of millions of years for it to work. Life originated down way underneath the ocean, where lava escapes from the core into the water. Down at the deepest points in the ocean, it's dark and near lava vents, it is very hot. This is the prime place for growing bacteria. It also fits because life had to originate in the water because most of the earth was carbon and nitrogen when it started out. Most people think that life started out on land but I am sure it started in the water. With the little atmosphere the earth had, life couldn't have started out on the surface. The water is a great place to grow bacteria because of the liquid meduim and the ample nutrients due to the heat.

Obviously, I have no real clue how life proceeded from there. We have fossil records and theories, but it's hard to say what evolved into what but natrual selection plays a key role in starting life. Conditions were critical, which is why we only see life on the earth. Temperature, gravity, atmosphere, elements, envirnmoent just to name a few things that are the basis for begining organic lifeforms. Natural selection is the process of survival, if a species can't survive, then it will die and it's ancestors will try to survive. This will happen over and over again until finally, the species mutates randomly into what the enviroment wants. Now, I say this with forthought, animals don't mutate because they want to, they mutate by random changes. Although animals can adapt to certain conditions, they need mutation to get a survival basis.

An example of this is bipedal movement, humans are some of the only creatures to be completely bipedal (walk on two feet). This is because of mutation. If you look at other animal ancestors, they are all quadpedal (if that's a word). I don't understand how people say that natural selection doesn't have anything to do with origin... it is basically why we exist. It's how nature works, it kills anything that doesn't fit it's surroundings. I think on a general level, organisms are meant to survive and nature is meant to kill. It's the equilibrum our system is based on. Nature is constantly wanting chaos, the universe wants to be disorganized and dead but organisms have to mutate and learn how to survive.

Getting away from that example and going back to origins, I think it makes sense that life originated in the water because the water holds the oldest creatures on the planet. Aligators and sharks live to be hundreds of years old. We only live to be around 70 or 80. Aligators/crocidiles/etc have mutated to live longer, there genes and adaption have made them more immune to diseases and enviroment and also has put them at the top of the food chain. It's hard to track fossils at the bottom because the pressure at those depths is almost impossible to engineer around. Then trying to search massive areas of ocean land where it is blacker than black is almost impossible. The oceans make up 70% of the ear's surface area and most creatures at the bottom are undiscovered. I think the deepest depths of the ocean are even more dangerous than space and much harder to explore. But I also think they hold the origin of life.

Natural selection is in fact in my opinion evolution. It's how and why life started. Natural selection is one of the main themes not only in nature, but in our free market and minds. Survival is how everything works. The only thing that natural selection isn't responsible for is the basic laws of nature. Like atomic structure, gravity, DNA, etc. These are the basic building blocks of all things, found constantly threw the universe. These kinds of things are tough to discover the origins of, it's like trying to explain why 2+2 = 4. Why is 2... simply put 2 units? It's just how we think of it, how we visualize it. There are probably thousands of different ways of thinking about atoms, gravity, DNA... The important thing is keeping our assumptions constistent which the scientific community does for the most part.

Hopefully, within the next couple of years, they can use what they have learned from the Genome project and discover what each gene codes for in our body. If we can find what genes mean what in other animals and in ourselves, we can discover what specific genes are different and how we mutated over the years into our present day selves. If we can figure out the timeline of natural selection, what happened to species at what times, we will be able to trace all the way back to begining and have an idea of what happened.

Blah... I am out of thinking juice in my head. That was a really long post... I will rest for now.

dazzascfc

12-31-2005, 06:48 AM

dazzascfc: you said why can't anyone believe in the Bible and Evolution at the same time.
I never said that, well, what i said sounded like that, perhaps i should have worded my first post a little better than what i did do.

There are a lot of things written in the bible that i dont believe happened at all, and this includes quite a bit of the story of creation.

Im just being open minded, im not a religious person but i dont think that the bible should be dismissed completely, i am totally for evolution, i understand everything that once life started it evolved and the way that it evolves, its how life started that i want to find the answer to.

Jedi of Narnia

12-31-2005, 06:16 PM

I never said that, well, what i said sounded like that, perhaps i should have worded my first post a little better than what i did do.

There are a lot of things written in the bible that i dont believe happened at all, and this includes quite a bit of the story of creation.

Im just being open minded, im not a religious person but i dont think that the bible should be dismissed completely, i am totally for evolution, i understand everything that once life started it evolved and the way that it evolves, its how life started that i want to find the answer to.

Oh alright, well at least I made a good statement even though it was unnecessary.

You like Evolution and you like Anna Popplewell, therefore I like you.

sww.nwsa

01-01-2006, 05:48 PM

I'm not going to write a book about it on this board right here right now, but I am an evolutionist 100%. I wasn't brought up with a very religious background, so I'm pretty much positive that that's the reason for it. I can't really explain it, but it just makes sense to me.

dazzascfc

01-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Oh alright, well at least I made a good statement even though it was unnecessary.

You like Evolution and you like Anna Popplewell, therefore I like you.
Thanks, you too!!

I was only around 10 when i started reading about Evolution, i had just seen Jurassic Park at the cinema and i already had a huge interest in dinosaurs anyway, but that was the spark which really made me want to find out more about them.

At school i was lucky enough that they did Geology as a science and it became one of my favourite subjects, we went on a number of feild trips looking for rocks and fossils and i learned quite a bit about Evolution during those lessons as well.

Evolution is something that i have always been interested in and it is something that makes a lot more sense to me as well.

Charn_Tim

01-01-2006, 07:59 PM

Whew! Lots of stuff here, but I think I will respond to parts of your post, one piece at a time.

Of course scientists can't reproduce natural selection or mutation like it happens in nature, it takes tens of millions of years for it to work.
Hmmm, then does this make the theory of evolution by natural selection a philosophy which is to be taken ultimately on faith, or a science which is falsifiable through experiment? Incidentallly, many scientists would disagree with your assertion that natural selection cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. They have tried to reproduce some of the effects of natural selection in the laboratory, and it has been a dismal failure. Perhaps you will fall back on the punctuated equilibrium theory of Stephen Jay Gould and others, which is even less scientific than what you are proposing and requires even more faith to believe.

Life originated down way underneath the ocean, where lava escapes from the core into the water. Down at the deepest points in the ocean, it's dark and near lava vents, it is very hot. This is the prime place for growing bacteria. It also fits because life had to originate in the water because most of the earth was carbon and nitrogen when it started out. Most people think that life started out on land but I am sure it started in the water. With the little atmosphere the earth had, life couldn't have started out on the surface. The water is a great place to grow bacteria because of the liquid meduim and the ample nutrients due to the heat.
Well, if these conditions are present as they are now on earth, then science should be able to reproduce the "creation" of life. Experiments have been a complete failure to this end as well. What mechanism are you proposing for the "creation" of the first one-celled organisms? You still have not given any reasons for how life arose; you simply have stated how you think (based on faith) how life arose.

The point is, "science" fails to provide the answer to how life arose. There are really only two options here: 1) Life arose by some unknown "natural" mechanism (which I will add is highly unlikely that it would be unknown). or 2) Life arose by the creative power of a higher intelligence outside of nature. I know astrophysics and cosmology better than evolution or biology, and I will submit that all of the evidence from this field of physics points to the second alternative, and I hope to post this information in this thread within the next couple of days so you can decide this for yourself.

That's all I got for now...to be continued...

Charn_Tim

01-01-2006, 08:03 PM

You like Evolution and you like Anna Popplewell, therefore I like you.
LOL--that's all it takes, huh? Oh well, I guess I'm halfway there :D

Jedi of Narnia

01-01-2006, 09:16 PM

Charn_Tim: btw, my name is Tim too, just really weird. I don't find many others with the name Tim... anyway.

I don't understand why you seem to rail on Natural Selection and Evolution when Christianity has it's problems too. I am not saying Evolution/Natrual Selection is perfect, but it is more plausible than the Bible. Again, apply Ackham's Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. And I don't use FAITH in my beliefs, I use logic and reason. Evolution and Natural Selection fit with our world. They follow the pattern of how nature works. The Bible doesn't follow any of that, rising from the dead, spirits, miracles... you can't reproduce these things either. These don't fit with nature or physics at all. I'd also like to know what kind of natrual selection experiments they have been performing because in all my years in biology, I've never heard of experiments being preformed. I mean there is studies that go on, trying to classify different species of animals over the globe and comparing them and why they are different... but I don't know of any hardcore experiments besides the genome project.

I think I made myself pretty clear that life started down at the bottom of the ocean near lava vents? Bacteria likes heat. To grow bacteria all you need is organic material (agarose gel) a heat lamp and darkness. Boom. You have bacteria. Agarose gel isn't found way underneath the ocean but carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen are. These are the 4 main organic elements in all things living. Like this isn't "we think this is true" bacteria is found way down at the bottom of the ocean near heat vents. No experiments need to be done, it's already down there. Bacteria is grown freely down there. Creation is there to make us not feel alone, not make us feel we have purpose. We can't get around that we just evolved.

The earth must be the center of the universe and we find out later the sun is.
The earth must be flat and we find out later it is sphereical.
Man/women was created by a higher power and we have found out that he/she has evolved. (This doesn't answer the question on how life started, but it does disprove the Bible wrong. How life started is still up in the air right now, whether is be by an inteligent designer or simply by nature).

It's the track of science. The solution is always right there in front of us, simple. Mass can neither be created or destroyed but in nuclear reactions it's destroyed. NO, it's converted to energy. To every problem there is a solution. Just because we haven't figured it out and then saying oh we must have been created is just lame. It's like giving up. It's like saying well the earth is flat so we don't need to explore any further. The earth is the center so we don't need to explore space or astrology. And you said this proves for a intelligent creator but it doesn't prove the Bible correct. The Bible requiers faith, A LOT OF IT. I can't disprove an intelligent creator but I can disprove the Bible because evolution happens and the Bible clearly states that it didn't. I don't know for sure how we got here but I KNOW WE EVOLVE. And I will NEVER believe in the Bible because of that and a lot of other reasons but that being one of them.

The intelligent design theory is one that intrigues me. I don't believe in it but I think it was more plausible. Sorry to blunt but the Bible is simply false in Genesis. There is no reworking or rewording or symbolism that can be spun to make it correct, Genesis is false by my previous posts.

PrinceOfTheWest

01-01-2006, 09:29 PM

Jedi, you seem to be falling into the common error made by most evolutionists - i.e. that the only choice is evolutionism or young earth creationism (a literal six-day creation in 4004 B.C.). Those are not the only options. My problem with evolutionism is that it is terrible science. Everything we've learned about genetics since Mendel militates against evolution. There has not been one recorded case of a mutation resulting in a beneficial, transmittable, dominant trait - despite generations of trying to force them via artificial irradiation, etc. Mutations just don't work that way - yet the only thing that could explain the creation of new species is mutation! Yet the only answer the evolutionists can offer is what my calc prof used to call "proof by waving of hands" - statements that it would take a long time, etc. Sorry, evolutionism is just bad science.

Charn_Tim

01-02-2006, 04:33 AM

Charn_Tim: btw, my name is Tim too, just really weird. I don't find many others with the name Tim... anyway.
haha...that's kind of funny. Anyway,

I don't understand why you seem to rail on Natural Selection and Evolution when Christianity has it's problems too. I am not saying Evolution/Natrual Selection is perfect, but it is more plausible than the Bible.
Well, I'm railing on Natural Selection and Evolution because it is bad science-I believe it is incorrect and needs to be cast aside just like the notion of "ether" at the turn of last century, or the geocentric model of the universe, etc. Why is it bad science? Well, first of all, it is not testable; you said yourself that no experiments have been done to verify natural selection. Second of all, I'm not sure if you have heard of the "irreducible complexity" argument, put forth by Dr. Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, in his book, Darwin's Black Box. As of yet, I have not heard of a single evolutionist successfully refuting the claims of "irreducible complexity" made in this book. The best thing to do would be to pick up a copy and read through it (at least the first part of it to get an idea of what it's about-it may be available at the U. of Wash. library). I know this may sound like a daunting task, but for you a scientist it should be a pretty quick read. Furthermore, it won't be a waste of your time. It's always good to get both sides of the argument and if you refute his claims, you will be know as the first evolutionist to do so. But I can summarize the argument here anyway:

The cell to Darwin was a Black Box-he simply had no idea how it worked. However, through advances in Biochemistry, we are able to get a much better understanding of cellular structures, and now we know that they are incredibly complex. The reason for this complexity is "that the cell is operated by machines-literal molecular machines" (Behe, Ch. 3, p. 51). Without one single piece in these machines that operate the cell-ranging form the incredibly complex to the relatively simple (in other words, some machines are comprised of many elements and some are comprised of only a few elements)-the machines simply will not work at all. Accordingly, slowly varying change is totally thrown out the window on the sub-cellular level because you either need all the pieces to "randomly" come together or you will have no sub-cellular machine to operate the cell. Because there are different molecular machines "operating" different cellular structures in different species, the mechanism of natural selection is insufficient to account for the different types of species on a sub-cellular level. Therefore, this biochemical evidence points to design in nature.

Futhermore, I am shocked as to why evolutionists and atheists continually bash the Bible for being incorrect or not scientifically accurate without citing a single verse of scripture. Granted, I believe you are reacting to the "young-earth creationist" view of science and the Bible, but I hold this theory-that the universe was created in 6 24 hour time periods to be as invalid as the evolutionists theory that can explain all life with natural selection. I feel that now I should justify my claims here that the Bible does not teach that the universe was created in 6 24 hour time periods, although I have done this in other posts.

Please read this carefully. These are my thoughts on what the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is. If you have anything to refute, then please provide specific reasons why you disagree with my interpretation so we can discuss, rather than keep stating opinions. This is from post #59 of this thread:

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=6&pp=10&highlight=creation+evolution

So, now not only have you said that the theory of evolution by natural selection is not testable, but I refuted the idea using modern advances in biochemistry. That was one reason you gave for why you believed the Bible was incorrect. The second reason you gave was that you interpret Genesis 1 to say that God created the universe in 6 24 hour time periods, a total of 144 hours consecutively. I also refuted this interpretation in a previous post, with the link provided above.

So, until you can refute my claims or provide any other piece of new "evidence" that the Bible is fallacious in its content, we will work under the knowledge that the Bible does not contain any scientific errors and that the assertion "Christianity has its problems too" is not a claim that is justifiable from modern science-biological evolution or astrophysics.

Charn_Tim

01-02-2006, 05:06 AM

I think I made myself pretty clear that life started down at the bottom of the ocean near lava vents? Bacteria likes heat. To grow bacteria all you need is organic material (agarose gel) a heat lamp and darkness. Boom. You have bacteria. Agarose gel isn't found way underneath the ocean but carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen are. These are the 4 main organic elements in all things living. Like this isn't "we think this is true" bacteria is found way down at the bottom of the ocean near heat vents. No experiments need to be done, it's already down there. Bacteria is grown freely down there. Creation is there to make us not feel alone, not make us feel we have purpose. We can't get around that we just evolved.
Here you are again stating your opinions of how life arose based on your faith in a lack of a creator. You have no logical grounds for a belief that bacteria can arise from organic material on its own, without a creative influence. Once again, if this is just how it happened, and physical laws are not transitory, then why can't we reproduce this today in the laboratory under the same conditions? Are you willing to go against the entire scientific community and claim that the laws of physics are not static in time?

Sorry to blunt but the Bible is simply false in Genesis. There is no reworking or rewording or symbolism that can be spun to make it correct, Genesis is false by my previous posts.
Once again, here you are simply making a claim but providing no evidence to support it. I rebutt this argument in my post above, specifically where I have provided the link.

fish_wwjd_frog

01-02-2006, 04:54 PM

When I had to take biology in High School, my science teacher said that people didn't actually evolve from monkeys but from single cell organisms under the water, as did all other forms of life. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. There are so many animals and so many types of those animals, to me it would be impossible for that to just happen on its own- and happen from the same single cell.

I know that God made me and every other living thing. I know that when He spoke, things came into existance. I know this because I have faith in my Jesus, in my God.

Some of the Christians say it happened exactly like the Bible says. Some say God made the Big Bang happen. Some Christians might have other ideas as to how it all came into being. But it all comes down to one thing: God. God was, God is, and God will forever be Our Creator.

inkspot

01-02-2006, 07:42 PM

Charn Tim, you are doing a fine job with the science here. Jedi, you need to bring a little more science to the table.

You say the simplest explanation must be the factual one, but so far evolution sounds very far-fetched: life springing into existence for no apparent reason (and in a fashion that cannot now be duplicated) and then lots of complex systems coming together (randomly) at the exact moment needed for them to be a cell and then grow into other forms of life ... unless you have a simple explanation for evolution (based on science), I am thinking the creation story sounds more like the logical answer to Ackham's Razor.

Jedi of Narnia

01-03-2006, 07:37 AM

Okay, I am a little out numbered right now but I will try to do my best.

First of all, were not debating the day thing again. A day is a day. I'm sorry but I can't accept that a day they wrote in the Bible is a different as a day is now. I can't argue against that, you are debating whether a day is a day. Like I am just really frustrated that you keep bringing this up, if you keep insisting that a day isn't 24 hours, I am just going to stop arguing because it's really stupid. If you will concede evolution and the Bible do not coexist, we can get on with the rest of the argument. But were at a standstill right now because I WILL NOT concede that a day in Genesis is different than a day now. If they couldn't figure out what a real day was in the Bible, what else did they get wrong or write wrong? A day is a day, according to the Genesis, the Earth and Man was created in 6 days, period. Let me be clear I am not completely ruling this out. It is totally possible that this is true, I think it is not. But you can't say I believe in evolution and I believe in Genesis, they are two completely opposite theories. If you keep using the day is not a day argument, I am going to stop arguing because I can't argue against things like that. You are just changing the meaning of actual words and definitions. Why wouldn't they just say 4.5 billion years, or 10,000 years, why would they use the word day instead of just saying the actual time. I can't even explain how much that doesn't make sense to me. It's completely contradictory to say well it says God has 1,000 year days but only sometimes. The Bible is SO HYPOCRITICAL, how can you base beliefs off a book that bounces around so much. I can't refute passages because in some places the Bible says one thing and in others, it states something else. It flip flops all over the place. You can't say 2+2=4 but in some instances when it works 2+2=1,000.

About the bacteria at the bottom of the ocean, IT DOES ARISE FROM NOTHING. They have found bacteria at the bottom of the ocean near lava vents. I can date back on how water and the rest of the earth was created scientifically, it's all theory obviously but so is the Bible? I don't really understand what people are trying to ask when they say how was life created, well it is created down at the bottom of the ocean. I am not going to go into how the earth was created because I don't think that is the question you are asking. I think it makes sense that life started at the bottom of the ocean, I am not 100% sure it's right, but it makes sense and flows with the rest of the timeline. I am not 100% sure about anything but neither are you guys. Are you absolutely sure that God exists? Would you be willing to bet your life on it, your family's lives? Please don't assume that the Bible is correct and then argue from that point of view. I try to argue my views assuming that all my beliefs are false and I have to prove them true. Now it's unlikely that I will ever be 100% sure of my beliefs but I think that's good... I don't have all the answers and the thing that gets me about religion is that it assums it does have all the answers.

Of course there is incredible complexity at an atomic or cellular level. Quantum mechanics and biology are a great example as you stated. I don't really understand why this proves there is a God. I'll admit it doesn't fit my theory of Ackham's Razor, but not everything does. The universe is complex and grows in entropy every second. The universe wants more chaos... but that theory in itself is Ackham's Razor. It goes along with Chaos theory that in all the chaos of space and entropy, there is a pattern. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it has to be created by a higher power. Look at the complexity of space, black holes, nuclear reactions, entire galaxies.... Complexity doesn't imply God, it implies nature. There is Ackham's Razor right there. Ironic, but nature as hole is simple. Even in the most complex of organisms, they are reduced to AGCT. All organisms are made of a primary cell. Nature is excellent at mirco-organizing. It starts small and simple, and then grows from there. Micro-organzing is just a better way for science to work. This is why we don't see many massive organisms like whales and dinasours until later in the evolution timeline. Nature always starts out small and then grows big.

I think that's what you were getting at in one of your paragraphs but I didn't really understand the machine part. I studied biology and have never heard of that. I know the cell is comprised of different structures: ribosomes, nuclues, cell wall, etc... And the cell is infact a small "factory" producing waste and energy. Why is it so hard to believe that these laws are inherent, why must people believe that someone had to create those interactions. There is no evidence that I have seen that says well someone HAD to create that, it's to complex. I think complexity implies that someone DIDN'T create it, it implies that the universe or nature is responsible. Apply Ackham's Razor again, as a hole the universe is in chaos so it makes sense that looking at cells they are complex.

I guess it is difficult to define complex and simple, thinking about it I have become tongue tied. Because you can find that the universe is simple by saying that is chaotic. If all the universe is chaotic, then that's a pattern. What I am trying to say is why is it so hard to believe that we were not created. I just see it has a point of logic, it seems logically more sound to say we were created by nature. Nature has the tools to keep the universe running, why couldn't it have put us together. 22 billion years is a long time... I guess that's just a point of belief. Creation just doesn't seem right to me. I look at scientific evidence like cellular biology and say, "see, nature has that possiblity of doing that. It's not some mystical power or energy field or divine influence, those are laws of physics, chemistry and biology. I can see why those things happen." I can't see someone rising from the dead, I can't see people's souls, I can't see people living for eternity, I can't see God or talk to God, I can't describe/relate to/reason Faith, I can't understand how people make a belief system out of the Bible. I guess it's where our fundamental differences are... What seems more plausible, an all knowing, infinite creature with infinite power created an entire universe with one planet to house life or we were created by a series of interactions and the universe slowly evolved? Both have their holes but why would a God create us, give us divine influence and then suddenly stop. What happened to the old days of God talking. If God talked to me I WOULD LISTEN. It just goes against everything that I have seen in my lifetime to believe in God, Jesus and the Bible.

There is also another question, why is the Bible right. There must be over 200 organized religions in the world, how come you guys got it right. How could there be such an overwhelming different interpretation of the same story. 1st commandment states I am the lord of God though shall not worship any other God before me. All the other religions in the world are commiting sins, do they all go to hell? They are breaking the first commandment, that is a mortal sin. How could all these different people write such a different story.

There are definitely holes in evolution but I think there are way more in the Bible and creation. I am sorry to say I don't think I will be able to post much anymore because I am going back to school tomorrow (Tuesday). I will try to get on the board and see what people have written but I don't think it will be often. If you don't hear from me for a week, don't worry, I will respond... it may just take a while.

PS - I didn't really edit this post because it's 4 AM, so hopefully my grammar and spelling is decent.

inkspot

01-03-2006, 12:26 PM

jedi, your grammar and spelling were terrific -- for four in the AM, you were spot on. :) I am so sorry you will not be able to continue this discussion, and I invite anyone who believes in evolution to take over for you, because it is a very interesting topic.

As to your argument in the previous post:

It reduces to this: "evolution seems more plausible to me than creation." But that is not an argument, that is a feeling. If it is your feeling, and you are totally closed to what science (let alone the Bible) has to say about evolution and creation, then you will continue feeling as you do. (And I guess imagining that it is science.)

About the bacteria at the bottom of the ocean, IT DOES ARISE FROM NOTHING.
Science has never been able to state for a fact, as you do, that bacteria (life) sprang up from nowhere on the bottom of the sea. There is no empirical proof of any kind as to where life came from. There is a theory "panspermia" that it fell from space, but there is no other explanation at all of why anything came to life here. You are mistaken to say that bacteria just sprang into life from the ocean vents. No scientist says that.

You say you cannot accept that "day" means 24 hours in one place in the Bible and a longer time elsewhere, but Tim's explanation shows the confusion is in the translation from original texts, so your argument that the Bible itself is inconsistent is not applicable here: if you read the Bible in its original languages, you would see that what Tim says is correct, and if you will not accept it, that is not a fault of the Bible or our argument, that is your decision not to accept the fact.

Nature is excellent at mirco-organizing. It starts small and simple, and then grows from there. Micro-organzing is just a better way for science to work.

I don't think you grasped Tim's explanation of irreducible complexity. You say nature works from simple to more complex, but in evolution, that is exactly what did not happen; instead nature brought together lots of complexities at the exact moment they needed to spring into existence -- if evolution is true, there is nothing simple about it, and it did not follow like building blocks from simple to complex as you aver. Rather it sprang up already immensely complex. This doesn't necessarly imply that there is a Creator, as you note, but it does defy the very way in which you say "nature" acts.

You expand your defense of evolution with "why is the Bible right and all other religions wrong?" but this is a topic for another thread, and it doesn't work for you in this case: many other religions have creation myths, and so you cannot base your opposition to creationism based on the idea that the Bible might not be the "right" religion.

I am not 100% sure about anything but neither are you guys. Are you absolutely sure that God exists? Would you be willing to bet your life on it, your family's lives?
Millions of bellievers down through history, and around the world today, do stake their lives on this very certainty. It is no small matter to follow Christ in China, many Muslim nations of the Middle East, Indonesia, the Philippines ... And what's more, I am staking my eternal future on it. But that is not the topic here.

I try to argue my views assuming that all my beliefs are false and I have to prove them true.
If you are sincere in this, then you owe it to yourself to read "Darwin's Black Box" for facts about evolution. Apparently you think you have proven that evolution is true, but in fact you have little scientific proof of it.

I hope you enjoy getting back to school! Thank you for an interesting discussion. :) Please continue if you can.

PrinceOfTheWest

01-03-2006, 01:58 PM

Your spelling is not too bad, but you may want to note that it's "Occam's Razor", after William of Occam (who, incidentally, had a lot of problems with his thinking, but here's no place to go into it.)

Inkspot said much of what I wanted to say, so I won't belabor those points again. However, I do wish you'd stop dragging in the Bible - that's not the focus of the most recent questions. The scientific veracity of evolutionism is. I find it astonishing that you're claiming that evolutionism rests on the bacteria at the volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean floor. Those forms of life weren't even discovered until the past 20 years or so, and already the theory has morphed to not only accommodate them, but be based upon them? Goodness, that was fast.

I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who made the point that you can always tell an ideology masked as a theory, because it always explains everything. He used the example of Marxism: if the economy did well, that was explained by Marxist theory. If it did poorly? Well, that was in the theory, too. If the workers were content with their pay and worked hard - Karl had forseen that. If they were malcontent and strike-prone? That, too, had been predicted. A theory that can explain everything without change isn't really a theory at all. In the case of evolutionism, this requires completely ignoring major issues. Neither the mutation problem nor irreducible complexity can be explained by evolutionism - so the evolutionists just shout louder and wave their hands.

inkspot

01-03-2006, 04:04 PM

A theory that can explain everything without change isn't really a theory at all. In the case of evolutionism, this requires completely ignoring major issues. Neither the mutation problem nor irreducible complexity can be explained by evolutionism - so the evolutionists just shout louder and wave their hands.
LOL, PoTW! I think Jedi is a student, so we cannot blame him for not knowing everything scientific about the theory of evolution. I hope someone who does know all the science will be able to take up the debate. I am very curious how this theory, which seems to me to be very dubious, is taught in the schools. There must be much more to it than what evolutionists have presented here.

Thanks for clearing up the spelling of Occam! I didn't know how to spell it in my post, so I copied it from Jedi's. Tee-hee. Now I will never forget it.

Jedi of Narnia

01-03-2006, 08:18 PM

Oh i looked it up on the internet... and it spelled it like I do? that's weird... it doesn't really mater, it's the idea that counts. I will try and post later this weekend on the rest of the stuff.

Charn_Tim

01-04-2006, 05:54 AM

Jedi of Narnia~

I guess we're both probably not going to have as much time as we want to respond to these things; I started school up again today too. Oh well, at least we both learned some good stuff so far (I think/hope) and we will continue this discussion whenever we have a chance. I know I have plenty more to say :D.

First of all, were not debating the day thing again. A day is a day. I'm sorry but I can't accept that a day they wrote in the Bible is a different as a day is now. I can't argue against that, you are debating whether a day is a day. Like I am just really frustrated that you keep bringing this up, if you keep insisting that a day isn't 24 hours, I am just going to stop arguing because it's really stupid. If you will concede evolution and the Bible do not coexist, we can get on with the rest of the argument. But were at a standstill right now because I WILL NOT concede that a day in Genesis is different than a day now. If they couldn't figure out what a real day was in the Bible, what else did they get wrong or write wrong? A day is a day, according to the Genesis, the Earth and Man was created in 6 days, period. Let me be clear I am not completely ruling this out. It is totally possible that this is true, I think it is not. But you can't say I believe in evolution and I believe in Genesis, they are two completely opposite theories. If you keep using the day is not a day argument, I am going to stop arguing because I can't argue against things like that. You are just changing the meaning of actual words and definitions.

Okay, you have made a bunch of claims here, so let me go ahead and respond to your arguments one post at a time, to avoid going over 50 lengths of the computer screen in this post. I apologize that I have sent you running around to other links and have wanted you to bring my thoughts together on this, rather than putting them all down in one post here so you can see the whole argument for yourself. Quite frankly, you are the only non-christian or atheist I have come across who is having so much trouble accepting the interpretation that I have proposed of Genesis 1. I have talked to several of my Physics professors about this as well as several other physics/engineering friends that I have, and no one has refuted this interpretation (and argument) nor has anyone provided as much resistance to it as you. I can only speculate as to why you are so adamant about rejecting this evidence-do you reject this interpretation because you find it consists of faulty logic/reasoning? Or do you want to reject it because you don't like it? Ironically, you are giving me the same arguments that some young-earth creationists give me when I tell them that God did not create the universe in 144 hours.

Once again, here are some of my reasons for why the Hebrew word, "yom," written down in your English Bible as "day" should be interpreted as an "age" or "eon" rather than "one twenty four hour time period, which is one day on earth."

First of all, let me ask you a question, "Why should you interpret that Hebrew word 'yom' appearing in Genesis 1 and many other parts of the new testament to mean 24 hours, when it clearly has other meanings in the old testament." Do you think it means "24 hours" because the previously accepted interpretation/translation of yom in the English language is the word, "day." I don't think you realize how hard it is to interpet a document that is written in another language. 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.

Where do you stand on this now? I will hold off on addressing the many other issues you have raised in this post until you are satisfied with this argument or unless you want to debate this interpretation with a better argument than, "A day is 24 hours, so Bible is wrong."

By the way, if you are still not satisfied, but need more reasons why the word "yom" should not be interpreted as "a 24 hour time period" there is about 10 pages in a book I have that is devoted to this. If you would like to read the book, I will be happy to ship it to you if you'd read it. Just PM me with your mailing address, so you can see all of the evidence for yourself and not only rely on my few reasons that I have given here.

Why wouldn't they just say 4.5 billion years, or 10,000 years, why would they use the word day instead of just saying the actual time. I can't even explain how much that doesn't make sense to me. It's completely contradictory to say well it says God has 1,000 year days but only sometimes. The Bible is SO HYPOCRITICAL, how can you base beliefs off a book that bounces around so much. I can't refute passages because in some places the Bible says one thing and in others, it states something else. It flip flops all over the place. You can't say 2+2=4 but in some instances when it works 2+2=1,000.
I'm glad you asked ;). But I thought I had already covered this in another post before. No matter, if it takes me posting the same things 50 times in a row to get you to see the truth then so be it.

Well, it is extremely important to remember who the intended audience is. If God exists, and had communicated to us humans who he created, he would like to communicate to as many people-ancients through moderns-as possible. Therefore, the creation events necessarily are described in the simplest possible form. I find it absolutely miraculous, as a scientist myself, that if you go back and look at the order of creation events, the author of Genesis 1 got every event in exactly the right order from the point of view of an observer on the surface of the earth-see Genesis 1:2 for why it is with respect to an observer on the surface of the earth.

By the way, it would be helpful to both sides of this discussion if we discussed using well-reasoned arguments, rather than emotional rants like, "the Bible is SO HYPOCRITICAL, how can you base beliefs off a book that bounces around so much. I can't refute passages because in some places the Bible says one thing and in others, it states something else. It flip flops all over the place. You can't say 2+2=4 but in some instances when it works 2+2=1,000." If you want to discuss the validity of the Bible now, I (and others no doubt) would be happy to do that now. But I propose we take things one thing at a time...

Charn_Tim

01-05-2006, 11:04 PM

Okay folks, while we're waiting on Jedi of Narnia's response, I think I will go ahead and briefly summarize what I believe are some of the key points from the discussion since post #99 (when Jedi and I started this discussion) since I think this is a pretty important debate and I want people to understand what we're talking about in the simplest terms without having to go back through 50 pages of long-winded posts :D.

1) post#99: Jedi gives his opening statements for why he's an atheist.

2) post#109: Charn_Tim and Jedi agree that: you can't believe in: BOTH evolution by natural selection as the reason/origin for life AND the infallibility of the Bible at the same time.

3) post#111: Charn_Tim gives three definitions for evolution so we know what we're talking about:
a) change over time: the diversification of life as seen in the fossil record.
b) descent with modification: that descendents, while most closely related to their parents, always differ from them. Also observable in the fossil record or in breeding domesticated animals or plants.
c) The theory of natural selection: the product of random genetic variation interacting with random environmental change resulting in differential reproductive success and has been a hypothesis of modern science for 140 years.

a) and b) are scientific facts of nature. c) is an attempt to explain a) and b), and that is the subject of this discussion. What Charn_Tim wants to show is that c) is false and Jedi wants to show it is true.

4) post#118: Some of Jedi's main points of Natural Selection:
a) scientists can't reproduce nat. selection as it happens in nature
b) life originated underneath the ocean in lava vents, which is a prime place for growing bacteria. He is sure that life started in water, because "most of the earth is carbon and nitrogen when it started out." He also says Nat. Sel. played a key role in starting life.
c) nat. Sel. is a process of survival and will continue to evolve until the species "mutates randomly into what the environ. wants."
d) Evidence in support of evolution also comes from the free market and our minds. "Survival is how everything works. The only thing that natural selection isn't responsible for is the basic laws of nature. Like atomic structure, gravity, DNA, etc."

5) post# 123 Charn_Tim responds to a) and b) of Jedi's post:
a) If scientists are unable to "reproduce natural selection" in the laboratory then it is not falisfiable and therefore not science. No one has been able to find evidence that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for change between species in the laboratory.
b) If bacteria arose from lava vents then why can't we reproduce bacteria in the laboratory today under the same conditions? If it happened naturally, then why don't we see life spontaneously arising today?

6) post#125: Jedi asserts that:
1) Nat. selection is more probable than the Bible
2) He uses logic/reason in his beliefs, not faith. Evolution and nat. selection "fits with the world" and "follows the pattern of how nature works." The Bible does not; for example, miracles, rising from the dead, spirits, etc.
3) He feels no reason to justify the "fact" that life started down at the bottom of the ocean near lava vents. He says we don't need to be able to reproduce life starting from nothing because "it is already down there."

7) post#127: Charn_Tim responds:

1) Natural selection has scientific problems that no one has yet refuted. This is the problem of "irreducible complexity" developed mostly by Michael Behe. See my post for details on this.
2) Defends the scientific validity of the Bible showing how it is completely consistent with modern science.

8) post#128: Charn_Tim responds again:
Points out that Jedi's view of how life arose is simply an opinion and nothing more. He has no scientific facts to back up why life arose this way. His belief in how life arose is faith opposed to logic/reason.

9) post#131: Jedi responds:
a) He does not want to debate the issue of interpreting Genesis 1. He feels that Genesis 1 says that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours which clearly contradicts modern science.
b) He also reiterates his belief that life arose at the bottom of the ocean and gives no facts to support it.
c) He feels that the incredible complexity in nature is evidence for naturalistic evolution and not for "Intelligent Design."
d) He says, "why is it so hard to believe that we were not created. I just see it has a point of logic, it seems logically more sound to say we were created by nature." But does not offer any support for why it is logically more sound.

10) post#136: Charn_Tim responds mainly to a) above.
Charn_Tim gives several reasons for why the Hebrew word "yom" translated into the English as "day" should not be interpreted as a 24-hour period. Also, Charn_Tim answers Jedi's question of "Why [doesn't the Bible] just say 4.5 billion years, or 10,000 years, why would they use the word day instead of just saying the actual time?" which you can read in the above post.

Sorry this was so long, but at least it was shorter than the last 50 posts or so :D...Would anyone care to respond to any of this?

hanguk859

01-06-2006, 08:29 PM

Sorry, I can't respond yet to what you said, I'll have to read the whole thread first...and that could take awhile, even though I love to read....
I followed the link from Only For Atheists to here, and I must say that I love arguing about Evolution V. Christianity, it's almost a hobby of mine...Of course I am on the side of Science, and that would be Christianity! :)
despite the countless claims by atheists, evolutionists, etc. that Christianity is a mere childplay fighting against all known logic and science...but i'm sure if a bit of logical thinking is used, (unless of course you're biased, which almost everyone is...so I'm not sure how practical that would really be...)
anyway, I've got a lot of post-reading to do....so cheerio!

hanguk859

01-06-2006, 08:41 PM

I think that it is possible for God to have created the universe in Seven 24-hour Days,
I disagree with the Day-Age theory

Charn_Tim

01-06-2006, 09:51 PM

Can you explain what you mean by the "Day-Age theory"? Do you mean you think that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours? If so, why?

thelawtman

01-06-2006, 09:57 PM

How can u belive that 7 day theory? its impossible becuae they universe is 13 billion years old.

hanguk859

01-06-2006, 11:52 PM

Can you explain what you mean by the "Day-Age theory"? Do you mean you think that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours? If so, why?
I apologize Tim, I think it's better stated Day=Age theory, is that more clear? what I am talking about is the view that the word "day" in the Genesis account of Creation should be viewed as an individual 'age'...however, I personally think it takes away from the awesomeness of it, I mean I suppose it could work viewing it that way, and maybe that's the path some want to take...to make it less of a supernatural thing....
and in response to 'thelawtman'

"Says who?"

Green Knight

01-07-2006, 01:52 AM

*IOWW the Iasc*

01-07-2006, 03:38 AM

Um, I thought it would be fun to post here, but after seeing it now Uh, I've changed my mind...

Good day to you all!

Charn_Tim

01-07-2006, 04:14 AM

Um, I thought it would be fun to post here, but after seeing it now Uh, I've changed my mind...

Good day to you all!
LOL...why do you say this? :)

Charn_Tim

01-07-2006, 04:16 AM

How can u belive that 7 day theory? its impossible becuae they universe is 13 billion years old.
Actually it is a 6 day theory, and if by 6 "days" you mean 144 consecutive hours, I have already shown that this is not what Genesis 1 says. Oh, and currently the best estimate of the age of the universe is 13.7 +/- .2 billion years. Just for the record.

Charn_Tim

01-07-2006, 04:58 AM

I apologize Tim, I think it's better stated Day=Age theory, is that more clear? what I am talking about is the view that the word "day" in the Genesis account of Creation should be viewed as an individual 'age'...however, I personally think it takes away from the awesomeness of it, I mean I suppose it could work viewing it that way, and maybe that's the path some want to take...to make it less of a supernatural thing....
With all due respect, your argument that "it takes away from the awesomeness of it" if God didn't create the universe in 144 consecutive hours is not logically cogent or sound.

If you will indulge me, I am rather curious: in what sense is it "awesome" to have a God who creates the heavens and the earth in 144 consecutive hours and then builds in evidence from a wide array of different disciplines-biology, geology, anthropology, astrophysics, etc. to the contrary. Let me give you an example of just one: why would God create the universe only 10 000 years ago and then allow us to see stars that are millions of light years away? How has the light arrived here already? And then in the Bible, he encourages us to look out into the heavens to see the glory of God (Ps. 19:1, and many other verses in Psalms), and that nature reveals the character of God. It sure doesn't seem like we serve the kind of God that would be out to trick us.

One more thing...oftentimes, creationists who maintain that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours often try to set it up that there is a big conspiracy by scientists who are tricking the general public and themselves into thinking that the universe is older than it really is. This is simply not true; a conspiracy of this kind is just not possible. This sort of thing can never survive in an academic environment and the age of the earth/universe issue is just not a debatable issue at all.

Hotdrop

01-08-2006, 02:56 AM

First I would like to state that I am a member Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that all those that don’t believe the same way that I do are forever cursed to drown in a sea of red sauce. Our god has recently come down from the heavens and stated that the increased amount of natural disasters and global warming are a direct result of the decrease in the number of pirates.  Id gives you some good scripture but the wiki is down so ill have to wait for the published version.

Any way all jokes aside I don’t really understand how you can argue the whole earth and man were created in 7 days theory. Lets say that a day wasn't a day and was instead a set period of time then why dose it take as long to created the universe as it dose to create water or man that’s obviously not to scale since the universe has existed for much longer then the earth yet it takes two whole days to create water and land. How do you explain that? The problem with genesis is that it is blatantly contradicted by modern science, there are plenty more cases could go on but id have to actually look at a bible :) Many modern religions actually disregard it now and consider it "optional" because it is incredibly flawed.

The problem with the evolution vs. creation argument is that it basically comes down to the fact that evolution still has a lot of holes in it, there a great deal that we still do not understand. We know the general idea we know how its supposed to be but because it takes periods longer then our life times to verify many of the concepts of evolution is always vulnerable to attack as invalid. You can’t claim that god magically makes cannon balls float because you can very easily prove that they do not do that in fact all cannon balls will fall when due to gravity. But this kind of proof is a lot harder to achieve with a concept that explains events that take thousands or millions of years to occur. Thus there are a lot more people claiming that evolution is wrong compared to the number of people claiming that gravity is wrong.

The problem I have with the bible is that just because someone wrote a book and a lot of people believe it doesn’t make it true. A couple hundred years ago I am sure somebody wrote a book that stated that black people were not human and I am sure that a great number of people believed it. They might have even pointed to anecdotal evidence to assert to this as fact. But, just because it was written and believed doesn’t make it true. In fact science has shown that white or black all people are pretty much identical and it has become a wide spread notion but I am sure that to this day there are people that believe otherwise and there nothing that can be done to prove otherwise to them. Its the same way with creationism as the theory of evolution becomes more and more developed it becomes harder and harder to believe something that has no basis more reliable then my book said so and my forefathers believed it.

WUgurl24

01-08-2006, 03:21 AM

kaleidoscopicdream

01-08-2006, 04:23 AM

Ok, what I want to know is why people think that evolution is more believable than creation? I mean, the whole Big Bang theory is flopped; have you EVER heard of an explotion that caused something good and orderly? It just doesn't happen. Oh and with evolution if people really did evolve from apes why isn't it still happening? Not to mention that yes things can change due to environmental changes but they still stay in their categories, ie apoodle is still a dog. I think it takes a smaller amount of faith to believe creation than evolution.
Maureen

WUgurl24

01-08-2006, 04:41 AM

Just to set the record straight for me...I DO NOT think that evolution is more believable than creationism.

Charn_Tim

01-08-2006, 04:43 AM

I don’t really understand how you can argue the whole earth and man were created in 7 days theory. Lets say that a day wasn't a day and was instead a set period of time then why dose it take as long to created the universe as it dose to create water or man that’s obviously not to scale since the universe has existed for much longer then the earth yet it takes two whole days to create water and land. How do you explain that? The problem with genesis is that it is blatantly contradicted by modern science, there are plenty more cases could go on but id have to actually look at a bible :) Many modern religions actually disregard it now and consider it "optional" because it is incredibly flawed.
First of all, I have already provided a link to a website in this thread where you can "look at a Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31&lang=2)." When you find the "plenty more cases" you go ahead and let me know about them. Second of all, as I have already pointed out a couple of times in this thread, it is not a "7 day theory"; God created in 6 days, and rested on the 7th "day" which actually hasn't ended yet by the way, according to Genesis 2 as I point out in previous posts.

As is completely transparent from your post, you have not read anything I have already written regarding your assertions about modern science and the Bible. I have already shown specifically that modern astrophysics or biology does not contradict Genesis 1 or any other part of the Bible. I have already addressed and refuted every issue you have raised in this past paragraph in my previous posts. You can go to post#137 on page 14 for a summary of the arguments that have been presented so far, and then if you have any specific questions or would like to offer a rebuttal to any of my conclusions, feel free to do so.

Lastly, what "modern religions actually disregard it now"? Yours? Islam? Logical Positivists? Even if many "religions" disregard the Bible now, how does that justify not believing in the Bible? I have already provided a link to a Bible. Since the errors in the Bible are undoubtedly ubiquitous, you should be able to easily find these flaws and then share them with the rest of us, shouldn't you?

The problem with the evolution vs. creation argument is that it basically comes down to the fact that evolution still has a lot of holes in it, there a great deal that we still do not understand. We know the general idea we know how its supposed to be but because it takes periods longer then our life times to verify many of the concepts of evolution is always vulnerable to attack as invalid. You can’t claim that god magically makes cannon balls float because you can very easily prove that they do not do that in fact all cannon balls will fall when due to gravity. But this kind of proof is a lot harder to achieve with a concept that explains events that take thousands or millions of years to occur. Thus there are a lot more people claiming that evolution is wrong compared to the number of people claiming that gravity is wrong.
Actually, I have already cited evidence for why the theory of evolution by natural selection is not sufficient for explaining the number and variation of species of life. That is, Natural Selection cannot account for the different species that we see today. The argument is "irreducible complexity" proposed mainly by Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in his book Darwin's Black Box and I outline some of its essential features here (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=13&pp=10), in post#127. What makes Natural selection "always vulnerable to attack as invalid" is not that it takes "periods of time longer than our lifetimes to verify" but that it is an incorrect theory, as has already been shown (follow the provided link).

Furthermore, if you are using your analogy of evolution and gravity to support the theory of evolution by natural selection, then you are providing us with a perfect example of the fallacy of weak analogy. Consulting any introductory logic book will show this to be immediately transparent.

The problem I have with the bible is that just because someone wrote a book and a lot of people believe it doesn’t make it true.
Good, I agree with you. That's not why I believe the Bible either.

A couple hundred years ago I am sure somebody wrote a book that stated that black people were not human and I am sure that a great number of people believed it. They might have even pointed to anecdotal evidence to assert to this as fact. But, just because it was written and believed doesn’t make it true. In fact science has shown that white or black all people are pretty much identical and it has become a wide spread notion but I am sure that to this day there are people that believe otherwise and there nothing that can be done to prove otherwise to them. Its the same way with creationism as the theory of evolution becomes more and more developed it becomes harder and harder to believe something that has no basis more reliable then my book said so and my forefathers believed it.
Once again, you are relying on the fallacy of weak analogy to make the point that we shouldn't believe in the Bible. Surely you have better arguments than this?

Charn_Tim

01-08-2006, 05:11 AM

I decided I'd put my thoughts in here. Ok, yes I am a Christian and firmly believe in Creationism. No it is not because "I was brought up that way and don't want to change my beliefs only because my parents believe it too" and yea I was raised as a Christian, but just like everyone I have a mind of my own to decide whether I really believed in it or not. I made the decision for myself to truly believe in God and I was saved.
Welcome to the discussion, WUgurl24 :). I just want to commend you for your beliefs and encourage you to "keep making your faith your own," in all aspects of what you believe.

And about the Big Band theory and evolution, I just don't understand how people can think that all of this was created with nothing to make it happen.
Well, first of all, I have already made it a point to distinguish between the big bang and the theory of evolution by natural selection. I have shown in my previous post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=14&pp=10) (post#136) that the correct interpretation of the Bible (I believe) is that the universe was created in 6 distinct epochs, not 24 hour time periods, using arguments from the original Hebrew text itself. I would encourage you to check this out and not to lump the Big Bang theory in with evolution ;).

Furthermore, don't be fooled that the Big Bang theory gets atheists off the hook for believing in a creator. According to the space-time theorem of General Relativity of Stephen Hawking, time itself had a beginnig at the inception of the universe's existence, when the universe "banged."

Why is this important? Because the universe is not infinite, it requires that something or someone had to bring it into existence, and hence implies a creator. So the big bang is actually one of Christians' greatest pieces of evidence for the existence of a creator. Furthermore, if you follow along in the creation story in Genesis 1/2, you will find that the order of events that God brought things into existence is exactly how modern science has verified. Here is another piece of evidence for the Bible being divinely inspired, and that the current scientific models of the creation and "evolution" (changing over time) of the universe and earth is correct.

Besides, people saying that evolution means "humans came from apes" is a bunch of crap. The only def. I have ever found for evolution is a change over time. And yes, things can change a little bit over time but not as drastically as people want us to believe when talking about evoulution. It is taken to extreme measures in some cases, when, like I said, it is just change over time. It is never specified what type of change it is talking about exactly. I mean, the environment can change a little over time with development. Going into something not in nature, our economy changes over time too. Could that not be called a type of "evolution." No I don't believe that the Big Bang theory and evolution is how our world came to be and why it is the way it is now, as in drastic evolutionary changes. I believe that God created the universe and I know he has a plan for us and there is a reason that things may change, but it's not something like "humans coming from apes" as some want to think. Trust me that people do think that because when I was younger and they tried to start teaching evolution in my school, that is what they tried to get us to believe.
With regards to the falsity of evolution, I would recommend that you read the book Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, who conclusively shows how natural selection is incorrect as a theory to explain the origin and variation of species. I outline his arguments here (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=13&pp=10) in post#127. It is definitely worth reading about :).

hanguk859

01-08-2006, 03:59 PM

Let me give you an example of just one: why would God create the universe only 10 000 years ago and then allow us to see stars that are millions of light years away? How has the light arrived here already? And then in the Bible, he encourages us to look out into the heavens to see the glory of God (Ps. 19:1, and many other verses in Psalms), and that nature reveals the character of God. It sure doesn't seem like we serve the kind of God that would be out to trick us.

One more thing...oftentimes, creationists who maintain that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours often try to set it up that there is a big conspiracy by scientists who are tricking the general public and themselves into thinking that the universe is older than it really is. This is simply not true; a conspiracy of this kind is just not possible. This sort of thing can never survive in an academic environment and the age of the earth/universe issue is just not a debatable issue at all.
Ok, God created the light Before he created the source of the light, and if you believe that the days are actually ages, then the light was there for a considerable time before the sources of the light was there. And I don't believe that you can accurately measure the distances to stars that far away...

hanguk859

01-08-2006, 04:01 PM

why must it be necessary for the days to be 'ages'? I just don't see the need, it seems like a compromise...

abbyluvswilliam

01-08-2006, 04:21 PM

I believe in Creation!
I do think that some evolution theorys do make sense! But i do not believe i it no offense to anyone!

He created the Heavens and the Earth!
The Lord is Indescribable!

mrstumnus99

01-08-2006, 04:26 PM

I believe in Creation!
I do think that some evolution theorys do make sense! But i do not believe i it no offense to anyone!

He created the Heavens and the Earth!
The Lord is Indescribable!

I believe in creation too. The world is too complex to have just evolved. My mom and someone at Youth Group are very good at explaining why we didn't just happen and if you read the book yellow & pink it's also a very good explanation too only made simplier!

Saruman

01-08-2006, 06:19 PM

You are quite right to point out the complexity of our beings. It is truly impossible that things could have come from disorder and suddenly, rather magically, I should think, came into order. Further, it is impossible for men to have evolved their capacities to reason, to think, to feel, to understand and comprehend; what's more, we shouldn't have the word "create" in our vocabulary if indeed everything has suddenly spontaneously occurred. And don't you think it peculiar that we don't see the transitioning stages taking place even now? After all, if the theory of evolution were correct, it has been a few billion years since the last stage of evolvement, has it not?

And the thought that the God of the universe would have let things evolve is also very much out of place. If it says in Genesis that "...the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen. 1:5), then I am quite apt to believe in a literal six-day creation (after all, God created the sun and the moon, and we do consider the evening and the morning to be one day). At any rate, if God had let things evolve, I think He would in His Word have made that quite clear to us. And I will also believe what His Word says when it declares: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handywork" (Ps. 19:1). The heavens, the earth, and ourselves to boot, really do show the signs of design, and not mere "intelligent design" either.

Really, the theory of evolution is laughable, and has been since its conception in the 1800s. It makes for a good fairytale (i.e. Jurassic Park), but other than that it is very ridiculous. I personally think it is a way for men to try and deny the existence of God, and therefore eliminate the thought that they must be held accountable for the things they do. After all, who likes feeling so uncomfortable with conviction? Wait a minute! If we evolved, why should we worry about convictions?????? We can have intimate relations with men, women and animals, for it really doesn't matter! Mercy!

mrstumnus99

01-08-2006, 07:08 PM

And don't you think it peculiar that we don't see the transitioning stages taking place even now? After all, if the theory of evolution were correct, it has been a few billion years since the last stage of evolvement, has it not?

Yeah. That's what my Mom says all the time.She teaches me and a couple of other people science.

hanguk859

01-08-2006, 09:42 PM

Sorry, after further review, I realized that the "awesome" reason, while it does make sense to me, isn't a logical one

hanguk859

01-08-2006, 09:43 PM

Reverted back to normal 14-year-old thinking for a moment, I apologize. lol

Charn_Tim

01-09-2006, 12:36 PM

Reverted back to normal 14-year-old thinking for a moment, I apologize. lol
lol. Sorry, man. I didn't realize you were 14 ;).

Let me just say one thing in response to this: the difficult thing about arguing against "science," "evolution," or the "Big Bang" is that at 14 (or even for one who is older but not trained in a scientific background) it is really difficult to argue for/against the validity of science if you want to interpret Genesis 1 as saying that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours. If you wish to believe this, then so be it-it is not necessary for salvation if you believe in a young or old earth; however, as a Christian scientist, I isolate 99 % of my fellow colleagues when I say that their methods are incorrect and that they are being tricked into thinking that the universe/earth/solar system is only about 6000 years old, the fossil record is incorrect, etc. What's more, I firmly believe that their methods (by and large) are sound and I see no reason for why they are incorrect in their science. This has forced me to revamp my understanding of Genesis 1 (similar to the way Galileo forced the church to re-examine its position on solar physics with his proposal of the heliocentric model), and the validity of the Bible in light of modern science.

So now I have interpreted God's special revelation (the Bible) and his general revelation (the error-free and divinely inspired scriptures) differently (and what I believe to be correctly), and I have both biblical and scientific reasons for doing so. (Again for some of these reasons, see my post #136 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=14&pp=10)).

I say this so that you won't think that you can either believe in science or the Bible and so that you can maintain an open mind about the validity of the practices of us scientists and the validity of the divinely inspired error free word of God. Furthermore, I say this because I believe modern science actually gives us much new evidence to believe in a creator, and when I have some time, I will explain in this thread why I believe this. Anyway, when/if you are forced to consider new information on how to interpret Genesis 1 from either science or the Bible, please consider re-vamping your view of it as I have, not so that you can save face in light of science, but so that we can find the truth of what God is trying to communicate to us through both scripture and nature. Thanks for listening and thanks for your honesty. God bless you :).

Saruman

01-10-2006, 11:46 PM

Just some food for thought (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp) on the subject matter.

Charn_Tim

01-11-2006, 12:28 AM

More food for thought: Notable Christians (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml) open to old-earth interpretation & Age of the earth (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#hot_topics).

I realize that there is considerable more reading to do on the links that I have provided. Don't let that discourage you-just don't form hasty conclusions that modern science is wrong and that the universe is 6 000 years old just because one set of Christians think this.

It's kind of funny that "man's fallible methods" have given us computers, cell phones, automobiles, flight, medicine, etc. yet there is a small group of Christians who adamantly reject the age of the universe and accordingly 99 % of astrophysics, cosmology, geology, and paleontology, which are based on the same "presuppositions" that scientists use to develop modern technology.

inkspot

01-11-2006, 04:50 PM

Jedi of Narnia

01-11-2006, 07:56 PM

Finally, I have some time to post... I read through all the posts but I can't remember everything everyone said so I am just going to respond and write on the things that I can remember.

The day debate I guess just doesn't make sense to me... If yum was defined as an age, then a day in the bible is an age, but day if day is used interchangably in the Bible to mean an actual day and an age, how can you tell the difference and where? You can't change definitions around and expect me to believe your argument. Either a day is a day or a day is an age, you need to pick one. To be honest it doesn't really matter, it's incosistent either way.

I remember a while back someone saying you can't simulate natural selection in a lab and my response was of course you can't. Of course evolution has it's holes and theories and doubts, trust me, I am one of evolution's toughest critics, but you can't say creationism doesn't have holes either. I can't recreate resurection, parting seas, creating light, performing miracles, etc in a lab either. There isn't proof of everything in the Bible and I believe there is hardly anything in the Bible that CAN be back up with proof. But proof doesn't mean belief for everyone. Proof is a big part of my beliefs but I understand some people have other reasons which is fine. But try and take down evolution by saying that some parts are theory because in my opinion, creationism is all theory.

I got interrupted a couple of times in this post so my thoughts are a little lost so I guess I will just end my post now, I had a question to ask to creationists but I forgot it... It will probably come to me later.

Charn_Tim

01-11-2006, 10:24 PM

Tim, over in the Christianity vs. Atheism Thread (and in this corner, weighing in at 165 pounds in the blue trunks is the challenger, Atheism!), someone asked why dinosaur fossils are so much older than humans -- how dinosaurs appeared so much earlier than humans if Genesis is correct. Do you have any science on this? I did not know ...

Thanks for brining this to my attention, inkspot :). I actually PM'd her with my reply, but the basis of what I said I can give here: basically, under my interpretation of Genesis 1 (mainly found in post #136 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=14&pp=10)), which I believe to be the correct interpretation of the creation account, there is no conflict between the fossil record and Genesis 1, whether it's the dinosaurs, archaeopteryx, the saber-tooth tiger, or any other animal species discovered by geologists and paleontologists. In my view, God created these species over long periods of time, and eventually let them go extinct, which ultimately prepared the earth for his pinnacle of creation, mankind.

Tweetsie

01-11-2006, 10:26 PM

Okay.. people.. umm.. I'd like some background info on this. My parents are either atheists or agnostics (not sure..) and I've decided I need to know more aobut all the theories.

Charn_Tim

01-11-2006, 10:39 PM

Okay.. people.. umm.. I'd like some background info on this. My parents are either atheists or agnostics (not sure..) and I've decided I need to know more aobut all the theories.
Wow, that's a great attitude to have-thanks for your humility. I guess all I can say is that I don't have all the answers either, but here are some topics I have already addressed:

evolution by natural selection (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=13&pp=10) as the explanation for the origin and diversity of the species (post #127)
The Biblical interpretation of the age of the universe (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=14&pp=10) (post#136)
The origin of life (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=13&pp=10) (post #123).

I think these are some of the most important issues today, so if you would like to look over my posts and then ask any further questions, I would be happy to provide you with all the info that I possibly can.

Tweetsie

01-11-2006, 10:41 PM

thankeez.. I'll ask any questions I have. :D

Tweetsie

01-11-2006, 10:55 PM

Hmmm... I'm going to go do some research... and then ask my questions... I like to be well informed.

Charn_Tim

01-11-2006, 10:58 PM

Hmmm... I'm going to go do some research... and then ask my questions... I like to be well informed.
That's great, I think that is an excellent attitude to have. I'll be happy to try to answer anything when you get a chance to ask :)

Green Knight

01-11-2006, 11:48 PM

Why does the Creation vs. Evolution discussion matter? Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be upset if other people believe differently then I do?

Charn_Tim

01-11-2006, 11:52 PM

Why is does it matter if one person believes in Divine Creation, and other in Evolution?
It matters because if the theory of evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation for the diversity and origin of species on earth, it casts serious doubt on the validity of the Bible, particularly in Genesis 1. For those of us Bible believing Christians, this is a big deal. If you are an atheist, agnostic, diest, or theistic non-Christian who doesn't hold to the infallibility of the Bible then it probably shouldn't really bother you too much what anyone else believes.

Tweetsie

01-11-2006, 11:57 PM

It matters because human beings are ambitious and strive to be right; therefore, everyone is trying to prove the other wrong and figure out the answer. Sometimes I wish one could just care less, but no, we always have to be right. I'm just trying to untangle the mass of religions and beliefs my family is and figure them all out and which I want to believe in.

i love skandar

01-12-2006, 12:03 AM

We are studying evolution, and it's very confusing. I don't know what to believe and it's hard to learn all of the stuff when you're not sure about it...

Green Knight

01-12-2006, 12:14 AM

It matters because if the theory of evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation for the diversity and origin of species on earth, it casts serious doubt on the validity of the Bible, particularly in Genesis 1. For those of us Bible believing Christians, this is a big deal. If you are an atheist, agnostic, diest, or theistic non-Christian who doesn't hold to the infallibility of the Bible then it probably shouldn't really bother you too much what anyone else believes.

The Bible is fallible because it was written by Man, though it was inspired by God.

waterhogboy

01-12-2006, 12:46 PM

Sorry to interrupt. I thought Id move this over to the Christian section as I think it relates to the other threads in that section and so its easier for people to get to this if they want...

inkspot

01-12-2006, 02:08 PM

WHB is such a nice, polite fellow! Thanx Jonny!

Gibby

01-12-2006, 03:54 PM

The Bible is fallible because it was written by Man, though it was inspired by God.

With all the discussion about the validity and authority of scripture along with evidence to back it up put aside, consider this:

Why would Almighty God, who sits on the throne and is Lord over all creation, allow His Word, which is His complete revelation to mankind concerning His nature and infinite love, allow it to be "fallible"? Sure it was written by man but "all scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16) and is stamped with His approval. God's word is living and breathing.

“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good of the Savior of the world is communicated to us through the Book.”
-Abraham Lincoln

narnianfoxx

01-12-2006, 05:54 PM

We are studying evolution, and it's very confusing. I don't know what to believe and it's hard to learn all of the stuff when you're not sure about it...

im not trying to persuade you or anything, but most of the stuff in textbooks such as java man and haeckel's (sp?) embryos have already been disproved by science..so i mean i would just take that into accounatability

Charn_Tim

01-12-2006, 09:32 PM

The Bible is fallible because it was written by Man, though it was inspired by God.
Okay, if you take this position regarding scripture, as many unorthodox religious groups have done in the past, you find yourself in a very dangerous position. In your view, some parts of the Bible are fallible because the Bible was written by men. In other words, like Gibby said, God is not powerful enough to reveal truth about himself to mankind and there was at least some miscommunication from God to man in "speaking" or "inspiring" his truth to be recorded. So the Bible is untrustworthy as a guide to metaphysical truth about God and can speak inaccurately regarding science, history, philosophy, logic, etc. Then the questions I have for you are:

1) Why should God not be able to communicate truth to his creation?
2) Who decides what parts of the Bible are infallible and which are fallible? You? If so, then who is the ultimate judge of metaphysical truth-God and the Bible or you?

The issue with the Bible surrounds our interpretation of it. That's why we have seminaries, books written, early church creeds, pastors, etc. to help us to interpret the Bible and understand what God intended to communicate to us. It's not an easy process, but it is a very necessary one.

Many issues arise when we say that the Bible is fallible, not least of which is the introduction of new "religions" like Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, etc. For a taste of the logical inconsistencies that can arise when we hold to the view that the Bible is fallible, I invite you to check out the Lewis, Narnia, and Mormonism (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?p=111398#post111398) thread, paying special attention to the logical fallacies Parthian King points out in the Mormon worldview-which uses the notion that the Bible is fallible to justify their beliefs.

Charn_Tim

01-12-2006, 09:51 PM

We are studying evolution, and it's very confusing. I don't know what to believe and it's hard to learn all of the stuff when you're not sure about it...
Yeah, I really know what you mean about this. Often times, biology books especially, present the material in terms of a false dilemma: that you can either believe in science or have an irrational belief in the Bible. I am noticing this trend continue in my university molecular and cell biology course right now. They teach biology like the facts that amino acids link up to form proteins are on par with the "facts" that chemical evolution is responsible for the origin of life on earth. It is confusing to be sure, but please remember this one thing: not all scientists believe that evolution by natural selection as a means to explain the origin and diversity of life is science at all. But this shouldn't make us distrust all of modern science-the vast majority of the facts about nature that modern scientists have given us are very trustworthy and even verify many Biblical claims about nature. For more on how I find modern science consistent with proper Biblical teaching, I would invite you to check out my posts 123, 127, and 136 in this thread, and feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

Charn_Tim

01-13-2006, 02:37 PM

It's really cool that you are continuing this discussion with me. I really appreciate it, especially since we are both kind of bogged down with class now.

The day debate I guess just doesn't make sense to me... If yum was defined as an age, then a day in the bible is an age, but day if day is used interchangably in the Bible to mean an actual day and an age, how can you tell the difference and where? You can't change definitions around and expect me to believe your argument. Either a day is a day or a day is an age, you need to pick one. To be honest it doesn't really matter, it's incosistent either way.
Hmmm, do you see this happen in other places too? How about when you are talking to your friends? Do you ever miscommunicate to them? Do you ever use a word that you think means one thing, and they think means something totally different?

Okay, so we've stumbled upon an interesting problem with language haven't we? The problem, as you point out, is what the heck do we mean by the words we choose? This is a problem every language has (except perhaps Mathematics which is one of the reasons I like Math so much :)) and it takes much thought and care to try to determine what the author intends to communicate by the words he chooses. I think this is especially true in the Old Testament, because the language it was written in-Hebrew-contains far fewer words than even the English language. As I have pointed out in my last post on this, for example, the Hebrew word for "father" is the same as the word for "grandfather" "great-grandfather" etc.

This is a problem facing any text, including (especially?) that of a science or engineering textbook for example. Believe me, it is very difficult to choose the right words that communicate precise meaning. I'm sure you've read over textbooks before and did not "get it" at first. But then after hearing it lectured on, doing a lab on it, etc. you can go back and understand it perfectly and wondered why you didn't get it in the first place. I know that has happened to me countless times. This is just quite simply a problem of communication. Does it mean that all hope is lost and we have no hope to communicate anything like the deconstructionists believe? Absolutely not. Communication is not "perfect" but it is hard.

So how the heck are we ever to understand the Bible? Well, it takes hard work, building on the insights of others, Bible seminaries, theological schools of thought etc. just like any other text. We Christians claim that it is the word of God written in the words of men, not that every one reading it will understand it perfectly on a first read. Indeed many mistakes have been made in interpreting the text over the years by the church, and some of these misinterpretations have crept into common church belief and have become almost "dogma" such as the "fact" that everything in the universe revolved around the earth. We all know how that embarrassment turned out. Interestingly, Galileo, a christian, fought long and hard against the church trying to convince them that they misinterpreted the scriptures on that point, but I believe that the Church took the stance they did mostly out of pride, not wanting to give up their authoritative position on being the ultimate judge of Biblical interpretation and admitting they made a mistake.

So I (and others who hold my interpretation of Genesis 1) submit that the "common" interpretation of Genesis 1, first proposed by Archbishop Ussher in the 1600's is a genuine case of misinterpreting the scriptures. Of course, before 20th century cosmology, Christians really had no need to re-interpret this part of the Bible and we just became accustomed to it. Honestly, I don't think Christians cared much about it, and I really don't think the majority of Christians care about it today, because it is just too difficult to understand science for the average person; people would rather take the easy answer and the "easy" or "literal" interpretation of "yom" and say that it means a 24 hour time period. This is especially true in sunday school class when you are teaching to elementary school children. Is it easier to teach children Big Bang cosmology or an earth created in 144 hours by God?

I remember a while back someone saying you can't simulate natural selection in a lab and my response was of course you can't. Of course evolution has it's holes and theories and doubts, trust me, I am one of evolution's toughest critics, but you can't say creationism doesn't have holes either. I can't recreate resurection, parting seas, creating light, performing miracles, etc in a lab either. There isn't proof of everything in the Bible and I believe there is hardly anything in the Bible that CAN be back up with proof. But proof doesn't mean belief for everyone. Proof is a big part of my beliefs but I understand some people have other reasons which is fine. But try and take down evolution by saying that some parts are theory because in my opinion,
creationism is all theory.
That's good that you recognize that there are some problems with evolution. Pretty much all scientists admit this. I personally think that natural selection is not the mechanism by which species became diversified or were created in the first place. But I don't think that scientists should stop searching all they can for how life has diversified naturally. We have learned much about the world from biologists and other scientists and I think the work should continue. I just think that the notion that it is responsible for life on earth and the diversity of species will finally be accepted as inadequate by scientists and eventually conclusively falsified (of course, I and some others think this has already been done as I have explained previously, but not all scientists would jump to this conclusion yet).

I also totally agree with you that there are holes in the young-earth creationist point of view too, as I have been pointing out in this thread as well. As a young earth creationist, you pretty much have to trick yourself into believing that scientists (especially astrophysicisits) are completely full of it. I however, do not belileve this, nor do I think any christian should. However, as it is not an important doctrine to salvation, most christians simply choose to sweep this issue under the rug, and that's fine, I guess, but I wish they wouldn't.

Now, I am going to ask you to do something pretty tough. If you really want to disprove the Bible using science, you should read about what I and other Christian scientists are saying. There is a website that addresses this better than any other I have found. You can find it here (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution)). I would especially invite you to check out this article (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/id_press_release_20051220.shtml) about the "Intelligent Design as science" movement.

At the very least, after this post, I would be expecting you to be rethinking your stance as a "hard core atheist", and your assetions that you are an atheist because of "logic and proof." If you are an atheist, I would submit that you are an atheist based on faith, not scientific facts. Please let me know what you are thinking on this.

I got interrupted a couple of times in this post so my thoughts are a little lost so I guess I will just end my post now, I had a question to ask to creationists but I forgot it... It will probably come to me later.
Of course you post was good :). If you think of your question, please ask.

Jedi of Narnia

01-13-2006, 11:35 PM

Okay... some long posts but I will just respond to what I remembered...

Just a note, why do you use young-creationist or young-scientist, this terms are really stupid and make it sound like you are trying to dumb down people’s arguments. I am 20 years old and I know a lot of other people on this board who are at least 18. I know these ages are still fairly young but I have been doing research for years and it just seems derogatory to label arguments as “young.” You probably didn’t see it as an insult but I would just cut out the “young” part. Onto the discussion…

I do not believe in faith. I personally think faith is an excuse and I don't use it in my beliefs. I have never had faith so I guess it’s hard to argue against. I use scientific theory and my own judgment. Faith is the belief in something without reason; you believe it because you think it is correct. Now I believe in morals and good reason because I would feel bad if I didn't. I try to hold the door open for people or help people up if they fall and I think most people do. This isn't faith, this is conscience and conscience is developed mostly from how you grow up. I don't think it takes as much faith to believe in science as it does the Bible and I don't understand why creationists use this argument? It makes them sound like agnostics or neutralists, basically saying there is no proof either way because it takes equal amounts of belief in both theories. It seems to me that creationists use faith to get out of the logical arguments that evolutionists present. Whenever we would talk to pastors or creationists, they seem to be unable to explain some of their beliefs mostly on moral issues like homosexuality, the Ten Commandments and sexism.

I’d also like to point out that creation is also a theory and personally I think evolution is fact but a lot of people would disagree. Creation has no scientific proof. It’s always hard to admit that you might be wrong but I will. It’s possible that my beliefs are wrong but in my experience, I could never get Christians to admit that God might not exist. Again, I am not saying you are wrong but only the possibly that you might be wrong. Christians can’t even concede that fact that it is possible that the Bible is simply a story and God does not exist. I think this defines what people think is faith, the complete belief in something where there is not a doubt in their mind. I think it is good to strongly believe in something but to blindly believe in it is dangerous. This is why we see religious wars, persecution and other hardship. Blind belief is a dangerous thing.

By the way, that was the question I wanted to ask, whether or not any creationists out there could admit that they might be wrong and it’s possible that the Bible is simply a fictional story and God doesn’t exist.

Wow… extremely long post but I have one more thing. If you have to interpret and decipher and rework all the things in the Bible, why base your beliefs off it. Personally I think beliefs should come from you and what you think is right. If you have to interpret and disregard certain parts of the Bible, why believe in any of it. If you are willing to concede that some of the Bible shouldn’t be followed, then you are agreeing you can make decisions for yourself so what stops you from making all decisions for yourself. Of course I am not imply to just be selfish and only think of yourself and never listen to anyone else, I am just saying why look to the Bible for salvation?
Okay... some long posts but I will just respond to what I remembered...

Just a note, why do you use young-creationist or young-scientist, this terms are really stupid and make it sound like you are trying to dumb down people’s arguments. I am 20 years old and I know a lot of other people on this board who are at least 18. I know these ages are still fairly young but I have been doing research for years and it just seems derogatory to label arguments as “young.” You probably didn’t see it as an insult but I would just cut out the “young” part. Onto the discussion…

I do not believe in faith. I personally think faith is an excuse and I don't use it in my beliefs. I have never had faith so I guess it’s hard to argue against. I use scientific theory and my own judgment. Faith is the belief in something without reason; you believe it because you think it is correct. Now I believe in morals and good reason because I would feel bad if I didn't. I try to hold the door open for people or help people up if they fall and I think most people do. This isn't faith, this is conscience and conscience is developed mostly from how you grow up. I don't think it takes as much faith to believe in science as it does the Bible and I don't understand why creationists use this argument? It makes them sound like agnostics or neutralists, basically saying there is no proof either way because it takes equal amounts of belief in both theories. It seems to me that creationists use faith to get out of the logical arguments that evolutionists present. Whenever we would talk to pastors or creationists, they seem to be unable to explain some of their beliefs mostly on moral issues like homosexuality, the Ten Commandments and sexism.

I’d also like to point out that creation is also a theory and personally I think evolution is fact but a lot of people would disagree. Creation has no scientific proof. It’s always hard to admit that you might be wrong but I will. It’s possible that my beliefs are wrong but in my experience, I could never get Christians to admit that God might not exist. Again, I am not saying you are wrong but only the possibly that you might be wrong. Christians can’t even concede that fact that it is possible that the Bible is simply a story and God does not exist. I think this defines what people think is faith, the complete belief in something where there is not a doubt in their mind. I think it is good to strongly believe in something but to blindly believe in it is dangerous. This is why we see religious wars, persecution and other hardship. Blind belief is a dangerous thing.

By the way, that was the question I wanted to ask, whether or not any creationists out there could admit that they might be wrong and it’s possible that the Bible is simply a fictional story and God doesn’t exist.

Wow… extremely long post but I have one more thing. If you have to interpret and decipher and rework all the things in the Bible, why base your beliefs off it. Personally I think beliefs should come from you and what you think is right. If you have to interpret and disregard certain parts of the Bible, why believe in any of it. If you are willing to concede that some of the Bible shouldn’t be followed, then you are agreeing you can make decisions for yourself so what stops you from making all decisions for yourself. Of course I am not imply to just be selfish and only think of yourself and never listen to anyone else, I am just saying why look to the Bible for salvation?

Charn_Tim

01-14-2006, 12:04 AM

Just a note, why do you use young-creationist or young-scientist, this terms are really stupid and make it sound like you are trying to dumb down people’s arguments. I am 20 years old and I know a lot of other people on this board who are at least 18. I know these ages are still fairly young but I have been doing research for years and it just seems derogatory to label arguments as “young.” You probably didn’t see it as an insult but I would just cut out the “young” part. Onto the discussion…
Okay, I don't have time to respond to your whole post right now, but I just wanted to clarify this point immediately: I am absolutely not identifying anyone as "young" or any arguments as "young." Furthermore, I have actually never intended to use the term "young-christian" or "young scientist" at all. I use the term "young-earth creationist" to identify those groups of christians who believe that the universe/earth is roughly 6000 years old. That's the only reason I use this term. As far as I can remember, I have never used the term "young-scientist" I don't know where you got that from. If I have ever used either the terms "young-scientist" or "young-creationist" it was totally a typo, and I meant nothing other than using it to identify those people who believe in a "young" earth. This is a term that I thought mostly everyone was familiar with, so I used it without defining it. I'm sorry for whatever confusion it has caused, and I want to reiterate that I was in no way whatsoever intending that to be a derogatory term-I simply intend it to define a belief.

As far as your research, I totally respect that. I can tell you have done lots of research even though I disagree with your conclusions. I fully intend this to be a discussion of intellectual equals, and I'm not trying to be derogatory in any way, shape, or form. I hope we are clear now, and again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

sailndwntrder

01-14-2006, 12:22 AM

I'm sorry Johan im going to have to disagree with you. The bible states that He made everything one at a time over the period of seven days starting with light and ending with women :D (sorry that makes me smile) that doesnt sound like the big bang to me because He did it all at once, not gradually. Although, i will agree that some things in this world have shifted and changed but not much.

i think i lean more toward Johans opinion that they don't necessarily contradict. the way i see it, looking at nature only proves gods existence and makes me believe in him more because of the way every living thing needs so many things to survive and things in nature have turned out so perfectly. i think that god created the world knowing how it would change because he guided these changes.

i also do not think this contradicts the seven days of creation (stated above) because you have to remember that for God, a day could be a minute or a thousand years to God. If we think of time in his perspective, 7 days could mean much more. I don't remember the actual verse, but in my study bible it says that it is often wondered if the days are meant to be literal 24 hour periods, or many years. Days may just be a term to separate each activity, the only reason why we think of days in that way now is because he took that term to separate the 7 days of the week.

Or, maybe it was literally seven days and the scientific estimations are wrong.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-14-2006, 05:59 PM

Didn't Charles Darwin create the theory of Evolution? But you guys should know that this is not official, it is still ONLY A THEORY. It might not even be true at all. I believe God created Adam as the first Being to ever place foot on earth.

inkspot

01-15-2006, 09:08 AM

Jedi, I will answer later as well -- I am out of the USA right now and cannot take time to respond, but willl at home.

One thing I did want to say: Christians do admit the Bible could be a story and God a myth -- I think that in the other thread we discussed Pascal's Wager? The physicist Blaise Pascal said just that in his wager. The Bible might be wrong, but if it is right, then it's a better bet to believe it than not believe it, for eternity is at stake. It's a lame reason to believe, and there are many better, but that is a famous one. No one can know for sure that God exists, but all the evidence (in my mind) points to it.

More later.

Lord Rhoop

01-15-2006, 01:08 PM

This has probably been mentioned before but I haven't been able to read through the entire thread yet. Let's just say that evolution is ture and that everything it teaches is true and that there is no God who created it all. Then what hope is there? What hope do we have and why on earth are we here if evolution is true and there is no God to worship and obey? I don't see much hope for people who do believe in the evolution theory because why would we be here if evolution were true? And where would we be going if it were true as well? Just thought I should put that out if it hasn't been mentioned :) !

Saruman

01-15-2006, 02:39 PM

Very good thoughts, Lord_Rhoop. Without the God of the universe, what is the purpose of our existence and our being? As I've said before, the whole concept of evolution is laughable, and has been since its creation in the 1800s. Lovely fairytales, to be sure (I still read Jurassic Park from time to time).

Charn_Tim

01-15-2006, 03:21 PM

As I've said before, the whole concept of evolution is laughable, and has been since its creation in the 1800s. Lovely fairytales, to be sure (I still read Jurassic Park from time to time).
Subjectively criticizing other people's opinions is NOT helpful at all in a discussion/debate. Besides, I don't think the "whole concept of evolution" is any more laughable than any other "concept" that substitutes any other worldview for the Christian orthodox one. And for the record, I don't think it is ever a good idea to call any other viewpoint "laughable"-it just shows a very high lack of humility and love. Why don't you take the time to understand the other person's arguments and try to argue against their conclusions rather than calling it "laughable" without any support for your view at all?

unleavened

01-15-2006, 04:01 PM

So I (and others who hold my interpretation of Genesis 1) submit that the "common" interpretation of Genesis 1, first proposed by Archbishop Ussher in the 1600's is a genuine case of misinterpreting the scriptures. Of course, before 20th century cosmology, Christians really had no need to re-interpret this part of the Bible and we just became accustomed to it. Honestly, I don't think Christians cared much about it, and I really don't think the majority of Christians care about it today, because it is just too difficult to understand science for the average person; people would rather take the easy answer and the "easy" or "literal" interpretation of "yom" and say that it means a 24 hour time period. This is especially true in sunday school class when you are teaching to elementary school children. Is it easier to teach children Big Bang cosmology or an earth created in 144 hours by God?

That's good that you recognize that there are some problems with evolution. Pretty much all scientists admit this. I personally think that natural selection is not the mechanism by which species became diversified or were created in the first place. But I don't think that scientists should stop searching all they can for how life has diversified naturally. We have learned much about the world from biologists and other scientists and I think the work should continue. I just think that the notion that it is responsible for life on earth and the diversity of species will finally be accepted as inadequate by scientists and eventually conclusively falsified (of course, I and some others think this has already been done as I have explained previously, but not all scientists would jump to this conclusion yet).

I also totally agree with you that there are holes in the young-earth creationist point of view too, as I have been pointing out in this thread as well. As a young earth creationist, you pretty much have to trick yourself into believing that scientists (especially astrophysicisits) are completely full of it. I however, do not belileve this, nor do I think any christian should. However, as it is not an important doctrine to salvation, most christians simply choose to sweep this issue under the rug, and that's fine, I guess, but I wish they wouldn't.
Ok, I'd just like to throw this out there. I am a young-earth advocate. I believe in the literal translation of the Bible. I have studied up on subject and am completely willing to discuss the issue. However, I don't, by any means, believe you HAVE to believe the way I do.

Creation was a MIRICLE. It defied what man would normally say was possible. So did the reserection. So did healing the blind. He's God. He can do that. It's not as if he had to use evolution to get the earth to the point it was at when we tune in at the Garden of Eden.

As for the Hebrew word "yom"? When used in conjunction w/ a number throughout the Hebrew scripts, it CONSISTANTLY refers to a 24 hour period. Genesis says there was morning and there was evening, the __ day. How much clearer can you get?

There was no controvercy over the interpretation until evolution came about. I think the day-age theory is, for man, a way of try to 'jive' w/ science. As I said before, it was a miricle. I believe it is one of Saten's ways to take way from God's power. God could and still can create a universe in 6 days. Who are we to say he can't?

I realize there are many questions I'v left unanswered. I will wait for them to be asked before I begin to answer them simply b/c I don't want to spend the rest of my life on 1 post.

Edit:
I don't think all scientists are full of it. I just don't think they can fit God into their box. He's more powerful than science. In fact, he created it. I like science quite alot.

Emperor beyond the Sea

01-15-2006, 04:15 PM

I beleive in creation of course i am also a cristian

Dernhelm

01-15-2006, 05:36 PM

There was no controvercy over the interpretation until evolution came about.
You might like to take a look at this (http://www.facingthechallenge.org/augustine.htm). :) I think the day-age theory is, for man, a way of try to 'jive' w/ science. As I said before, it was a miricle. I believe it is one of Saten's ways to take way from God's power. God could and still can create a universe in 6 days. Who are we to say he can't?
I think that many people don't that he can't...only that he didn't. :)

As for the Hebrew word "yom"? When used in conjunction w/ a number throughout the Hebrew scripts, it CONSISTANTLY refers to a 24 hour period.
I don't really know much about that... :confused:

Charn_Tim

01-15-2006, 06:43 PM

I do not believe in faith. I personally think faith is an excuse and I don't use it in my beliefs. I have never had faith so I guess it’s hard to argue against. I use scientific theory and my own judgment. Faith is the belief in something without reason; you believe it because you think it is correct...I don't think it takes as much faith to believe in science as it does the Bible and I don't understand why creationists use this argument? It makes them sound like agnostics or neutralists, basically saying there is no proof either way because it takes equal amounts of belief in both theories. It seems to me that creationists use faith to get out of the logical arguments that evolutionists present. Whenever we would talk to pastors or creationists, they seem to be unable to explain some of their beliefs mostly on moral issues like homosexuality, the Ten Commandments and sexism.

I'm not sure about your definition of faith. If I may, I would like to give you my definition of faith, and then proceed to respond to some of the issues you have raised. I'm not asking you to believe the Bible right now, I'm just quoting it because it gives my definition of faith: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1, NIV). Personally, I use this kind of faith all the time, and I think you do too. Have you ever seen the great wall of china? Have you ever looked through a telescope and seen a quasar? Have you ever measured the rate of radioactive decay of Carbon 14? If not, then I would submit that you believe that the great wall of china exists, that quasars exist, and that the radioactive decay rate of Carbon 14 is about 4000 years all based on "faith." It's rather naive to argue that you don't need faith, where at least 90 % of what we believe is based on faith in authority.

Be that as it may, as someone who has studied the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe in detail, I find your implied statement that a naturalistic explanation of the universe's origins is a "fact" and based on "reason" astounding. Perhaps you are not as familiar with the Big Bang theory of cosmology-the current scientific theory of the universe's origins-as you think. This theory (which I firmly believe to be the correct explanation of the universe's origins) holds that space, time, matter, and energy sprang into existence or was "created" around 14 billion years ago. How can you possibly "reason" this sudden existence of matter, energy, space, time, etc. using a naturalistic explanation without divine intervention? The least that you can do in this case is say that the evidence points to a creator, but you do not accept this evidence because by an irrational form of "faith," you choose to believe in naturalistic explanations. Or at the very least, you can say that you are an agnostic-you don't really know how the universe originated, but you want to believe that it occured naturally.

If I may, I would like to give a couple of examples of individuals who also recognize this and who to my knowledge aren't christians. So, here goes:

George Smoot, a UC Berkeley astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite (which played a large role in verifying the Big Bang theory, exclaimed: "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe...It's like looking at God." (Thomas H. Maugh II, "Relics of 'Big Bang' Seen for First Time," Los Angeles Times, 24 April 1992, pages A1, A30)
Science historian Fred Burnham said that the community of astrophysicists was prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe "a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years." (David Briggs, "Science, Religion are discovering commonality in Big Bang theory" Los Angeles Times, 2 May 1992, pages B6-B7).
One more thing: Ted Koppel on ABC's "Nightline" began his interview of an astronomer and a physicist by quoting the first two verses of Genesis. The physicist immediately quoted verse three in addition, as very relevant to the discovery.

The list of non-deists or non-theists is growing thin in the astrophysics community. Why? Because the evidence simply points to a creator, as recognized by individuals who do not want to appeal to a creator to explain naturalistic phenomenon. Even the minority who still want to believe in atheism recognize the evidence is against them. Among them, Geoffry Burbidge, of UC San Diego, complained that his colleagues are rushing off to join "The first Church of Christ of the Big Bang." (Stephen Strauss, "An Innocent's Guide to the Big Bang Theory: Fingerprint in Space left by the Universe as a Baby Still Has Doubters Hurling Stones," The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 25 April 1992, page 1). Why are scientists so willing to consider the possibility of a theistic explanation now? Because by their scientific methods, the Big Bang theory has been shown to be the correct one, and the theory points to a creator. By the way, as you probably know, the common perception in the naturalistic, atheist scientific community for the earlier part of the 20th century was that the universe was infinite and static, allowing for infinite time for natural selection to operate on nature and create what we see today. Now, we know this is simply not true. If this were true, and science had discovered that the universe was infinite and static, then there would be no beginning, hence no need for a beginner, and there would be "facts" of astrophysics to support your atheistic worldview.

So this is simply one area of science-astrophysics-that does not support your atheistic worldview, rather it gives credibility to theism.

There is no shame in admitting that the evidence is currently stacked against your belief in atheism. You can't keep saying that you believe things based on "fact" or "proof" or "logic." Regardless of what the Bible says, modern science alone has provided much evidence for a creator, casting serious doubt on naturalistic explanations of the origins of the universe and life on earth.

Please tell me where you are at on this. If you are not convinced that the evidence from science (and astrophysics in particular) points to the existence of God, I have more evidence to provide and I will post that evidence here.

Now it's time to respond to the rest of your post...

Charn_Tim

01-15-2006, 06:59 PM

Ok, I'd just like to throw this out there. I am a young-earth advocate. I believe in the literal translation of the Bible. I have studied up on subject and am completely willing to discuss the issue. However, I don't, by any means, believe you HAVE to believe the way I do.

Creation was a MIRICLE. It defied what man would normally say was possible. So did the reserection. So did healing the blind. He's God. He can do that. It's not as if he had to use evolution to get the earth to the point it was at when we tune in at the Garden of Eden.

As for the Hebrew word "yom"? When used in conjunction w/ a number throughout the Hebrew scripts, it CONSISTANTLY refers to a 24 hour period. Genesis says there was morning and there was evening, the __ day. How much clearer can you get?

There was no controvercy over the interpretation until evolution came about. I think the day-age theory is, for man, a way of try to 'jive' w/ science. As I said before, it was a miricle. I believe it is one of Saten's ways to take way from God's power. God could and still can create a universe in 6 days. Who are we to say he can't?

I realize there are many questions I'v left unanswered. I will wait for them to be asked before I begin to answer them simply b/c I don't want to spend the rest of my life on 1 post.

Edit:
I don't think all scientists are full of it. I just don't think they can fit God into their box. He's more powerful than science. In fact, he created it. I like science quite alot.
unleavened, thanks a lot for responding to my post and engaging in this discussion with me. I appreciate your attitude, and I try to approach this subject with an attitude of humility as well. I am actually currently discussing some of your same issues via PM with another member of this forum, and I will try to do the best I can to keep up with all three of these individuals who wish to discuss these things with me :). So, I would love to ask you a bunch of questions, but I think it would be more fair if you would respond to my post #136 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=14&pp=10) first, where I give reasons (some of them anyway) for why I believe that Genesis 1 should be interpreted according to the "Day-Age" theory. Also, I directly address the issues you have raised concerning "yom" and how it should be interpreted as well as the issues with: "and it was evening and it was morning, the xth day." So if you don't mind looking that post over and responding to it, I think that would be wonderful.

Saruman

01-15-2006, 09:37 PM

Subjectively criticizing other people's opinions is NOT helpful at all in a discussion/debate. Besides, I don't think the "whole concept of evolution" is any more laughable than any other "concept" that substitutes any other worldview for the Christian orthodox one. And for the record, I don't think it is ever a good idea to call any other viewpoint "laughable"-it just shows a very high lack of humility and love. Why don't you take the time to understand the other person's arguments and try to argue against their conclusions rather than calling it "laughable" without any support for your view at all?

First, before I continue, I have to address this "very high lack of humility and love" demonstrated towards me. When was I ever "subjectively criticizing" others' opinions concerning evolution? I do not recall ever having done this; all I stated was that the theory of evolution is laughable in response to Lord_Rhoop's post concerning the reason and purpose for our existence as human beings. Nor did I even respond in any argument for or against evolution as such; the only thing I posted was regarding a discussion concerning the day-age theory (which I will get to in a minute). Therefore, I am deeply offended that you, having never met or known me, would presume to tell me that I have not taken "the time to understand the other person's arguments." Before you jump all over me, I would ask you first to demonstrate some respect of your own. Your post quoted above smacks of hypocrisy.

Now, on to my debate concerning the day-age theory.

…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.

First there are some essential problems with this thought. Although you boldly state that this - and no other - is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1, I challenge you to take a look at the context again.

The term yom, as we have read and has been discussed at some length, refers to a 24-hour period of time. Firstly, God would have made it specifically clear had He intended for us to know that it took Him a long time to create the heavens and the earth. Instead, we read certain phrases such as "And God said," "And God made," "And God called," "And God set," etc. He spoke (or, as I've learned from some others, according to rabbinical tradition it is thought that God "sang" the heavens and the earth into creation, though this may be nothing more than mere tradition) and it happened even at the very moment. Why should we assume from the direct context that the heavens and the earth happened to take a very long period of time to "develop," especially if we are to do so by faulty dating processes?

Secondly, Genesis 1:5 comes before Genesis 1:14. If it was written in the Scripture (and I write as to those who believe it to be the Word of God), then we realize that "the evening and the morning were the first day." Perhaps the sun, moon and stars came to us on Day Four, but this can't explain why the first day, on which the heavens and the earth were made, is called and considered thus, "the evening and the morning were the first day." Obviously our author, the Holy Spirit through Moses, happens to be telling us something through His use of the word "yom" and that it, in fact, refers to one earth-day as we know it.

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.

If indeed “evening and morning” can be translated to say “beginning and end,” it rather backs up a typical day, because one starts and one ends with the evening and the morning. I believe the Word of God is full of examples that tell us what a typical day is, no less to mention the first chapter of Genesis. I do not believe Moses had any difficulty in telling us about day one, day two, etc. He gave us, in fact, the “generations of the heavens and of the earth” (Gen. 2:4), chronicling for us the exact events of creation from its start to its finish, the seventh day. From that seventh day, we see things unfold through Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind, and of all things perfect, after they gave into the temptation of the Enemy.

Are we to assume, then, that the sixth day was not also a literal day? For it was on that day that God created man:

And God said, Let Us make man in Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If God created Adam on the particular day six, then the thought that God took millions upon millions (or, for the sake of the discussion, perhaps even only hundreds of years) to create the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, why then did Adam only live to be 930 (Gen. 5:5)? Judging by your arguments that it took God a very long time, then why would He suddenly come to a screeching halt on day six of creation, and begin to create things then and there? It is because He never did let things go for a long period of time. When He "said," or "made," or "set," it was then and there. And if God had it said "day one," "day two," "day three," then that is how He established it.

As regarding the last statement you made about us still being in day seven, it is rather illogical. Why do you assume we are still in day seven, when we have been moving on ever since that time? I think you have somewhat missed the point in your zeal to explain your views.

For these clear reasons, I disagree with you and your passion in declaring that your view on the creation of the heavens and the earth is the correct one. I believe God does things with a purpose, not stirring confusion. He does not leave us in the dark, and I do not believe He would contradict Himself in declaring the concept of seven literal days only to lead us to believe that He actually took much longer.

Further, I am glad you seem to believe that the Bible, more particularly the creation account in Genesis, does not contradict modern science. If you highly value the efforts and achievements of men, then more power to you. But as for me, I will stick to the Word of God and to God, for He is a sure Foundation and One that cannot be removed, rather than rely on mere speculations, conjectures, and ideas.

Charn_Tim

01-16-2006, 12:29 AM

First, before I continue, I have to address this "very high lack of humility and love" demonstrated towards me. When was I ever "subjectively criticizing" others' opinions concerning evolution? I do not recall ever having done this; all I stated was that the theory of evolution is laughable in response to Lord_Rhoop's post concerning the reason and purpose for our existence as human beings. Nor did I even respond in any argument for or against evolution as such; the only thing I posted was regarding a discussion concerning the day-age theory (which I will get to in a minute). Therefore, I am deeply offended that you, having never met or known me, would presume to tell me that I have not taken "the time to understand the other person's arguments." Before you jump all over me, I would ask you first to demonstrate some respect of your own. Your post quoted above smacks of hypocrisy.
Okay, first of all, I'm very glad that you've joined the discussion and have responded to my arguments. Second of all, what I'm reacting against is your claim that "the whole concept of evolution is laughable." Why would you say this about someone else's beliefs? Are you trying to win them over to your side or are you just trying to make them look like an idiot? I may be over-reacting, but I really don't think it is a wise idea to criticize the arguments of others in this way, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Furthermore, your last two posts had seemed like kind of a hit and run, which is highly annoying. When you just post a link to another website and later on say, "the whole concept of evolution is laughable" without giving reasons why, it is pretty annoying. Once again, I may be over-reacting, it sounds like I have misjudged you, and for that, I apologize. I suggest we put it behind us and start over...

The term yom, as we have read and has been discussed at some length, refers to a 24-hour period of time. Firstly, God would have made it specifically clear had He intended for us to know that it took Him a long time to create the heavens and the earth. Instead, we read certain phrases such as "And God said," "And God made," "And God called," "And God set," etc. He spoke (or, as I've learned from some others, according to rabbinical tradition it is thought that God "sang" the heavens and the earth into creation, though this may be nothing more than mere tradition) and it happened even at the very moment. Why should we assume from the direct context that the heavens and the earth happened to take a very long period of time to "develop," especially if we are to do so by faulty dating processes?
First of all, I have already shown you that "yom" does not refer exclusively to a 24 hour period of time. It actually has 4 different meanings, as I explained in my post #136, so I'm not sure why you say, "yom refers to a 24-hour period of time" like it is a fact. That's the whole point of this argument: you are supposed to show from the context that yom should be interpreted as 24 hours, not assume it a priori from the start. Secondly, how do you know that God would have made it specifically clear that it took him a long time to make the heavens and the earth? This is an unfounded assertion that does not find support in scripture. The purpose of Genesis 1 was not to give a detailed scientific account of the creation of the universe. As I have argued before, the inspired author of the text needed to communicate to as many people-ancients through moderns-as possible. Therefore, the creation events necessarily are described in the simplest possible form. As a little bit of an aside note, I think that it is incredible that the miraculous creation events as described in Genesis 1 perfectly match the record of nature in the order that modern science has discovered, and I think this is one of the best arguments we have for the validity of the Bible. If you would like me to elaborate on this, I would be happy to.

With regards to the "faulty dating processes," I would like you to actually produce some evidence about why you think the current scientific theories about the age of the universe and the age of the earth is incorrect before making this claim. And before you talk about the unreliability of carbon dating, please understand that it is the uranium-lead decay that scientists use to date rocks on the earth, moon, asteroids, etc. not carbon dating. Carbon-14 has a half life of only 4000 years, so scientists don't use it to date things as old as the earth or solar system.

Secondly, Genesis 1:5 comes before Genesis 1:14. If it was written in the Scripture (and I write as to those who believe it to be the Word of God), then we realize that "the evening and the morning were the first day." Perhaps the sun, moon and stars came to us on Day Four, but this can't explain why the first day, on which the heavens and the earth were made, is called and considered thus, "the evening and the morning were the first day." Obviously our author, the Holy Spirit through Moses, happens to be telling us something through His use of the word "yom" and that it, in fact, refers to one earth-day as we know it.
If God is tricking all of us scientists-astrophysicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. then I think the interpretation of yom = 24 hours can be supported. But to those of us who believe that General Revelation (nature) should not conflilct with Special Revelation (the holy scriptures) then there really are really only 2 alternatives under your interpretation: God is intentionally tricking scientists or God's word is incorrect. Because scripture reveals that it is not in God's nature to be a deceiver and because overwhelming evidence in nature reveals a roughly 14 billion year old universe, I cannot accept this interpretation of scripture.

Furthermore, the fact that Genesis 1:5 comes before Genesis 1:14 supports my argument, as I have said, because an earth day hasn't even been defined yet. So how could yom be referring to an "Earth-day" or 24 hours if it says clearly within the text that the Earth wasn't even created yet?

If indeed “evening and morning” can be translated to say “beginning and end,” it rather backs up a typical day, because one starts and one ends with the evening and the morning. I believe the Word of God is full of examples that tell us what a typical day is, no less to mention the first chapter of Genesis. I do not believe Moses had any difficulty in telling us about day one, day two, etc. He gave us, in fact, the “generations of the heavens and of the earth” (Gen. 2:4), chronicling for us the exact events of creation from its start to its finish, the seventh day. From that seventh day, we see things unfold through Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind, and of all things perfect, after they gave into the temptation of the Enemy.
With all due respect, I simply disagree with your claim that the "beginning and ending" interpretation backs up your assertion that yom=24 hours. If interpreted as "beginning and ending" it simply means that a period of time started, then it ended-as I have said. I don't know how you can argue that beginning and ending means "the beginning of a 24 hour time period and the ending of a 24 hour time period."

As regarding the last statement you made about us still being in day seven, it is rather illogical. Why do you assume we are still in day seven, when we have been moving on ever since that time? I think you have somewhat missed the point in your zeal to explain your views.
With all due respect, you have completely missed my point here. My point that we are still in day 7 backs up my argument as to why "yom" or "day" should be interpreted as a period of time or "epoch", not a 24 hour time period. Of course time has marched on since then-that's my point. If the creation days were meant to be understood as 24 hour time periods, at the end of this day should be the phrase "and there was evening (ending) and there was morning (beginning)-day 7" just like the other 6 days. But of course it doesn't, so it is implied that day 7 hasn't ended yet, hence "day 7" is not one 24 hour time period. And this piece of evidence, among many others, is why I think the creation account should not be interpreted as 144 consecutive hours.

Parthian King

01-16-2006, 12:35 AM

I'm going to momentarily butt in and say I have, in the past, read posts from both Curumo and Charn_Tim that I have enjoyed and respected, and I consider them both brothers in Christ. I hope you both, friends and brothers, will not resent my saying so in the context of your discussion.

Feel free to carry on where you left off...

Saruman

01-16-2006, 12:40 AM

I do feel it necessary to say I never meant to be arrogant or derogatory towards anyone. I apologize also if, in responding to you, Charn_Tim, I have seemed either arrogant or rude. I do not mean to be so to you. I have never said I am right or that I am wrong, and of course I come to this forum for discussion.

So we may indeed carry on from there. :)

Charn_Tim

01-16-2006, 12:48 AM

Thanks a lot for that, PK. I didn't even know you read this thread :). You are always welcome to add any of your thoughts to this discussion too of course...Well, I also agree that we are brothers in Christ, and I think I already apologized in my last post, but let me just reiterate my apologies to Curumo. I think it's great that even though we can get heated in our debates and have disagreements (we all know that even Prince Caspian and Edmund had their momentary scuffles), we can always have grace to find common ground in the truth of Christ. Ahhhh, that feels a lot better :).

inkspot

01-16-2006, 01:45 PM

Okay, I am back in the USA and have leisure to respond to Jedi. Thus ...

I do not believe in faith. I personally think faith is an excuse and I don't use it in my beliefs ... I use scientific theory and my own judgment ... I don't think it takes as much faith to believe in science as it does the Bible and I don't understand why creationists use this argument?
I think you have more faith than you realize Jedi: you place your trust in scientific theory (not fact as you say) and your own judgment. Neither of those can be in any way backed up with empirical evidence, so as Tim has pointed out, you are using faith in exactly the biblical sense: evidence of things not seen. Your faith does not happen to be in God, but it is still faith. Do you see what we're getting at when we say you need faith to believe in Evolution? I think it's great that you have faith, because when God makes Himself real to you, you will already have practice in trusting and believing. :)

Faith is the belief in something without reason; you believe it because you think it is correct. Now I believe in morals and good reason because I would feel bad if I didn't. I try to hold the door open for people or help people up if they fall and I think most people do. This isn't faith, this is conscience and conscience is developed mostly from how you grow up.
Do you really think that your instinct for fairplay, your intrinsic knowledge that you should help someone in need, is the result of your upbringing? If you do not believe in God, then man is just another evolving animal, and yet he alone, among all the animals, has the conscience. And it is the same from China to California: all people recognize that there is a standard of what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done. How did this happen? From where does this universal conscience spring, if no Creator put it in us? There is nothing like it in nature ... and yet it has developed in humans all over the world. Coincidence? I think not.

. It seems to me that creationists use faith to get out of the logical arguments that evolutionists present.
Not so Charn Tim in this discussion: he is the man with the science and the logic. Here is what you have been looking for: a Christian with facts who is not afraid to debate on scientific merit.

Whenever we would talk to pastors or creationists, they seem to be unable to explain some of their beliefs mostly on moral issues like homosexuality, the Ten Commandments and sexism.
This is far afield of our evolution vs. creation discussion, and I would say let's leave that alone for now. None of us here is espousing any particular morality, just debating the origins of life.

I’d also like to point out that creation is also a theory and personally I think evolution is fact but a lot of people would disagree. Creation has no scientific proof.
Yes, creation theory is a theory, but so far Tim is giving us lots of facts in support of it. It has at least as much scientific proof as evolution to my mind, based on what I am reading in this thread, and evolution seems to have several important problems that have not yet been addressed.

I could never get Christians to admit that God might not exist. Again, I am not saying you are wrong but only the possibly that you might be wrong. Christians can’t even concede that fact that it is possible that the Bible is simply a story and God does not exist. I think this defines what people think is faith, the complete belief in something where there is not a doubt in their mind. I think it is good to strongly believe in something but to blindly believe in it is dangerous. This is why we see religious wars, persecution and other hardship. Blind belief is a dangerous thing.
I have a complete belief in God and Jesus Christ, but I will of course admit that I cannot prove their existence, and I could be wrong. But if I am wrong, I am still happy that right now I feel the joy of life with Christ. He has given me a center, a focus, a peace about who I am and what I am here for. And it's a great focus, a great center, a great reason to be here: to love Him with all my heart and to serve Him in the epic battle between good and evil, being played out here and now on this earth. What adventurer would turn down such a commission? And if, in the end, it turns out there is no Jesus and no God, I will still have had a great life in His name, and I'll just be dead.

I agree with you that blind belief is a dangerous thing, and that's why it is so important what we are doing here, carefully examining the facts and the Scriptures to see what God really claims. That's not blind -- that's eyes wide open. Bravo to you for recognizing this!

If you have to interpret and decipher and rework all the things in the Bible, why base your beliefs off it. Personally I think beliefs should come from you and what you think is right. If you have to interpret and disregard certain parts of the Bible, why believe in any of it.
Of course, the Bible was written in languages most of us don't speak, so having it interpreted for us is critical. I personally think it's great that we have many modern English translations/versions that help us get closer to the true meaning of Scripture, and I encourage you to take advantage of them. You can find several at www.biblegateway.com to read online. I like The Message and the Contemporary English Version for real simplicity.

As for re-working it: many people would like to re-work the Bible so that it fit better their ideals of what God should be like and what life in Him demands, but we are best if we stick with what the Scriptures themselves say.

If you are willing to concede that some of the Bible shouldn’t be followed, then you are agreeing you can make decisions for yourself so what stops you from making all decisions for yourself.
Are you referring to Old Testament laws? In many of those cases, the laws were precursors or prophecies of the Christ to come, and once He came, their promise was fulfilled, so we are no longer required to follow those laws/rituals. Of course, in Christ we do make decisions for ourselves. The Apostle Paul went so far as to say that ALL THINGS are lawful for Christians: that none of the old rules applied to us! But in their place is Christ's rule of grace, which actually motivates us to go beyond old laws and rules into a life of following Christ and allowing Him to express His Spirit through us. Does this help?

Of course I am not imply to just be selfish and only think of yourself and never listen to anyone else, I am just saying why look to the Bible for salvation?
Do you believe in a need for salvation? Do you look for salvation somewhere other than the Bible? Just curious on that point.

Not much of this has to do with evolution, really your post seemed to center on what you think of creationists and their motives/rationale, by which I am guessing you mean Christians and their rationale. This is a topic I am much more qualified to address than the evolution one! But Tim is doing great with that, and I await your further posts in response, Jedi.

Curumo, you are welcome to the discussion. I was inclined to agree with you that 6 days meant 6 days, but since reading Tim's explanations, I am not sure. I know that God could do the miracle of creation in any time frame that suited Him, but like Tim, I wonder why He would fool the scientists with false evidence?

Anyway, all, thank you for policing yourselves and keeping the discussion cordial. :)

Saruman

01-16-2006, 01:56 PM

kirke

01-16-2006, 02:16 PM

Nosferatu

01-16-2006, 02:33 PM

Well I am a solid 6 day creationist and i think that evolution is really stupid and false. These are my reasons,

#1. Every year a certain amount of dust and rock is thrown onto the moons surface thus creating inches of dust.but the evolutionists believe that the world is million and billions of years old. if that where true then there would be feet and feet of soil there. but when the astronauts landed there, there was only 2-3 inches of soil.
Please answer this if you know something i dont know.

#2. Every year the moon goes farther away from the earth, since we believe (we meaning creationists) the world is only thousands of years old the moon is basicaly the distance it should be at. but if the evolutionists theory was correct then the moon would be much farther away then it is today.

#3. and lastly Evolution is an ever changing theory so it would be foolish to place ones beliefs in something that changes. Whereas God is constant and never changing.

No offence meant by this I am just trying to stimulate a debate.

Gryphon

01-16-2006, 02:49 PM

NICE NASFERATU! that was good!

inkspot

01-16-2006, 05:27 PM

Well I am a solid 6 day creationist and i think that evolution is really stupid and false.
Would it surprise you to learn that CS Lewis believed in evolution? And he was not a stupid man. He has a whole chapter comparing physical evolution with spiritual truths in Mere Christianity if I remember correctly ... (I'm re-reading it now, so I will let you know where it is).

Let's all keep in mind when we declare someone's belief to be stupid, laughable and false that they could in the same way strike out at our belief in Christ (or whatever we believe in) and we wouldn't feel very kindy toward them. If you disagree, if you don't believe it, that's fine, say so. But if you want to say someone else's system is stupid, and you are a follower of Christ, then make sure you are following the biblical command to do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- and if you don't want them to call your belief in Christ stupid, then maybe re-think calling their belief in evolution stupid ... What do you think?

Charn_Tim

01-16-2006, 05:41 PM

inkspot, thanks a lot for that excellent, thoughtful response to Jedi of Narnia. By the way, I'm really glad we policed ourselves too, and that you didn't have to turn any of our avatars into a picture of Hilary Duff or something :D.

Jedi of Narnia, I am really curious to what you are thinking about all of this now, if you don't mind letting us know. At least I think you have seen that there is a valid interpretation of scripture (that I happen to think is the correct one) that does not conflict with science.

Nosferatu, kirke, and Curumo, these are excellent questions, and I will just have to ask your patience as I am a little preoccupied with writing my senior project paper right now *sigh*. I will address these questions later on though (hopefully by the end of today or tomorrow) as these are some of the same questions that I have had as well.

unleavened

01-16-2006, 06:42 PM

unleavened, thanks a lot for responding to my post and engaging in this discussion with me. I appreciate your attitude, and I try to approach this subject with an attitude of humility as well. I am actually currently discussing some of your same issues via PM with another member of this forum, and I will try to do the best I can to keep up with all three of these individuals who wish to discuss these things with me :). So, I would love to ask you a bunch of questions, but I think it would be more fair if you would respond to my post #136 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=14&pp=10) first, where I give reasons (some of them anyway) for why I believe that Genesis 1 should be interpreted according to the "Day-Age" theory. Also, I directly address the issues you have raised concerning "yom" and how it should be interpreted as well as the issues with: "and it was evening and it was morning, the xth day." So if you don't mind looking that post over and responding to it, I think that would be wonderful.
I will certainly do that. The discussion is an interesting one. Perhaps we should create another thread for it or just keep it in PMs though. I apoligize for bringing it into a thread where perhaps it doesn't belong. I'll PM you with my answers as soon as I've read the post!

Faradin2772

01-16-2006, 08:47 PM

I can't argue pro-creationism for myself, since I'm such a wimp, but I can use one of my favorite books as leverage:

The famous atheist Bertrand Russell suggested that if we could strip away the mystery of this universe and get to the heart of things, what we would find there would probably be a mathematical equation. Something as scientific and impersonal as the origin of everything else. A cold view of our world, to be sure. But it fails to explain one thing: How can human personality come from something so impersonal? How can a creature as quirky as your uncle Ed come from a mathematical equation? It doesn't add up.
The great philisophical question is simply, "How did all this get here?" And not only do we have the unavoidable fact that something is here, we we have something that is dazzling in its detail and complexity, and beautiful beyond description. Humminbirds. Kangaroos. The Eagle Nebulae. Tulips. Mangoes. The Serengeti. Morning, noon, and night.
It's impossible that it all started of it's own accord, by an accident. Just as implausible [as the argument goes] that a Swiss watch will come together if you toss a thousand parts in your clothes dryer and start it all banging around.
No, this earth has all the marks of an artist's hand.Hey, if any pro-creationists want to read more, it's a great Christian book called Epic: The Story God is Telling and the Role that is Yours to Play, by John Eldridge. It relates a ton of stories and movies and stuff to how life is like a book, and everything is symbolized. It's really awesome.

inkspot

01-17-2006, 12:54 AM

I will certainly do that. The discussion is an interesting one. Perhaps we should create another thread for it or just keep it in PMs though. I apoligize for bringing it into a thread where perhaps it doesn't belong. I'll PM you with my answers as soon as I've read the post!
You can continue in this Thread or start another Thread on this subject -- I think it is interesting, either way. (Or if you want just to PM each other, but the rest of us might benefit from it, too, if it doesn't take us too far afield.)

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 01:38 AM

Well, one of the biggest problems I find is the discussion that dinosaur bones are older than men's bones. The problem here is, if indeed certain creatures have been around much longer than men have, why and how could they possibly have died before Adam and Eve? for sin had not yet entered into the world until Eve and Adam sinned. That is one of the reasons why I believe the interpretation of yom as being twenty-four hours is the appropriate one.
Well, I've heard this argument before and I'm always a little surprised why some feel that this is a problem with the "Day=Epoch" interpretation. I presume you are referring to Romans 5:12, which states:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

In the verse, the text clearly says that death came to all men; it says nothing about plants or animals or dinosaurs, etc. Furthermore, in the context of Romans 5 when Paul is talking about death and in the context of Genesis 2, when God is speaking of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in both cases he is talking about spiritual death, not physical death. So just because animals and plants have inhabited the earth and have died for millions of years before humans, this does not rule out the interpretation that a "day" was (much) longer than 24 hours.

And, since we know Adam only lived to be 930 years old in totality (from the time of his creation to the day of his death), then some other problems arise with the said dating process. I don't think God is giving scientists false evidence; I think scientists are coming to false conclusions based on faulty experiments. I do not think the key necessarily lies with scientists; they are not the end-all as far as proving the existence of God and the age of the earth/universe (I wonder how they plan to figure the age of the universe).
This is now the second time I have asked you this: Can you please give me some evidence that scientists are using faulty dating processes? Do you think this because you have researched how scientists date the earth/solar system and determine the age of the universe? Or do you think this because your interpretation of the scriptures would conflict with nature?

I also do not think that scientists are the end-all as far as proving the existence of God-no one is the end-all of this, and furthermore, no one is even trying to "prove" the existence of God here. However, I do think that scientists know what they are talking about with regards to the age of the universe and the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe, especially since it does not conflict with the Bible.

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 01:43 AM

You can continue in this Thread or start another Thread on this subject -- I think it is interesting, either way. (Or if you want just to PM each other, but the rest of us might benefit from it, too, if it doesn't take us too far afield.)
Yeah, I would agree with inkspot on this one, unleavened. I think that now a lot of people are interested in this discussion, and I think your questions and beliefs are probably the same as many others in this forum. If you don't mind opening a new thread or just keeping it all in this one, I think that probably would be better :).

Green Knight

01-17-2006, 02:13 AM

With talk about dinosaurs, I remebered something I saw on a show that aired on the Discovery Channel, I think is was part of Walking with Dinosaurs. A fair number of the first paleontologists where also members of the Church of England, and it told how they reconciled the idea of dinosaur extinction, it had nothing to do with sin, but something about losing God's grace, or maybe favor. I don't remember it clearly, and I can't find anything about it on the Web. Just me putting in two more cents.

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 02:18 AM

I am not an archeologist of any kind or scientist for that matter, so maybe somoene could answer something for me... I know to date dinosaur bones we use carbon-14 dating, and that it runs off the half-life of carbon 14... How do we decide using carbon 14 dating how old something is, i have seen the equation, but that doesnt tell me what i want to know... like how do we know that a dinosaur bone had so much carbon 14 whenever they were supposed to have lived?
First of all, this is an excellent question, regardless if you are a scientist or not :).

Okay, actually, dinosaur bone dating doesn't use carbon-14 dating because carbon-14 only has a half-life of about 4 000 years, so it's only an accurate method up to about 50 000 years. As far as dating dinosaur bones, they need to use the uranium 238-lead 206 (which has a half-life on the order of about 4.5 billion years) or some other longer decay process that has a longer half-life.

As far as how they date particular bones that they have uncovered, I'm not exactly sure I can give a good, understandable explanation on this right now that doesn't involve a lot of hand-waving :). However, I will work on giving a good explanation for you as well as giving other evidence for the ages of the universe, solar system, earth, etc. if you would find it helpful-I just don't have it all on the tip of my tongue.

One interesting site that I would recommend is here (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html). This website was made to explain radiometric dating processes to a layman by a Christian physicist/geologist-Dr. Roger C. Wiens-who received his Ph.D. in physics at CalTech on isotope ratios in meteorites-in other words, using meteorites to get a lower bound on the age of the solar system. I also will re-read this and see if I can put his words into a simpler form that we all can understand on this thread.

Sorry I don't have more than this for you right now; I hate it when people just refer me to websites too, which is why I would be happy to formulate a response to you when I get a chance. In meantime, I ask you to please be patient ;).

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 03:05 AM

Well I am a solid 6 day creationist and i think that evolution is really stupid and false.
Once again, I just want to emphasize that I, like inkspot and C.S. Lewis (as inkspot pointed out) do not think that evolution is "really stupid and false." I have made it quite clear in this thread as to what points I disagree with evolutionists on, and I just wanted to make that clear again.

#1. Every year a certain amount of dust and rock is thrown onto the moons surface thus creating inches of dust.but the evolutionists believe that the world is million and billions of years old. if that where true then there would be feet and feet of soil there. but when the astronauts landed there, there was only 2-3 inches of soil.
Please answer this if you know something i dont know.
Well, I'd be happy to answer this one for you...I suppose this means that I do know something that you don't know ;).

Once again, this is an argument I'm surprised "young-earth creationists" are making, given that in 1993, "young-earth creationists" (who would be thrilled if this argument were valid) wrote a technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is consistent with scientists' theories on the age of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993).

It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.
(Note: I got this information and quote from this website (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html)).

As you can read about in the above website, it seems that the whole error lies in the fact that the calculation of incoming moon dust was done using faulty data (by about 3 orders of magnitude) that has now been corrected for. So it turns out your claim that "a certain amount of dust and rock is thrown onto the moons surface thus creating inches of dust" is simply wrong.

In addition to the 1993 paper by Snelling and Rush, an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp) from the "young-earth" proponents from the organization Answers in Genesis have provided us with an article that again falsifies the claim that there is insufficient moon dust to account for the age of the solar system. You can read more about this in the article from the link I provided, but essentially they say,

1. The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.
2. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.
3. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.
I hope you are satisfied with this response and I also hope that the "moon dust argument" which is easy to explain and state will never be used again for the sake of intellectual honesty.

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 03:35 AM

#2. Every year the moon goes farther away from the earth, since we believe (we meaning creationists) the world is only thousands of years old the moon is basicaly the distance it should be at. but if the evolutionists theory was correct then the moon would be much farther away then it is today.
I'm not sure where you are getting this information from. Could you please cite your source that makes the claim that "Every year the moon goes father away from the earth." Actually, even if this were true, as I'm pretty sure it is, this does not support the "young-earth" view unless it is receeding from the earth at a very rapid rate. So before you use this argument, it would be appreciated if you could give us the rate at which the moon is receeding from the earth to support your view. As it stands now, this is an unfounded conjecture.

#3. and lastly Evolution is an ever changing theory so it would be foolish to place ones beliefs in something that changes. Whereas God is constant and never changing.
I agree that it would be foolish to place your beliefs in secular, atheistic naturalism that denies the existence of a God, because I think that the scientific evidence points to a creator, and that the creator is Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Bible. As I have said in this thread before, I think that belief in the Bible and orthodox Christianity does not conflict with modern science, and there is no need to reject all of modern science because it conflicts with Bishop Ussher's chronology of creation, which he produced using a faulty interpretation (in my opinion) of Genesis 1.

Stephosaurous

01-17-2006, 03:44 AM

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 03:50 AM

Ok, i'm not big on arguing, so i'm gunna make this quick: I believe in evolution. I think that it would have been great to have been 'created' or 'designed' or whatever, but i think it's an idealist point of view. It just makes so much more sense that life developed, evolved, grew. I know there are some flaws in the big bang theory and all that - where did the primordial atom come from? - but i think that it is a much more reasonable explanation than just "There was this big dude that came along and suddenly we all existed". People argue that if God didn't create us, why are there so many beautiful things in the world? Well, could it not be nature? The SCIENCE of the world? meh i cant really be arsed to say any more, but that is my opinion and it always will be... :)
Okay, I don't have time to address all of this, but I would just like to ask you straight-up to take a more open-minded approach. I mean no offense by this, but at age 15 (as it says in your profile), I wasn't really sure of anything, and I'm certainly not sure of everything now (I'm 22) so I really hope that this is not "always [what your opinion] will be" and that you will be open to considering other people's point of view.

Stephosaurous

01-17-2006, 04:05 AM

Okay, I don't have time to address all of this, but I would just like to ask you straight-up to take a more open-minded approach. I mean no offense by this, but at age 15 (as it says in your profile), I wasn't really sure of anything, and I'm certainly not sure of everything now (I'm 22) so I really hope that this is not "always [what your opinion] will be" and that you will be open to considering other people's point of view.

Whoa....scary. You say i don't consider anyone elses opinion? Or i'm not open minded enough? Well, i'm afraid you're wrong. I have had argument after argument with many of my friends, teachers, and even my parents. i always consider what they are saying. However, nobody as yet has presented me with enough evidence to sway me. Is it wrong that i am opinionated? Should i just be 'on the fence' like most other people? Okay, i know i'm only a teenager, but at this moment in time i feel that evolution is the most satisfactory explanation. If somebody would care to present their argument for creation to me again, i would certainly consider it, and keep an open mind when i do so. Since, in the years i have been discussing this issue, i have continued to stick with science, it seems logical that i will do so in the future. So, Charn Tim, even if you wern't sure about anything at my age, we are different people. And please don't say i don't consider other people's opinions - it annoys the hell out of me.

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 04:14 AM

Hmm, I'm kind of confused as to why you are reacting so strongly to my last post. The attitude of being open-minded that you have portrayed in this post is a little bit different attitude than you portrayed in your last post. For the record, I think you definitely should have your own opinions about things; I'm just saying that you shouldn't have the attitude that "that is my opinion and it always will be... " as you stated in your last post.

Also, if you hang around this thread long enough, I will be happy to "present my argument for creation again": from evidence for design in nature, evidence of God's existence in nature, and evidence that the Bible is scientifically accurate; but right now, I am still arguing for why we should interpret Genesis 1 according to "Day = Epoch" rather than "Day = 24 hours". If you'd like to get caught up on this argument, I invite you to read my last few posts on this, starting with post #136.

Stephosaurous

01-17-2006, 11:59 AM

I might just do that :D

inkspot

01-17-2006, 01:37 PM

Welcome to the discussion, Stephosaurous!

i hope you will read this thread from the beginning, especially noting the exchanges between Jedi of Narnia and Charn Tim. Jedi is taking your view that evolution theory is true, and Tim that Creation is true. You will note as you read through the thread that Tim presents science and backs up his statements with documentation, while so far Jedi has just given opinions. I am so glad that you say you base your belief on science, so that you can defend evolution with scientific fact and documentation as Tim is doing! Please jump in at any time with your scienctific proof of evolution. That would be great.

Also, I think Tim was reacting to your first post where you said "this is my opinion and it always will be," as if you had no intention of changing your mind, ever, even if new facts were presented to you. He was just encouraging you to have the strength to change if, indeed, you realize your position is in the wrong.

Nosferatu

01-17-2006, 01:43 PM

Would it surprise you to learn that CS Lewis believed in evolution? And he was not a stupid man. He has a whole chapter comparing physical evolution with spiritual truths in Mere Christianity if I remember correctly ... (I'm re-reading it now, so I will let you know where it is).

Let's all keep in mind when we declare someone's belief to be stupid, laughable and false that they could in the same way strike out at our belief in Christ (or whatever we believe in) and we wouldn't feel very kindy toward them. If you disagree, if you don't believe it, that's fine, say so. But if you want to say someone else's system is stupid, and you are a follower of Christ, then make sure you are following the biblical command to do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- and if you don't want them to call your belief in Christ stupid, then maybe re-think calling their belief in evolution stupid ... What do you think?

Terribly sorry... Right now i am pretty sick and tired so please bear with me :). I didn't mean it in that way I was jsut trieing to express mny feelings on evolutionism. I really didn't mean to offend anyone and I am terribly sorry if I did.

Stephosaurous

01-17-2006, 03:39 PM

Stephosaurous

01-17-2006, 03:46 PM

*Goodness* i sound so pathetic compared to you people's intellectual conversations......oh well i can always learn.

Stephosaurous

01-17-2006, 03:57 PM

Well I am a solid 6 day creationist and i think that evolution is really stupid and false. These are my reasons,

#1. Every year a certain amount of dust and rock is thrown onto the moons surface thus creating inches of dust.but the evolutionists believe that the world is million and billions of years old. if that where true then there would be feet and feet of soil there. but when the astronauts landed there, there was only 2-3 inches of soil.
Please answer this if you know something i dont know.

I'm probably going to sound dumb again, but i was just wondering... surely when dealing with debris that has landed on the moon, we have to not consider the depth of the dust, but the quantity - the Moon is a massive place, so even 2-3 inches of dust all around the surface is equal to quadrilians of tons - we have to deal with volume surely?? So even if it isn't that deep, it still could have been there for billions of years. I mean to cover the whole of the moon with only a millimetre surely would have taken a while, so it's got to have taken more than a few thousand years to build up 3 inches. meh, i'm probably talking crap....

Saruman

01-17-2006, 04:45 PM

The point Nosferatu makes is rather a good one concerning dust covering the moon and how it disqualifies evolution as a credible source of origin. Firstly, let's look at our splendidly brilliant folks over at NASA to see what they believed at the first time men walked on the moon.

Being presumptuous, assuming evolution to be fact and not theory, they designed the first spaceshuttle with extra long landing pads. For what purpose? They assumed that there would be dust - dust, dust, dust, dust, dust - covering the surface of the moon that could be who knows how deep. I wonder if it ever came to them as a great shock when they found it wasn't really covered over with such large amounts of dust as they assumed, believing that our universe has existed for some 4 billion years or so.

This is to say, the universe couldn't have been here for billions of years, because the moon - if it were that old - has had plenty of time to accumulate plenty of dust.

inkspot

01-17-2006, 04:49 PM

I have no idea, Stepho -- but Charn Tim answered that post about the moon dust and said it is a popular (yet false) idea among creationists for some reason. You'll see his post about it somewhere above.

Creationists are mixed as to whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old.

The "young earth" creationists believe it is only thousands of years old because it was created with the same week Adam was created, and then the generations between Adam and now have all been recorded by the Hebrews.

Others, like Tim, believe the Big Bang is essentially a description of how God created the earth billions of years ago, and that the mineral and fossil records scientists have today are accurate -- but that the word translated "day" in the Genesis account of creation can be interprested to mean an eon, or epoch, something much longer than a single 24-hour day. Thus they believe dinosaurs had come and gone in the early "days" of creation, before God created man. This would explain the fossil record of dinosaurs that pre-date man.

Neither set of creationists denies the evidence of early civilizations. That I am aware of.

I am so glad to see you posting here, Stepho!

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 06:03 PM

EDIT: Oh, sorry, inkspot, I guess I pretty much repeated a lot of stuff that you said in your last post just above mine here. Oh well, hopefully I've added some new info in addition to your excellent summary above...

Nice One - OK, let me get my facts straight. People that believe in creationism think that the world was made thousands, not billions of years ago right? (please tell me if i'm wrong) Is there an exact date? Does Christianity deny the earliest documented civilisations? Just wondering....don't wanna say something really stupid
Very good question. There is a large group of Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the universe was created in about 10 000 years. This interpretation of Genesis 1 is based on Archbishop Ussher's chronology who interpreted the Hebrew word "yom" which (in american translations of the scriptures) is translated as the word "day." However, as I point out in post #136 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?p=89664&highlight=apologize#post89664) in this thread and in other posts, this is not the only interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom." I (and many other Christians-scientists or otherwise) argue that the correct interpretation of the sciptures is that God created the universe in "Ages" or "Epochs" consistent with modern science. Here is an excerpt from that post (a little paraphrased by me):

"Why should we interpret the Hebrew word 'yom' appearing in Genesis 1 and many other parts of the new testament to mean 24 hours, when it clearly has other meanings in the old testament." Should it mean "24 hours" because the previously accepted interpretation/translation of "yom" in the English language is the word, "day"? 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 the author of Genesis 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." If the creation "days" were meant to be understood as "24 hour time periods," then at the end of day 7, there would have been the phrase, "there was evening and morning, day 7." Since this is missing, I submit that the scriptures tell us that we are still in "day" 7, and this piece of evidence, along with others I have given, I believe tells us that the interpretation that God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours is false.
Sorry this is so long, and I will explain any questions you may have after reading this, but for now, I think it's a good idea to see an interpretatin of Genesis 1 (which I believe to be the correct one) that does not conflict with modern science.

Ahh, I'm late to class...

Charn_Tim

01-17-2006, 06:04 PM

inkspot

01-17-2006, 06:16 PM

For convenience, here is Charn Tim's answer to the dust deal:
This is an argument I'm surprised "young-earth creationists" are making, given that in 1993, "young-earth creationists" (who would be thrilled if this argument were valid) wrote a technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is consistent with scientists' theories on the age of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snelling and Rush
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

It seems that the whole error lies in the fact that the calculation of incoming moon dust was done using faulty data (by about 3 orders of magnitude) that has now been corrected for. So it turns out your claim that "a certain amount of dust and rock is thrown onto the moons surface thus creating inches of dust" is simply wrong.

In addition to the 1993 paper by Snelling and Rush, an article from the "young-earth" proponents from the organization Answers in Genesis have provided us with an article that again falsifies the claim that there is insufficient moon dust to account for the age of the solar system. You can read more about this in the article from the link I provided, but essentially they say,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answers in Genesis
"1. The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.
2. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.
3. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there."

In the original post, Tim provides links to his sources, you can go back and look for it if you want more info. It seems to me the documentation pretty much refutes the dust thing.

waterhogboy

01-18-2006, 10:50 AM

Nice One - OK, let me get my facts straight. People that believe in creationism think that the world was made thousands, not billions of years ago right? (please tell me if i'm wrong) Is there an exact date? Does Christianity deny the earliest documented civilisations? Just wondering....don't wanna say something really stupid

LOL! Dont worry Steph. I often try to take part in these discussions and come across incredibly stupid! You cant beat me for stupidity. Just keep discussing and dont let other people who seem to have far greater knowledge than you put you off - it doesn't necessarily mean their right!!

Stephosaurous

01-18-2006, 12:44 PM

ah cheers!! right ok, so it seems to be that it all comes down to this 'yum' thing. If you decide to interpret this word in terms of ages, or eons e.t.c, then i'm guessing you look at Genesis I metaphorically. In which case it is possible that the universe has been around for billions of years, thus Science and religion can work together. have i got that right? :confused:

inkspot

01-18-2006, 02:08 PM

Not necessarily metaphorically, because we believe what the Bible says is the actual truth, but some creationists believe that the "days" mentioned in Genesis should actualy be read as "ages" or "epochs," so the universe could be quite old and tht would still be in line with Genesis' explanation.

I believe they still believe that God "created" man (and the other animals) whole, not that God started out with a little cell, and it evolved into plants and animals over long periods of time. Coorrect me if I am wrong, Tim.

Glad you're hanging in here, Stepho!

WHB, you never come across as a stupid person! You are a very intelligent young man.

Charn_Tim

01-18-2006, 03:58 PM

haha, WHB, I feel stupid too :). I think it's kind of a natural thing to do when examining nature. Science has figured out a lot of things and we know a lot more about the universe today than we did many years ago, but it always seems like each answer brings a whole new set of questions for us to discover the answers to. I don't think it's a bad thing to feel "stupid" in light of this. I think the important thing to do is never stop asking questions and let your curiosity and imagination continue :).

inkspot and Stepho, yeah, I pretty much agree that the main issue is "yom." But I would just like to elaborate/summarize the key points of why I interpret Genesis 1 this way, and hopefully it will be useful to you all. The important thing to remeber is that each reason I give is evidence within the text itself for why I believe the "age" interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

The Hebrew word, "yom" translated as "Day" has several meanings in Hebrew, one of which is 24 hours and one of which is an "era," "epoch," or "age."
In verse 5 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+1&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0), during the first creation "day" the text reads, "God called the light 'day' and the darkness 'night'." It is very clear here that the inspired author did not mean "24 hours" when he used the word "day" in this verse.
The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, day x_" does not necessarily imply "yom" = "24 hours" because the Hebrew words for "evening and morning" also can mean "beginning and ending" in the Hebrew language.

Note: these first set of reasons pretty much explain why yom = 24 hours is not necessarily true. If this was all the evidence there was, then the "yom" = "24 hours" would be just as valid of an interpretation in my mind as the "yom" = "long period of time" interpretation that I believe. So in these next points, I provide textual evidence for the main reason why I think the inspired author did not mean "yom = 24 hours" but did mean "extended period of time."

It does not make sense to interpret the creation days (at least the first 3) as "24 hours" because an earth day hadn't even been defined in the context of Genesis 1 until day 4, when "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." (Genesis 1:16 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+1&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0), NIV)
Creation day 7 is the only creation "day" which does not end in the phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning, day 7." What does this imply? It means that "day" 7 hasn't ended yet-we are still in "day" or "age" 7.

If I can think of any more reasons within the text itself for why I think the interpretation "day" = "24 hours" is wrong, I will add them in here. Feel free to ask any questions about any of these points if you need further clarification or wish to discuss their cogency.

Finally, it remains for me as a scientists to show why the universe is really older than about 10 000 years old, if you are not convinced of this right now. I am working on a post where I can put down some scientific evidence for why the universe/earth is billions of years old like science tells us. Please be patient, :) as it is not easy to present this evidence in a form that everyone who has not had 4 years of a university level physical science background can understand...

inkspot

01-18-2006, 05:21 PM

Thank you, Tim, you are doing great.

Charn_Tim

01-19-2006, 12:19 AM

I believe they still believe that God "created" man (and the other animals) whole, not that God started out with a little cell, and it evolved into plants and animals over long periods of time. Coorrect me if I am wrong, Tim.
Stepho & inkspot,

I guess I didn't really directly address this in my last post, so I will do so here. First, let me preface this by saying I am far more familiar with Physics than Biology, so what I say here is the best that I understand both the inspired Word of God and modern Biology and is not necessarily what I believe to be the "final answer."

Well, the short answer is that I don't believe that God started out with a little cell and it naturally evolved into all the species that we see today.

I do believe that God was wholly responsible both for creating life and for bringing about each species that we observe today in nature and in the fossil record. This does not rule out the Biologist's claim (or evolutionist's claim if you like) that each species descended from a common ancestor (known as Descent with Modification-a theory which I believe is supported by good experimental data).

Furthermore, I am not necessarily opposed to the current evolutionist's claim that there was a mechanism that causes the change in different species that we see today. I just happen to think this "mechanism" was God's creative hand. This view is consistent with all current experiments, although not popular among scientists who wish to explain things without invoking God, and it also explains "irreducibly complex" biological systems that are discussed in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.

Charn_Tim

02-01-2006, 03:33 PM

Jedi of Narnia~

I hope your quarter is going well at school so far...If you are still reading this thread, I would be very curious to know what you think of all this. I belileve I have accurately defended both the validity of what I believe to be "good science" as well as the harmony between the Bible and science. Do you have any objections to what I have put forth so far? If so, what are they and why? Do you still think that you are an atheist, based on "logic" and "proof" or because you have faith in that worldview and you want to believe it more than anything else? I do not mean to be attacking you with these questions, I am just curious to know what you are thinking about this. If you could respond that would be great, but if not, then that's okay too...

SK21

02-01-2006, 03:59 PM

I've only read through the first few pages, too many messages to read every single one but from what i saw the majority believed god created the world. I don't know if i have a unique perspective but i look at things slightly differently.

Firstly i think the world was created by the big-bang theory so to speak, that the worlds collided and our path was created from the primordial pools of the newly 'created' Earth. I'm not sci-fi nor or anything else but i do think that there were humans so advanced many years ago that ascended/evolved if you will, they could be from another galaxy or from Earth i don;t know.

But i think several of these ascended beings decided you teach/learn from our Ancestors and thus we got the idea of god(s). I do beleive there i something, call it fate, call it luck or call it divine intervention but i think that these 'aliens' have been visiting our earth for a long time and that is where we get the ideas from the Bible and religion.

I'm sorry if this offends some people but this happens to be my theory, i repect all peoples opinions and i look at each logically and from neither a believing or disbelieving view.

Thank you for listening. Hope to hear your replies.

Rohan Princess

02-01-2006, 04:20 PM

The Dancing Lawn

02-01-2006, 04:36 PM

WoW! Really I admire people like u because I couldn't do that Imyself_ id find it to hard!! But my answers are all based on trying 2 be happy 24/7- my friends say that i if any1 cant see the light at the end of the tunnel Im the person 2 listen 2 al their problems- they call me Auntie Justin-LOL! this is the 1 of the only things I could nevr anser though- I have no opinions or theories- i know urs r bible based but wat r theY.?

Charn_Tim

02-01-2006, 05:42 PM

I'm sorry if this offends some people but this happens to be my theory, i repect all peoples opinions and i look at each logically and from neither a believing or disbelieving view.

Thank you for listening. Hope to hear your replies.
First of all, welcome to this discussion and thanks for posting :). No one should ever feel ashamed to share their views, whether it's a majority opinion or not. I look at this as kind of the purpose of a thread like this, to propose views and see if they can stand up to logical criticism-then we can all learn something.

Firstly i think the world was created by the big-bang theory so to speak, that the worlds collided and our path was created from the primordial pools of the newly 'created' Earth. I'm not sci-fi nor or anything else but i do think that there were humans so advanced many years ago that ascended/evolved if you will, they could be from another galaxy or from Earth i don;t know.

But i think several of these ascended beings decided you teach/learn from our Ancestors and thus we got the idea of god(s). I do beleive there i something, call it fate, call it luck or call it divine intervention but i think that these 'aliens' have been visiting our earth for a long time and that is where we get the ideas from the Bible and religion.
Okay, just so we can avoid confusion, the big bang theory actually does not provide any theory of the "creation" of the universe. It provides a description of the evolution of the universe after its "creation" or origin (actually about 10^-43 seconds after time began). As Brian Greene says, the big bang theory does not actually give us any information about "what banged, how it banged, or why it banged." Furthermore, I personally think these questions are closed to science anyway. According to the big bang theory, something which acts outside of space and time is still required to bring the universe into existence, because along with all the rest of the matter and energy in the universe, at the universe's inception, space and time were also "created." So just to make it abundantly clear, the big bang theory does not actually rule out the existence of a creator at all; in fact, I would argue that the big bang theory supports the notion that a divine creative influence is necessary to bring the universe into existence. Hence, I believe that the big bang theory supports theism.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "the worlds collided and our path was created from the primordial pools of the newly 'created' Earth." Could you please explain this statement? I haven't heard of this anywhere...

Also, if you invoke the idea that aliens are responsible for our morality, religion, etc. you still have to explain how they got there, how their technology developed so quickly and how they were able to get to the earth and leave so quickly without going faster than the speed of light. Do you have any more of a developed theory on alien life and how it arose and communicated to earth?

What's more, it sounds like you believe in naturalism or materialism of some kind, trying to explain natural phenomena without invoking a creator. If this is true, you still have the problem of what brought the universe into existence in the first place (as I've said above), among other things.

Charn_Tim

02-01-2006, 05:55 PM

I am a young earth creationist, a Christian! I believe God did not use the big bang, or Evolution in any way. i have always been very interested in defending the Truth or seeking it, and especially interested in The Creation v. Evolution debate. I always love talking about this thing. I would love to answer questions, but i'm not real, real smart so bear with me. Lastly, I ultimatly base all my answers on the Bible.
I think that's excellent that you base your beliefs on the Bible, because I am a Christian too. However, as I have been arguing in this thread, the Bible and the big bang theory (as well as many other aspects of "evolution" that we've heard of) does not conflict with the Bible. I have given many reasons all along why I believe that modern science and the Bible do not conflict and my basic reasons for why I think Genesis 1 should not be interpreted as a 144 consecutive hour creation week are mostly (compactly as possible) given in my post #238 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1621&page=24&pp=10). I encourage you to check them out. I personally don't believe that the idea that the universe was created in 144 consecutive hours around 10 000 years ago is supported by Genesis 1, as I have argued in this thread.

I also have argued that the theory of evolution by natural selection cannot account for the diversity or existence of life, and as of yet, no evolutionist on this thread (or anywhere else that I have heard) has given any evidence that I am wrong. Individuals who believe that natural selection is responsible for the diversity and existence of life, in my opinion, are basing this on faith (and their insistence on not invoking a "God" to explain natural phenomenon) not the record of nature.

Finally, I know its hard to be a non-scientist and have these things all figured out on your own, so if you don't understand what I am saying because you simply don't know enough about science yet, then that's okay, and I would just encourage you to be open minded about science and not think that it has been shown to be conflicting with the Bible :).

inkspot

02-01-2006, 06:04 PM

Star Trek Next Generation implied that some advanced people went around and "seeded" various world with the components for rational human beings, each adapted to its world, eons ago. Is this what you mean, SK21? And that these advanced aliens then checked in on the people they had started growing, and they were misunderstood to be gods? Oh, also The Original Star Trek had an episode featuring a powerful alien who had once been worshipped as Apollo on earth, and how sad it was when no one wanted to worship him any more. Maybe this is the kind of thing you had in mind, SK21?

Why do you feel it is any less far-fetched to believe in that, than to believe in God? I am just curious. There was a popular book a few decades ago, "Chariots of the Gods" that espoused the same theory, that advanced aliens were really the ones people originally mistook for gods. That being the case, I wonder why they don't come back and show themselves -- why'd they show themselves to simple people who would mistake them for gods, but not show themselves to more advanced people who would be glad to interact with people from another world?

Rohan Princess

02-01-2006, 11:03 PM

Ohhhhhhhhh..........I wrote everything out and then lost it ooooooo........... Chran_Tim, bear with as I will write it out again!!!!!!! Forgive me if I sound annoyed (I am with my computer)

Thank you for your welcome Charn_Tim. I take the Bible literally as being created in 6/24 hr. days, and from that I will not be detered. As I said I don't believe God used THe Big Bang as He is all poweful He doesn't have to use such outlets. If you cannot trust the Bible from the very begining in Genesis why bother with the rest?
I will try to understand what you are saying...lol but I have been studying up and i get it for the most part. I will try to keep my mind open, but as the Bible says we must not be blown about.

In responce to post#238:
*The Hebrew word "yom" is always a 24 hr. period when used with evening, morning, and a number
*If there is light in the day and darkness at night...I'm missing the "age" part
* If "morning and evening" mean "begining and end" the begining or end of what other than a day?

Other stuff:
Why do you (not personally) not doubt other "days" of the Bible such as Jonah and the big fish, was he in there three days or not?
And if we are talking fossil evidence than we should talk about Noah's Flood.

And final question: If you (again not personally, but long age Christians in general) are both Christian than why would you want to fit millions (or thousends) of years into the Bible anyway, by this what are you trying to accomplish?

Thank you for buliding a site based on scientific evidence.

inkspot

02-01-2006, 11:09 PM

I don't think Tim means God needed the Big Bang as a crutch or tool in creating the universe ... but that the Big Bang could be an apt description of the moment of Creation. God's creative touch was so powerful -- it was a big bang!

Rohan Princess

02-01-2006, 11:46 PM

I didn't mean it that way, sorry that's the way it came across. i just wondered about the years or "ages" i don't doubt there was a big bang, i was talking about the evolutionary interpretaion of the big bang.

Charn_Tim

02-02-2006, 01:13 AM

Ohhhhhhhhh..........I wrote everything out and then lost it ooooooo........... Chran_Tim, bear with as I will write it out again!!!!!!! Forgive me if I sound annoyed (I am with my computer)
haha, I hate when that happens. Sorry about that! :)

Thank you for your welcome Charn_Tim. I take the Bible literally as being created in 6/24 hr. days, and from that I will not be detered. As I said I don't believe God used THe Big Bang as He is all poweful He doesn't have to use such outlets.
Right, as inkspot said, He doesn't need anything, but plain and simply, it has been revealed in general revelation (nature) that the universe is around 14 billion years old and that the Earth is something like 4.5 billion years old. Is God lying to us by saying one thing in nature and another in scripture? I think not. I believe that starting with Archbishop Usser who in the 1600's (who believe it or not, pinpointed an exact time of day at an exact date in history) came up with the timeline of the universe understanding "yom" in this context to be interpreted as "24 hours" there have been many Christians (myself included when I was younger) who have misinterpreted that text. So, we need to be really careful when we try to understand the Bible from a scientific perspective and not read into the text what isn't there.

If you cannot trust the Bible from the very begining in Genesis why bother with the rest?

We are in perfect agreement on this point...If we cannot trust what the Bible says, then why should we trust any of it. Of course I'm not proposing that we reject Genesis 1 and be embarrassed by it because it is scientifically inaccurate, I'm arguing that we have misinterpreted it if we think that yom = 24 hours in the context of Genesis 1. Hence my post #238 where I argued (cogently, I believe) using reasoning from within the text itself as to why yom should be interpreted as a long period of time. I was showing that you get logical inconsistencies when you interpret yom as 24 hours and that you don't get inconsistencies when you interpret yom as a long period of time. Notice in these reasons, I did not once appeal to science but only the text itself for these logical inconsistencies if yom is to be interpreted as 24 hours.

In responce to post#238:
*The Hebrew word "yom" is always a 24 hr. period when used with evening, morning, and a number
*If there is light in the day and darkness at night...I'm missing the "age" part
* If "morning and evening" mean "begining and end" the begining or end of what other than a day?
I'm actually not familiar with any other uses of yom and "evening and morning" together. They are probably there, but I just can't think of any right now. Can you provide me with some of these verses?
I actually do not understand the point you are trying to make here. What do you mean "If there is light in the day and darkness at night"? Are you referring to Genesis 1:3, the first creation day? Because "days" (yom) prior to creation "day" 4 have all been completed before an earth day had been defined yet, which supports my interpretation.
It would mean beginning and ending of the epoch that God created. For example, Genesis 1:3-5 (the first creation day) would be something like the time from the creation event (around 14 or so billion years ago) all the way up to around 4.5 billion years ago, when the Earth was formed. Of course, once again, it is dangerous to try to read into the text what isn't there and it's not supposed to be a scientific text (in the modern, post-enlightenment sense) although it does speak truthfully regarding science.

To furthere elucidate this point, we should ask whether the purpose of Genesis 1 is to give a scientific account of cosmology. As I have stated previously in this thread, the purpose of this creation account was to communicate to as many people-ancients through moderns-as possible. Therefore, the creation events necessarily are described in the simplest possible form. I find it absolutely miraculous, as a scientist myself, that if you go back and look at the order of creation events, the author of Genesis 1 got every event in exactly the right order from the point of view of an observer on the surface of the earth-see Genesis 1:2 for why it is with respect to an observer on the surface of the earth.

One point that I noticed you did not address is why there is no phrase, "and there was evening and morning" at the end of day 7. I don't think there is any way around this one exept that we are still in "day" 7, in God's "rest" from the creation of new species. Of course, this fact is supported by science, as there has not been a single new recorded species appearing in the record of nature after mankind had been introduced onto the scene.

Other stuff:
Why do you (not personally) not doubt other "days" of the Bible such as Jonah and the big fish, was he in there three days or not?
And if we are talking fossil evidence than we should talk about Noah's Flood.

And final question: If you (again not personally, but long age Christians in general) are both Christian than why would you want to fit millions (or thousends) of years into the Bible anyway, by this what are you trying to accomplish?
Well, first of all, there are several other passages off the top of my head that I can think of that use "day" to mean a period of time different from 24 hours. For example, the famous example of 2 Peter 3:8: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day" and actually most of 2 Peter 3 talks about the "Day of the Lord" where it would be difficult to pack in all that Peter says will happen into one 24 hour time period. Another example from the old testament is in Joel chapters 1 and 2, in speaking of "The Day of the Lord" where it is clear that the time period referred to is going to be longer than 24 hours. There are several others that I've come across (probably in the minor prophets especially) but I think that hopefully this is sufficient to show that there are certainly many other places where "yom" or "day" means longer than 24 hours.

Secondly, talking about fossil evidence is one piece of evidence that scientists have for the age of the earth, and it is by far the weakest support for an old earth/universe. So naturally, I believe that well-meaning "young-earth creationists" have attacked that aspect of scientific data to try to show that we are far from certain that the universe/earth is billions of years old. I have never heard of any theory that has explained the astrophysical data coupled with General Relativity that allows us to determine the distances of these deep sky objects that are millions and in some cases, billions of light years away without making God out to be a liar who tricks his creation. The astrophysical evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and if you'd like, I will try to manage to give you some sense of this data in terms that one without a scientific background can understand.