Deceiving the Nations.

[Assyrian]

And that falsehood is that God didn’t really say He created everything in six days. This kind of reminds me of that famous line of Scripture that started all of this. “Did God really say?”

Interesting you should quote the snake there.

Tell me. Did God really say the seed of the woman would crush the snakes head? I don't remember reading that in the Gospels.

Do you believe God fulfilled his promise or was it a lie.

Or is it just possible that God says things that aren't mean literally, like having arms and hands, being refreshed after having a rest, or creating the world in six days.

Quite the twist we have here. God speaks truth in creation (hint, hint science), to believe falsities about creation (hint, hint God’s Word) is not believing what God (hint, hint science) said.

Is it possible that you really cannot understand the concept that no TE ever claims God's truth in scripture and in creation can contradict one another.

Do you simply not understand the idea, or do you just like suggesting (hint hint) that they do, because it sounds good?

On the contrary, that would be to buy into scientism. I have never held that science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge.

You may not come out and say it, but it sure looks like you do.

That may be because any understanding you had of the way God can work through natural process has been sold to the Atheists. Do you like lentil soup?

I don’t ever see another ‘science’ being continually pummeled by the unaware or ill informed.

I am not sure what you mean by pummelled. But the moon landings are probably a good example. Geocentrism and astrology are still going strong too.

Nope. They cannot conflict since both are expressions of God's truth.

No truth is supreme over another. Every truth is consistent with every other truth.

Which is consistent with Tom’s truth which is consistent with Jane’s truth which ultimately is consistent with God’s truth. And the circle is complete. Ahhh…I feel much better now.

The concept of all truth being relative is the opposite of what Glaudys is saying. But you knew that didn't you?

 

[vossler]

But for TEs, God is not a bystander to natural events and processes. That is a YEC claim.

Atheists claim natural events and processes put everything into its present form, TEs do too. Atheists and TEs base this on the evolutionary theory because the ‘scientific’ evidence leads them both there. I really don’t see how this is a YEC claim, but just a simple reading of the facts.

We do, however, have a physical reality that indicates the days of Genesis 1 could not have been chronological days. So that particular interpretation is out of sync with God's creation.

What’s out of sync is our trust and faith in God and what He said.

I think you underestimate the common man. I don't understand most of the technical terms my mechanic uses, but that is because I have not studied mechanics. I don't expect I would have trouble understanding the lingo if I took time to learn it. Most people are not so stupid they can't learn and understand scientific terminology. It is just not something they have the time and/or interest in studying.

Of course with enough time and study most of us can learn everything of which you speak. My comment was driven from the point of view that common man shouldn’t need to invest so much time and effort trying to understand something that doesn’t even make sense or have any value to him.

Similarly, most people outside of Christianity don't understand a lot of the terminology that Christians take for granted. That doesn't mean they can't understand it. It means they have to be taught it.

They can understand everything they need to know without much education, the rest will become discernable once they become Christians.

But what if you have 2 or 60 or 300 people with rather active imaginations each promoting their own description of events? Who do the lemmings decide to follow then? And what criteria can they use to be sure they have chosen rightly?

That’s why such a man doesn’t come along very often. There was Darwin in science and since then we’ve had guys like Hitler and Stalin who changed the world in the political realm.

Science solves the problem by reference to physical evidence, carefully observed under strict methodological criteria.

I agree!

Religion has not solved the problem, hence the many different faiths and unresolved interpretive issues.

It was resolved 2000 years ago, the problem is that people haven’t accepted the solution.

It is the nature of this particular topic. As I said, I respect science within its domain, and that is often what is under attack here.

No the domain of Scripture is under attack here.

I don't know about you, but I am not interested in developing a belief strong enough to doubt the truth of truth.

Doubt the truth of truth, what is that?

Does that indicate agreement or disagreement. If disagreement, I would be interested in what you disagree with.

The whole statement is, at best, ambiguous and not something that can be applied. Hermeneutics are a clearly defined process, what you stated basically tells me nothing.

I am sure you would if religious leaders chose another target.

The target exists because it directly contradicts the Word of God.

How is it that even in the case of others, you have problems separating interpretations from the reality they interpret? Tom's "truth" and Jane's "truth" can only be approximations of God's truth. That is why they need to be checked against reality.

Which is God’s truth, His Word.

It may be the background in teaching. I am accustomed to breaking down complex issues in order to facilitate better understanding. Most scientists are not trained teachers. They often assume a level of knowledge that is not present.

You did a good job of explaining it.

They are all related. And usually the context will tell which is meant. But in a short sentence like "Evolution has never been observed." there is not enough context to determine what the speaker means. Most scientists automatically think in terms of observed phenomena like mutations, natural selection and speciation, and react "Of course evolution has been observed." But most people who make the negative statement are not really referring to the process of evolution at all, but to universal common ancestry.

Still, if something is complex and has many different components then everyone is best served by developing terminology that better describes what’s going on. An example that comes to mind. Cars are driven by engines, a rotary, diesel, and electric each use a completely different means of developing power. If I used the term engine to describe each one that would be accurate but wouldn’t tell me much about what was under the hood.

Want to prove me wrong? Provide a scientific description of the process of adaptation without describing the process of evolution.

No I don’t, I have little desire and ability to argue or discuss scientific theory or processes. I really just want people to do a better job presenting their science so that guys like me can understand it without an expert to describe it for me.

Oh, they have. How do you think I learned it? I am not a scientist. It just takes some willingness to devote a little time to researching the popular literature. I have learned what I have just as a hobby, so it is not particularly difficult.

You say that as if it isn’t much to do. I’ve been around here (CF) for a couple of years now and I can tell you it would take years of study just to speak intelligently. I’ve got other more important things I’d rather do with that time. Besides, most if not all the material is produced from secular organizations that don’t hold the Word of God as a baseline or foundation to their thinking.

 

[theFijian]

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Let's see what reality actually tells us. If God were not on the sidelines, as you claim, then atheists and TEs couldn't be in bed together. There would be constant disagreements between the two, instead there is harmony, enough so that they together attack the creationists.

It all comes down to who's sleeping with who.

What a joke! It's the Creationists and Atheists who say that evolution is not compatible with the Bible! As was pointed out earlier here, your position is practically identical with Atheists. You are quite right, it is down to who is sleeping with who, when are you going to kick the Atheists out of bed?

Oh and as was pointed out earlier (again) when were you going to admit that you do emply 'worldly' theories in interpreting the bible?

 

[Assyrian]

That’s why such a man doesn’t come along very often. There was Darwin in science and since then we’ve had guys like Hitler and Stalin who changed the world in the political realm.

Ooh Ooh this looks fun can I play?

There was Hitler and Stalin who changed the world in the political realm... And we’ve had guys like George McCready Price and Henry Morris who changed Fundamentalism*.

Or should we just claim Godwin's law?

*A contradiction in terms but go figure

 

[vossler]

So science can be used to fulfil our mandate.

I should have been more specific and said Science can be used as a tool to help fill the earth and subdue it.

I was watching a program about the Panama canal a few days ago. That particular bit of earth took some subduing, and they would not have been able to do it without a scientific understanding of Yellow Fever and the mossies that spread it. Not only can science be used to fulfil the mandate, in many cases we will not fulfil our mandate without it.

The thing is we humans haven’t had much difficultly with filling and subduing, but we’re not near as good at going out and preaching the gospel to the outer part of the earth.

But if a theory like heliocentrism was right to challenge the universally held bible interpretation of the day, why is it wrong for geology and biology to show the deficiencies in six day creationism?

First of all heliocentrism isn’t a foundational or historical issue, but then again you already knew that. It also doesn’t contradict the Bible and you knew that too!

Clearly you must be because you believe our 4.5 billion year old planet was made in six days 6000 years ago.

I love how man can speak with such authority when his own history is but only a few thousand years old, yet he can clearly and emphatically state the earth to be 4,500,000,000 years old.

But clever people can easily misunderstand when God is speaking figuratively. Just ask Nicodemus. A lot of the bible's figurative language is just plain weird if we take it literally. Seven headed monsters? Talking trees? Crawl back into our mother's womb? Six day creation?

Don’t forget resurrections from the dead, virgin birth, God incarnate, etc, etc.

We don't say God is on the sideline.

You don’t have too, it’s spelled out in your theology.

You however agree with atheist that if natural processes are involved it excludes God. That is very bad theology and an utter surrender to atheist propaganda.

I’ve never said that, again another wishful thought. Please stick to what I do say, like I told shernren, there’s plenty to pick from.

You think this it a good argument to use against TEs, but you end up handing natural world with all its natural processes over to the atheists.

I’ve never stated or implied anything even remotely like that. I believe everything is under God’s direct control, He is like a conductor of a symphony that guides and directs all the forces of creation. Like I’ve said before, God is the quarterback and He’s definitely in the game.

Of course 'real' sciences as the ones you agree with, that don't contradict your bible interpretation. Is there a science that isn't based on speculation and conjecture, the rigorous testing of these conjectures and continuously looking looking for a better hypothesis to explain all the evidence? Copernicus and Galileo relied heavily on speculation and conjecture as have every science since.

Real sciences are those based upon observation and empirical tests that can be shown authentic. I don’t have a problem with speculation and conjecture as long as it is identified as such and not truth. Copernicus and Galileo were able to do that, why can’t evolutionists?

Augustine was the most influential bible scholar for over a thousand years and he took the days figuratively because he saw a literal interpretation as self contradictory. After Augustine the theologian with the greatest influence was Aquinas, who went with Augustine on this.

I don’t know if Augustine is your best advocate. Augustine wrote The City of God, within it he writes, "the Scripture . . . has paramount authority . . . to which we yield assent in all matters . . . That God made the world, we can believe from no one more safely than God Himself." Regarding the age of the earth, he wrote in The City of God, "Reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have past."

Moses didn't take God's days literally. That is not hard to grasp either.

That’s funny he sure wrote it like he did and countless millions believed him too.

You know how God works?

Yeah just check out His Word, it’s a good read, He tells us quite a bit about how He works.

Interesting you should quote the snake there.

Yes indeed, it is interesting. He’s still up to the same old game and we’re still buying it.

Tell me. Did God really say the seed of the woman would crush the snakes head? I don't remember reading that in the Gospels.

No God didn’t really say.

Do you believe God fulfilled his promise or was it a lie.

Since you don’t remember reading it then it hasn’t happened right? Isn’t that what you believe? I don’t!

Or is it just possible that God says things that aren't mean literally, like having arms and hands, being refreshed after having a rest, or creating the world in six days.

God says a lot of things figuratively, their not hard to figure out either, that is if we’re willing to get our pride out of the way first.

Is it possible that you really cannot understand the concept that no TE ever claims God's truth in scripture and in creation can contradict one another.

Do you simply not understand the idea, or do you just like suggesting (hint hint) that they do, because it sounds good?

Our understanding is developed by what we see manifested in actions and not so much in words. Lots of people claim to believe in God and call themselves Christians, that doesn’t make it true. The same for any of us who make claims. What’s true is what we produce, is it good fruit or bad fruit?

I am not sure what you mean by pummelled. But the moon landings are probably a good example. Geocentrism and astrology are still going strong too.

First of all, none of issues you brought up are going strong. Oh there will always be a fringe element out there challenging anything and everything. They obviously carry no weight and no one takes them seriously.

The concept of all truth being relative is the opposite of what Glaudys is saying. But you knew that didn't you?

No but I can see you did. Thanks!

 

[vossler]

What a joke! It's the Creationists and Atheists who say that evolution is not compatible with the Bible! As was pointed out earlier here, your position is practically identical with Atheists. You are quite right, it is down to who is sleeping with who, when are you going to kick the Atheists out of bed?

If you asked any non-partial observer who's sleeping with whom, a large majority, if not all, would see the truth quite prominently displayed over in C&E. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it so. You can claim not to believe in trucks, but by stepping out in front of a moving truck you'll soon realize differently.

Oh and as was pointed out earlier (again) when were you going to admit that you do emply 'worldly' theories in interpreting the bible?

So language, culture, history and geography are worldly theories? Maybe to you they are, to me they're rooted in God who is the ultimate source of all Truth. So they're Godly theories that man has recognized and used for himself.

 

[Melethiel]

You don’t have too, it’s spelled out in your theology.

Who's and what theology would that be? There is no uniquely TE theology. I won't speak for the others, but my own theology is conservative Lutheran, which holds that God often works through physical means (incarnating as a man, bread and wine into a Sacrament, etc). How does acknowledging that God works through physical means putting God on the sidelines? Furthermore, your claim about "atheist bedfellows" holds no water. Just because we agree with atheists on what the natural forces ARE does not mean we agree with them on what is the ultimate cause (which science does not speak to, at any rate). You do the exact same thing when you agree with atheists that gravity makes the earth circle the sun.

 

[Deamiter]

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Let's see what reality actually tells us. If God were not on the sidelines, as you claim, then atheists and TEs couldn't be in bed together. There would be constant disagreements between the two, instead there is harmony, enough so that they together attack the creationists.

It all comes down to who's sleeping with who.

Oh come on, nature is observable and our observations are repeatable right? God it not observable.

So in C&E, evolutionists of all types explain what we have found in nature and what conclusions we can come to based on these repeated and repeatable observations. Creationists largely refuse to even look at the observations or the conclusions preferring to stick to their own interpretation of scripture.

Now where did the laws come from? Atheists and Christian evolutionists definitely disagree here because Christians who accept evolution believe God created and sustains the natural laws whereas atheists come to a variety of tentative hypotheses.

Atheists and Christians who accept evolution agree on the observable nature of creation (i.e. the realm of science). Atheists and Christians who reject evolution agree on their interpretation of scripture.

It's interesting how you've departed from traditional figurative interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis to insist on the same interpretation as the atheists whereas Christians who study science largely only agree with atheists on the observable and repeatable nature of creation, not on matters of theology.

So yeah, I have no problem "being in bed" with an atheist on the nature of gravity or geology or evolution. It'd be quite a bit more disturbing to me if I agreed with the atheist position on the interpretation of the Bible which they used to show fault in Christianity based on creation that is observable by all.

 

[busterdog]

Why do you think the surface text is not worth debating? You want to throw out a few hundred years of scientific research on the basis of the surface text.

Shouldn't we examine it first? Shouldn't we see if it actually is the surface text we should be reading? Or if we should actually be reading the figurative meaning, the way the rest of scripture interprets the snake and Moses himself interprets the days? Why should we accept a literal interpretation of days when the person who gave us the text, Moses, didn't?

If the surface text is worth debating, then it is evidence. Then we should worry that science is enough, even though we may be presuaded in the end that it is correct. If I have done nothing else, I have urged that the surface text is evidence of reasonable doubt that things like evolution and regional-only flooding are correct.

Personally, I do accept the surface text and I am less concerned about the evidence. (the more organized and collegial the discussion, the easier it is to assimilate contrary evidence). But, I am just asking TEs to admit the possibility that the surface text is some valid evidence that YEC is true, not toss all the contrary evidence in science (but you are welcome to do so).

I understand the idea of messing around with the suface text and wondering whether we can make other meanings work. But, the surface text pretty much is what it is and it is at least quite difficult to get around it without just rejecting it.

 

[vossler]

Who's and what theology would that be? There is no uniquely TE theology.

The uniquely TE theology is to maximize science at the expense of the truth of Scripture.

How does acknowledging that God works through physical means putting God on the sidelines?

When those physical means are called natural means which are attributed to His ultimate creation, man.

Furthermore, your claim about "atheist bedfellows" holds no water. Just because we agree with atheists on what the natural forces ARE does not mean we agree with them on what is the ultimate cause (which science does not speak to, at any rate). You do the exact same thing when you agree with atheists that gravity makes the earth circle the sun.

No you agree with atheists, not God, on how man was created.

 

[vossler]

Oh come on, nature is observable and our observations are repeatable right? God it not observable.

The creation of species isn't observable either, yet both atheists and TEs believe it.

Now where did the laws come from? Atheists and Christian evolutionists definitely disagree here because Christians who accept evolution believe God created and sustains the natural laws whereas atheists come to a variety of tentative hypotheses.

But if you've ever noticed, as important as that distinction should be, it is rarely emphasized in C & E.

Atheists and Christians who accept evolution agree on the observable nature of creation (i.e. the realm of science). Atheists and Christians who reject evolution agree on their interpretation of scripture.

I'm sure there are atheists, however few, who don't accept evolution but their numbers are very small.

It's interesting how you've departed from traditional figurative interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis to insist on the same interpretation as the atheists whereas Christians who study science largely only agree with atheists on the observable and repeatable nature of creation, not on matters of theology.

My intereptations or view of Scripture always glorifies God first, never man. The atheist and TE interpretation of evolution doesn't.

It'd be quite a bit more disturbing to me if I agreed with the atheist position on the interpretation of the Bible which they used to show fault in Christianity based on creation that is observable by all.

The Bible says man was created in the image of God. Atheists and TEs say he evolved into the being he is today. YECs stand up for what God said, TEs stand with atheists on what science says.

 

[Deamiter]

The creation of species isn't observable either, yet both atheists and TEs believe it.
But if you've ever noticed, as important as that distinction should be, it is rarely emphasized in C & E.
I'm sure there are atheists, however few, who don't accept evolution but their numbers are very small.
My intereptations or view of Scripture always glorifies God first, never man. The atheist and TE interpretation of evolution doesn't.
The Bible says man was created in the image of God. Atheists and TEs say he evolved into the being he is today. YECs stand up for what God said, TEs stand with atheists on what science says.

Good heavens, you have so much to say about what TEs believe, but I've never seen a TE say any of these things, nor do I (as a TE) believe them myself!

Theistic evolutionists always glorify God before man in interpretation of scripture. We also stand up for what God said. We don't, however, try to fit God into a neat little box saying, "if God used natural processes in some part of man's creation, God messed up and is no longer deserving of as much glory." We try to study creation to learn how God works, not decide how God works based on a fringe interpretation of scripture and then ignore the revelation of creation!

As Christians were the first to propose and accept both the current estimates of the age of the Earth and evolutionary theory, it also might be more accurate to say that atheists stand with Christians on many issues of science.

Also, speciation has been observed -- if you'd like to redefine the term "species" you can go ahead, but by the definition used in scientific circles, new species are observed routinely. To be fully consistant, you might just say, "new kinds have never been observed" which is much more appropriate since you can't list or define kinds and thus don't have to worry about the assertion being challenged.

 

[vossler]

Good heavens, you have so much to say about what TEs believe, but I've never seen a TE say any of these things, nor do I (as a TE) believe them myself!

I apologize if I’ve ever said you believe one thing or another, that is not my intent. I really don't know what you truly believe. I’m just commenting on what I’ve heard or observed you and other TEs say or demonstrate that leads to be believe what I say.

Theistic evolutionists always glorify God before man in interpretation of scripture. We also stand up for what God said.

It just isn’t very evident.

We try to study creation to learn how God works, not decide how God works based on a fringe interpretation of scripture and then ignore the revelation of creation!

How about studying what God said and then learning how He worked?

 

[shernren]

But if you've ever noticed, as important as that distinction should be, it is rarely emphasized in C & E.

Have you been down at Comedy and Entertainment recently?? I think you'd rather sleep with the atheists than put yourself on the side of Gottservant and FoeHammer, right?

Those quotes sound exactly like they come from an atheist or non-believer because their faith or trust is in science and they therefore will pit science against the Bible. Nothing new here, it is all very logical to me.

You have got to be kidding me. Let's start with the first one. I'm not playing word games, I'm genuinely trying to figure out what you believe. The statement is:

"The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information."

Don't you agree with that? Doesn't the Bible, to you, indeed go into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information of creation?

 

[vossler]

Have you been down at Comedy and Entertainment recently?? I think you'd rather sleep with the atheists than put yourself on the side of Gottservant and FoeHammer, right?

I'm glad I could amuse you. That's not something I'm usually known for.

You have got to be kidding me. Let's start with the first one. I'm not playing word games, I'm genuinely trying to figure out what you believe. The statement is:

"The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information."

Don't you agree with that? Doesn't the Bible, to you, indeed go into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information of creation?

Yes it does but that's not a statement I would make because I wouldn't use those terms. Besides, statements like that on their own are very incomplete and don't give the entire picture of what was said before and after. Those words give a complete picture of what was said and whether one totally agrees with the statement in question.

 

[theFijian]

If you asked any non-partial observer who's sleeping with whom, a large majority, if not all, would see the truth quite prominently displayed over in C&E. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it so. You can claim not to believe in trucks, but by stepping out in front of a moving truck you'll soon realize differently.

No no, the case is simply that atheists and TEs agree that science is simply a tool which reveals to us the nature of the natural world. More importantly, the same position is held by atheists and creationists concerning the relationship of science and religion Both believe that modern science and belief in God are incompatible. You have more in common with atheists on this count than I do. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not so!

So language, culture, history and geography are worldly theories?

Can you give evidence of their divine inspiration? No, you can not. They are not part of the canon of scripture and are therefore 'worldly'.

Maybe to you they are, to me they're rooted in God who is the ultimate source of all Truth. So they're Godly theories that man has recognized and used for himself.

lol! Grasping at straws now I see. By the very same basis science has a plethora of Godly theories that man has recognised and used for himself. Including Evolution. The more you deny the creative nature of God the more you are slipping away from understanding the true nature and charater of God.

 

[shernren]

I'm glad I could amuse you. That's not something I'm usually known for.

Seriously though. C&E is more comedy and entertainment than creation and evolution now. If I'd have to choose between atheists and Gottservant, what do you think the right choice would be?

Yes it does but that's not a statement I would make because I wouldn't use those terms. Besides, statements like that on their own are very incomplete and don't give the entire picture of what was said before and after. Those words give a complete picture of what was said and whether one totally agrees with the statement in question.

Really? Let's look at the entire picture of what was said before and after:

The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spacial information. And that information happens to be in stark contrast to what science shows us by studying the very reality God is claimed to have created.

The first life on the planet, according to the Bible, were the plants, (Genesis 1:11). What do we know about growing plants? We know they need water which the Bible says covered the planet upon its creation. We know they need light and that they need warmth. It's these last two things that are problematic because the Bible has plants growing on Earth before it has God creating the sun, moon and stars.

Without heat, the Earth would be the temperature of space. For anyone not familiar, the mean temperature of space is just slightly above absolute zero at about -454°F. And without the sun, we'd certainly not have enough light on the Earth to grow plants because plants require light for the process of photosynthesis from which they attain their food.

Next we can look to Genesis 1:14-15 to find the spacial information concerning the location of the sun, moon and stars. The KJV very plainly states that these were created "in" the firmament. And by looking at Genesis 1:6-7, we can see that the "firmament" is either a solid barrier, which is consistent with one translation of the original Hebrew, or the atmosphere which is consistent with another translation of the original Hebrew. Since we know there is no solid barrier above the Earth, most Christian sites and organizations agree that the "firmament" is the atmosphere. If we look to ancient etchings based on readings of the original Hebrew by those to whom Hebrew as the native language, we find exactly what the original Hebrew text as well as the English KJV claim -- the sun, moon and stars residing along with the clouds within the Earth's atmosphere.

As for the water, it was said to exist upon the formation of the Earth and the atmosphere to be created later. This too is backward. You can't capture or retain liquid water, (though we know the water couldn't have been liquid, Genesis claims that it was [Genesis 1:9]), without an atmosphere to act as a capture and retainment device.

To itemize beastt's ideas:

1. The Bible goes into a fair bit of detail about the order and spatial information about creation.
2. Science contradicts those - so the Bible is wrong.
3. According to the Bible, plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars.
4. Science contradicts that - so the Bible is wrong.
5. According to the Bible, the sun, moon, and stars were created in the firmament.
6. According to the Bible, this firmament is either the atmosphere, or a solid dome over our heads.
7. Either way, science contradicts that - so the Bible is wrong.
8. According to the Bible, water was created before the Earth and the atmosphere.
9. Science contradicts that - so the Bible is wrong.

The italicized statements are about science; the non-italicized statements show how beastt interprets Scripture. Vossler, wouldn't you agree with each of statements 1, 3, 5, and 8? In fact, statement 3 is used by young-earth creationists to prove that the days of Genesis 1 can't have been long ages, and statement 8 is used by them to prove that conventional geological theories must be wrong somehow. We could even rewrite some of the statements to show the YE position in comparison:

3. According to the Bible, plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars.
4b. Science contradicts that - so science is wrong.
8. According to the Bible, water was created before the Earth and the atmosphere.
9b. Science contradicts that - so science is wrong.

As for statement 6, this is my favorite example of how science is used to interpret Scripture, and while you wouldn't have agreed with beastt, any Christian thinking about Genesis before the discovery of outer space would have.

I think it's fairly obvious, vossler, that in this instance at least you would be very much in agreement with beastt about how to interpret Scripture. I would be surprised if you didn't believe that plants were created before the sun and moon and that water was created before Earth and the atmosphere. It's also fairly obvious that the YE establishment would agree with beastt that Scripture and science are in conflict - the only difference is that they take different sides.

TEs refuse to consider that there is any conflict at all. YEs and atheists agree that Genesis ought to be literally interpreted and that its literal interpretation conflicts with conventional science - TEs agree on neither of these things. And you think we're in bed with the enemy?

 

[vossler]

Seriously though. C&E is more comedy and entertainment than creation and evolution now.

It's never funny to me when God's children are laughing with an atheist at the expense of a brother and I don't think it would be to Jesus either.

If I'd have to choose between atheists and Gottservant, what do you think the right choice would be?

I would hope we both would come up with the same answer.

The italicized statements are about science; the non-italicized statements show how beastt interprets Scripture.

Just to be clear, the Bible doesn’t require much of a hermeneutical analysis for these findings. Anyone, whether atheist or not would do likewise. That’s the beauty of Genesis 1, it is very easy to read and understand.

Vossler, wouldn't you agree with each of statements 1, 3, 5, and 8?

Yes I would.

I think it's fairly obvious, vossler, that in this instance at least you would be very much in agreement with beastt about how to interpret Scripture.

I would say he’s in agreement with me as to what the Bible says.

I would be surprised if you didn't believe that plants were created before the sun and moon and that water was created before Earth and the atmosphere. It's also fairly obvious that the YE establishment would agree with beastt that Scripture and science are in conflict - the only difference is that they take different sides.

I would says that the conflict between the Bible and science primarily exists in the mind of the evolutionary scientist and his present measuring abilities. This is too be expected because evolutionists take the particulars of our world and try to find the universal truths from it instead of the other way around. God gave us the universal overarching truth and all we’re required to do is apply it to the particulars.

TEs refuse to consider that there is any conflict at all.

Yeah they basically pretend it doesn’t exist. How else can you explain six days away without looking foolish?

YEs and atheists agree that Genesis ought to be literally interpreted and that its literal interpretation conflicts with conventional science - TEs agree on neither of these things. And you think we're in bed with the enemy?

Let’s paint this picture more accurately. Atheists agree with YECs because it helps them with their mission of making the Bible look foolish. If the Bible looks foolish then so does God. Then by embracing the TEs who have unknowingly jumped into their bed they can gain some legitimacy in public circles and appear to look smarter than everyone, all the while not agreeing with anything fundamentally important to the TE. Oh yeah, I think Satan has hoodwinked many a folk just like that.

 

[shernren]

It's never funny to me when God's children are laughing with an atheist at the expense of a brother and I don't think it would be to Jesus either.
I would hope we both would come up with the same answer.

And that's why I don't post much in C&E these days now. I'd rather say nothing.

Let’s paint this picture more accurately. Atheists agree with YECs because it helps them with their mission of making the Bible look foolish. If the Bible looks foolish then so does God. Then by embracing the TEs who have unknowingly jumped into their bed they can gain some legitimacy in public circles and appear to look smarter than everyone, all the while not agreeing with anything fundamentally important to the TE. Oh yeah, I think Satan has hoodwinked many a folk just like that.

The atheists are everywhere! Run for cover!

"Atheists agree with YECs because it helps them with their mission of making the Bible look foolish" - really? So if there were no YECs around, beastt would have said something different?

"By embracing the TEs who have unknowingly jumped into their bed" - firstly, TEs have not jumped into their bed. Secondly, atheists have by no means embraced us. Remember that article when Dawkins publicly debated Francis Collins? That's hardly a friendly handshake there, let alone a passionate embrace. Many atheists consider TEs to be the enemy as well, even if not so much the enemy as YECs.

I would say he’s in agreement with me as to what the Bible says.

Now, isn't that amazing? You and beastt agree as to what the Bible says.

I'd like to unpack that statement a bit. Suppose a Christian and an atheist see an apple fall.
They might agree that it is falling at 9.8m/s/s. But anyone who makes a measurement of it, would agree.
They might agree that it has changed potential energy to kinetic energy. But anyone who can measure velocity and initial position would agree.
They might agree that it is falling because of the force of gravity. But anyone who knows Newton's physics would agree.
They might agree that the force of gravity appears to be a conservative force. But anyone who performs the right measurements would agree.
They might agree that this gravity isn't really a force after all, but rather a bent in the geometry of spacetime. But anyone who knows Einstein's theories would agree.
And finally, they might agree that this gravity is really mediated through string theory interactions. Now not everyone would agree - but given the right experimental technique and equipment, eventually everyone will be able to either agree or disagree.

You see how banal this agreement towards physical truths is? That is how reality works. Everybody who sees something, and analyzes it scientifically, comes to the same conclusion, if they are all right. There is no need to be surprised. After all, we do not see something different if we pray before we look into the microscope, and if we see what the atheist sees we should conclude what the atheist concludes on a physical level.

But consider. Two people read Macbeth.
They agree that Shakespeare wrote it; but some others think that Shakespeare may not even have existed, and that it is a pen name or that his works were ghostwritten by someone else.
They might understand it; many people don't, including me!
They might think that the language is beautiful; others feel that he is completely overrated.
They might think there was a real Macbeth, and that the witches performed a real ritual, and that the story happened completely as told; others feel that Macbeth may have existed but the story is exaggerated, and still others that it is complete and compelling fiction.
They might think Macbeth is a tragic hero; others might think he is simply a bloodthirsty coward.
They like Macbeth; any high school literature student won't!

You see how difficult it is to interpret text? Scientists can resolve their disputes through experimentation and observation; literature people have to wrangle out the issues with immense subjectivity. (This is not to say that science is superior or better. Literature is immensely powerful, and I have said before that we have cast away myth for science and lost ourselves in the process; but it has its inalienable characteristics.) It comes as no surprise to TEs that we agree with atheists about our physical reality; we live in the same world after all. But the fact that YECs and militant atheists agree about what Scripture says never fails to astonish me. Nothing could be more subjective than reading text and nothing could be more important than Scripture's meaning, and yet YECs and atheists agree about how to read Scripture and what it should mean!

Scripture is far more important than science to both of us ... you accuse us of being bedfellows with atheists on the grounds that we agree on science, whereas all the while you agree with them on the far more important question of how to read Scripture!

 

[gluadys]

Atheists claim natural events and processes put everything into its present form, TEs do too.

I doubt that TEs agree everything can be explained by natural causes. Atheists may think that everything can be explained naturally, but TEs generally hold that science only deals with the material aspect of reality and that there is more to reality than nature.

Furthermore, against atheists (and YECs) TEs do not agree that nature excludes God. So even within the realm of the physical, where TEs agree that natural processes provide a sufficient scientific explanation, they do not agree with sidelining God as atheists and YECS both apparently do.

That to me, seems a simple reading of the facts.

What’s out of sync is our trust and faith in God and what He said.

Almost everything you say along these lines is a double-edged sword, since it can mean the opposite of what you intend. I expect you intend here that our trust and faith in God should lead to an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis 1. But without knowing the context, it could just as well mean that our trust and faith in God should lead to an acceptance of what he said in his creation, and hence to rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Of course with enough time and study most of us can learn everything of which you speak. My comment was driven from the point of view that common man shouldn’t need to invest so much time and effort trying to understand something that doesn’t even make sense or have any value to him.

You sound like my students asking why they should study literature when they plan to be accountants.

Math never made much sense to me when I was in school. Does that mean I should not have been required to spend some time and effort learning to understand it?

Very often things will not make sense until we study them. Then the value will become apparent.

Does the common man who is not a believer see sense and value in studying scripture, or does he learn the sense and value through taking the time and effort to understand it? Why should we expect God's Word expressed in creation to take any less effort to understand than God's Word in scripture?

They can understand everything they need to know without much education,

The essential basics of evolution are actually quite easy to understand too. They are not beyond the intellect of the average 5th grader. The details and how they support the theory are a matter for later discernment. So it is a matter of choice how deeply one wants to get into it. But at a basic level there is no reason to say it is beyond understanding and doesn't make sense.

That’s why such a man doesn’t come along very often. There was Darwin in science and since then we’ve had guys like Hitler and Stalin who changed the world in the political realm.

Yeah, I think we call Godwin's law on this one. Always a sign of desperation when one needlessly brings Hitler or Stalin into a converstation. As if Churchill or Jefferson or Lincoln did not have just as great an impact in the political realm, or Copernicus and Mendel and Einstein did not have just as much scientific importance.

And it still does not deal with how to resolve different conceptions. When Gamow and Hoyle championed differing explanations of the expanding universe (big bang vs. steady state) how were these conflicting theories resolved in favour of the big bang concept?

When geocentrists and heliocentrists were debating the merits of Copernicus' theory, how were these differing concepts resolved in favour of Copernicus?

No the domain of Scripture is under attack here.

That is not the case here, though it may be in C&E. No one here is attacking the domain of scripture. All they are doing is considering the best means of correctly interpreting and understanding scripture.

Ironically, the atheists who do attack scripture routinely use a literal interpretation of scripture as a weapon of choice.

Doubt the truth of truth, what is that?

You seemed to be suggesting that a strong faith can overcome the need to believe what is true, and to be commending such a faith.

I suggest that what is true is always to be believed and that one ought not even to try to create a faith so strong it can ignore or reject what is true.

The whole statement is, at best, ambiguous and not something that can be applied. Hermeneutics are a clearly defined process, what you stated basically tells me nothing.

I thought it was quite clear. It was a statement of hermeneutical principle rather than of process. It does mean that any hermeneutical process or principle that requires rejecting truth, whether in the bible or extra-biblical, is of no value in interpreting scripture. Truth is truth wherever it is found and no one source of truth, even scripture, can render another source of truth untrue. Similarly, there is no possibility of scientific truth rendering scriptural truth untrue. That is what I mean about every truth being consistent with every other truth.

If we don't grasp the consistency between scriptural truth and scientific truth, that is a human problem we need to work out. It is not a sign that we are permitted to ignore, deny or reject either truth.

The target exists because it directly contradicts the Word of God.

Most Christians don't think so. It is a matter of opinion whether it does or not.

Which is God’s truth, His Word.

Another of those double-edged statements. May I assume that when you refer to God's Word here, you mean only his Word as expressed in scripture and only as interpreted by your preferred literalistic hermeneutic? For someone who does not set these restrictions on their understanding of what "God's Word" is, the statement can have implications you reject, because your assumptions exclude them.

You did a good job of explaining it.

Thanks.

Still, if something is complex and has many different components then everyone is best served by developing terminology that better describes what’s going on.

That is why I suggested using the term "common ancestry" if that is the principal focus of your disagreement with evolution.

An example that comes to mind. Cars are driven by engines, a rotary, diesel, and electric each use a completely different means of developing power. If I used the term engine to describe each one that would be accurate but wouldn’t tell me much about what was under the hood.

Exactly. Yet the term "engine" is also still useful as an umbrella term. Think of "evolution" in the same way. It is a useful umbrella term for the whole concept that includes observed changes in species, the mechanisms that lead to these changes and the inferred changes that have occurred over history.

No I don’t, I have little desire and ability to argue or discuss scientific theory or processes. I really just want people to do a better job presenting their science so that guys like me can understand it without an expert to describe it for me.

I agree, we often need better popular presentations of science for the average person. But at some point those popular presentations still need the input of the expert.

I do want to reiterate though that you cannot separate adaptation from evolution. Evolution is the process that gives us adaptation. You can't have one without the other. I would encourage you to challenge creationist leaders to describe how you would get adaptation without mutation, variation and natural selection. If these are the mechanisms needed to generate adaptation, then they are just describing evolution under another label.

I would also add that not all examples of evolution are adaptive. There is also such a thing as neutral evolution in which the changes in the species have little to do with adapting to environmental pressures. That is one of those little details that make the overall picture more complex.

Besides, most if not all the material is produced from secular organizations that don’t hold the Word of God as a baseline or foundation to their thinking.

However, whether or not they know it or believe it, scientists are investigating creation and creation was made by the Word of God. The reality of creation itself will inevitably shape their view of creation, quite apart from their beliefs about the Creator. For when they try to go against the reality of creation, their science will not hold together, since creation itsef is held together in the Word of God.

So, even secular scientists, if they are doing their science diligently and conscientiously, will not come to different results or conclusions than Christian scientists.

Your paranoia, therefore, is unjustified.