Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Job 33:6]

When it comes to evidence for or against evolution, we will interpret it according to our own presuppositions. There is no such thing as a neutral observer, especially when dealing with prehistory, before the availability of eyewitness testimony.

My presupposition when evaluating the evidence is the inerrancy and internal consistency of the Bible. I accepted evolution until recently because I didn't believe in the inerrancy of scripture until recently.

It's clear that the New Testament regards Adam as the historical father of all humanity. Luke's geology of Jesus traces his lineage all the way back to Adam. If Adam is just a mythological figure, how do we know that Jesus isn't mythological as well?

Perhaps most importantly, Romans 5 says that Jesus died specifically to reverse the consequences of Adam's sin:



If Adam wasn't a historical person by whom sin entered the world, the above passage from Romans 5 would be meaningless.

I don't claim to be able to prove creation. I just believe that one who has faith in the inerrancy of scripture will have the discernment to evaluate the evidence presented for evolution as deficient compared to the doctrine of creation.

Here is Dr. Ben Carson giving reasons to disbelieve evolution, including the complexity of the human brain:

I don't expect the arguments he presents to be convincing for those committed to philosophical materialism, but they should be sufficient for those who accept the authority of scripture.

The question really comes down to how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, or feel comfortable going.

Everyone has their boundaries and limits.

A limit where you no longer want to ask those questions.

Thankfully, Christians have mastered or at least have become pretty good at finding God in the deepest depths of all difficult topics.

I'd recommend checking out the biologos foundation. There are actually many Christians who accept evolution, including myself. They also have a fantastic podcast that talks about biblically based views on many topics, including evolution.
BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

The teachings of Jesus have stood the test of time and have lasted 2,000 years critique of all shapes and forms. But the core principals and values, the core message of Christ, in my opinion, is truly eternal. And once that is realized, nothing can shake it. There is no stone that cannot be turned over. No question that cannot be asked. Just pure naked (as in exposed like Adam and Eve) acceptance of Christ.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I'd recommend checking out the biologos foundation. There are actually many Christians who accept evolution, including myself. They also have a fantastic podcast that talks about biblically based views on many topics, including evolution.
BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

I am very aware of the evidences presented for evolution, which, like I said, are subject to interpretation. I'd be curious to see how theistic evolution is reconciled with Adam being the historical father of all humanity, by whom sin entered the world. If it can't be adequately reconciled, then I have no need for theistic evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

We may have to agree to disagree, but this doesn't ring true to my understanding of God and the natural world around us.

Thanks for the reply.
KT

C'mon, Kevin. God needed to make an old world in 6 days so that Adam could have his vegetables. How else could He have kept him and Eve fed? He can't just make food appear out of nowhere!

Edit: Oh, sorry. My bad. I've just been told that He can.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I recommend listening to this song, and then contemplating whatever your interpretation of Genesis might be:

I hope you can answer to God on the day of judgment that you did your best to study and understand His Word, rather than just allowing a man like Charles Darwin, who rejected God, to dictate what you believe.

I am not here to judge or condemn anyone or even to tell you what to believe. I just hope you put the authority of scripture above any other consideration when deciding whether or not to believe in evolution and whether it should be somehow reconciled with scripture.

 

[VirOptimus]

I recommend listening to this song, and then contemplating whatever your interpretation of Genesis might be:

I hope you can answer to God on the day of judgment that you did your best to study and understand His Word, rather than just allowing a man like Charles Darwin, who rejected God, to dictate what you believe.

I am not here to judge or condemn anyone or even to tell you what to believe. I just hope you put the authority of scripture above any other consideration when deciding whether or not to believe in evolution and whether it should be somehow reconciled with scripture.

There are subforas on this site for preaching, this isnt one of them.

 

[Gene2memE]

I am very aware of the evidences presented for evolution, which, like I said, are subject to interpretation.

You don't need any understanding of evolution to reject the hypotheses that "Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, and that the Biblical genealogies are correct that humanity is about 10,000 years old".

The evidence from paleontology will do that for you. For instance, humans have been making beer longer than 10,000 years. There are entire human neolithic cultures that arose, flourished and then died out in the Near East, Southeast Asia and North Asia prior to 10,000 years ago.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not here to judge or condemn anyone or even to tell you what to believe. I just hope you put the authority of scripture above any other consideration when deciding whether or not to believe in evolution and whether it should be somehow reconciled with scripture.

Will you also be posting something similar for physics, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, biolology, nuclear physics, oceanography, archaeology, anthropology, biochemistry, genetics, ecology, microbiology, minerology, paleontology, petrology, radiology, taxonomy and thermodynamics and whether they should somehow be reconciled with scripture?

I look forward to your dismantling of each of these sciences. Are you going to do it in alphabetical order?

 

[AV1611VET]

Will you also be posting something similar for physics, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, biolology, nuclear physics, oceanography, archaeology, anthropology, biochemistry, genetics, ecology, microbiology, minerology, paleontology, petrology, radiology, taxonomy and thermodynamics and whether they should somehow be reconciled with scripture?

I look forward to your dismantling of each of these sciences. Are you going to do it in alphabetical order?

Interesting reply.

Are you implying they have to be "dismantled" to be "reconciled"?

Here's how I reconcile them:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting reply.

Are you implying they have to be "dismantled" to be "reconciled"?

Here's how I reconcile them.

But you need to know what each of them says and check to see if it contradicts scripture in some way. You don't. It's just a clumsy way of saying that if someone says something vaguely scientific with which you disagree, they are wrong. You don't make the attempt to investigate. I'd suggest that you daren't because you'd need to address the matters with people who actually have investigated them and you'd be found wanting. It's an intellectual cop out.

Your ubiquitous cut 'n' paste statements are the forum equivalent of fingers-in-ears-and-la-la-la.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you need to know what each of them says and check to see if it contradicts scripture in some way. You don't. It's just a clumsy way of saying that if someone says something vaguely scientific with which you disagree, they are wrong. You don't make the attempt to investigate. I'd suggest that you daren't because you'd need to address the matters with people who actually have investigated them and you'd be found wanting. It's an intellectual cop out.

Your ubiquitous cut 'n' paste statements are the forum equivalent of fingers-in-ears-and-la-la-la.

Again, are you suggesting they have to be dismantled first, before they can be reconciled?

And as far as having to know the ins and outs of any particular scientific discipline before I can say anything against it with authority, that's bologna; as any child should be able to know when any scientific explanation oversteps its boundaries.

In fact, it's quite easy.

If any discipline requires a passage of time exceeding 4004 BC, it's wrong.

Radiohalos is a good example of that.

 

[Bradskii]

And as far as having to know the ins and outs of any particular scientific discipline before I can say anything against it with authority...

With authority? To be able to speak on any matter with authority, one needs to understand it. Otherwise you'll find yourself being ignored. Why would anyone listen to you expound on something about which you had no knowledge?

Now that can't be too difficult to understand, so you can speak with authority regarding that small aphorism. But on science? Nah.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be able to speak on any matter with authority, one needs to understand it.

I disagree.

When David went up against Goliath, David said this to him:

1 Samuel 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

He went up against Goliath in the name of the LORD of hosts.

That's all he had to do.

He didn't have to know the moral and natural attributes of God and this and that and the other thing, just His name and whose side He was on.

When you invoke the authorities against someone trespassing into your house, do you need to know who's who on their organization chart first?

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree.

There was no need to tell us. We all know that because each and every post you make on any matter regarding science lacks authority. Because you haven't deemed it necessary to gain the knowledge necessary. What else can you do but disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was no need to tell us. We all know that because each and every post you make on any matter regarding science lacks authority. Because you haven't deemed it necessary to gain the knowledge necessary. What else can you do but disagree.

If I agreed instead, would you respect my lack of knowledge?

Let me venture a guess at what you're going to say:

"I'd respect it to a point, but you should demonstrate at least an effort to increase your knowledge base. After all, if you want my respect in the science department, you shouldn't go around for the rest of your live status quo in your ignorance."

 

[Bradskii]

If I agreed instead, would you respect my lack of knowledge?

No. Because it's intentional. But I'd appreciate the honesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Because it's intentional. But I'd appreciate the honesty.

What's intentional?

 

[Astrid]

When it comes to evidence for or against evolution, we will interpret it according to our own presuppositions. There is no such thing as a neutral observer, especially when dealing with prehistory, before the availability of eyewitness testimony.

My presupposition when evaluating the evidence is the inerrancy and internal consistency of the Bible. I accepted evolution until recently because I didn't believe in the inerrancy of scripture until recently.

It's clear that the New Testament regards Adam as the historical father of all humanity. Luke's geology of Jesus traces his lineage all the way back to Adam. If Adam is just a mythological figure, how do we know that Jesus isn't mythological as well?

Perhaps most importantly, Romans 5 says that Jesus died specifically to reverse the consequences of Adam's sin:



If Adam wasn't a historical person by whom sin entered the world, the above passage from Romans 5 would be meaningless.

I don't claim to be able to prove creation. I just believe that one who has faith in the inerrancy of scripture will have the discernment to evaluate the evidence presented for evolution as deficient compared to the doctrine of creation.

Here is Dr. Ben Carson giving reasons to disbelieve evolution, including the complexity of the human brain:

I don't expect the arguments he presents to be convincing for those committed to philosophical materialism, but they should be sufficient for those who accept the authority of scripture.

Nobody can be 100 percent objective all the time,
but you grossly exaggerate the problem.

However, looking at everything through a predetermined
conclusion is the exact definition of intellectual
dishonesty.

In science, the most basic of core principles to to strive
at all times to be objective, knowing the easiest to fool
is ones self.

So don't deceive yourself that scientific and faith
based thinking are remotely comparable..

Objectivity is so far from a part of this religious
thinking that it's opposite is a highest value.
Faith, belief despite anything, despite all, hold
fast the faith! Behold Job!

There is a yec paleontologist who famously said
"Even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec
I will still be yec."
Total failure of intellectual integrity, of any pretense at
science.

You describe doing the same thing.
Never mind that there is zero evidence of any
error in ToE; never mind that the conflict you
described is primarily an phenomenon of the less educated
class in America, and other Christians in their millions
don't find faith in God threatened by the truth said God
wrote into the very earth itself.
It's awfully arrogant to think one has the power
of inerrant bible- reading and KNOWS that science is wrong
and so are all those (educated) fellow Christians.

if that's a choice, it's a choice,, but don't try so disingenuously
to hide behind this "they all do" it farce of your first
paragraph. Dont pretend you know better just
because of a choice..Such pride is unbecoming.

As Satan, played by Al Pacino in "the devils advicate"
says, "Vanity. It's my favorite sin".

 

[Astrid]

The question really comes down to how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, or feel comfortable going.

Everyone has their boundaries and limits.

A limit where you no longer want to ask those questions.

Thankfully, Christians have mastered or at least have become pretty good at finding God in the deepest depths of all difficult topics.

I'd recommend checking out the biologos foundation. There are actually many Christians who accept evolution, including myself. They also have a fantastic podcast that talks about biblically based views on many topics, including evolution.
BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

The teachings of Jesus have stood the test of time and have lasted 2,000 years critique of all shapes and forms. But the core principals and values, the core message of Christ, in my opinion, is truly eternal. And once that is realized, nothing can shake it. There is no stone that cannot be turned over. No question that cannot be asked. Just pure naked (as in exposed like Adam and Eve) acceptance of Christ.

Now of course I am not a Christian but you make perfect
sense here, in my eyes.

The only thing I'd express differently would be to put Jesus'
saying in the context of the folk wisdom of his day,
and of cultures worldwide.

If those are not eternal core values, there must
not even be such a thing.

Such weak faith it must be to have it threatened
by the theory of evolution!

To see people sink into, nay, embrace and
proclaim all manner of dishonesty in their
desperation to avoid reality in favour of their
prideful belief that they have the true word
V science and Satan, well, it's sad to see.

It's probably not Christian*, by any metric.

*see "narrow is the way"

 

[AV1611VET]

The only thing I'd express differently would be to put Jesus' saying in the context of the folk wisdom of his day, and of cultures worldwide.

John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

And speaking of "folk wisdom of the day," are you a Homo sapiens? if so, do you know what that term means?

 

[essentialsaltes]

And this succession is even observed in plants.

Well, ya see... the true flowering plants are found in higher strata because they were better swimmers.

<smoke bomb>