Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[The Barbarian]

It's not a lie though. Viruses and bacteria all evolve. All the various strains of COVID 19 around proves evolution. Young earth creationism is the lie and all disprovable by science.

YE creationism is an error, and most YE creationists are not liars. They are misled, or have just come to faulty conclusions based on erroneous or insufficient information. We should be careful not to adapt the ways of the worst of the YE creationists; most creationists are our brothers in Christ and we can differ with them without calling each other liars.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is not at all an argument against Biblical historicity.

Indeed. The fact that the creation story and other parable are figurative does not preclude the fact that much of the Bible is historical.

It is obviously described as a worldwide flood

No. Nowhere in the Genesis flood story does it say it was world wide. And in fact, "world" meant something quite different in Biblical, Hellenistic, and Roman times. It was, as Luke documented, used to describe the limits of the Roman Empire.

Let me ask you, do you believe the Exodus account?

If you doubt this, you might want to look at Egyptian records, which record the entry of "asiatics" into Egypt, and their eventual departure. This is not debatable. The Egyptian word "Apiru" ("Hebrew") had the perjorative meaning of "vagrant." Which gives you some idea of the way the Egyptians thought of Joseph's descendants in Egypt.

I'm puzzled. On one hand, you seem to reject things that are clearly figurative, but are, on the other hand, unwilling to accept other things that are clearly historical. What gives?

You must understand, those Christians who are not creationists accept all of scripture. We just don't accept some of your particular interpretation of it.

 

[Derek1234]

I'm puzzled. On one hand, you seem to reject things that are clearly figurative, but are, on the other hand, unwilling to accept other things that are clearly historical. What gives?

You must understand, those Christians who are not creationists accept all of scripture. We just don't accept some of your particular interpretation of it.

I'm not exactly a fan of lifepsyop's arguments, and am much more closely aligned with yours. I think you articulate it much more eloquently than I could. But I don't think you're accurately representing their position at all. Better to demolish an iron man than a straw man. What they are saying - though I'm sure you know this - is that the Bible contains repeating types and patterns, some of which are figurative. But they seem committed to a literalist interpretation of the historicity of the Bible, and were merely asking whether you - if you don't accept the six day creation - accept other events in the Bible (like the Exodus), or if you think they are merely figurative. You seem pretty clear that the Exodus was a real, historic event.

For me, I think it is perfectly possible to believe that the history in the Bible is real, and that the other genres - apocalyptic, poetry, wisdom - are figurative. And I further believe that the Creation narrative is a way of communicating something impossibly complex in a way that even I can understand it. Could God have created a universe in a period of 6*24 hours? Of course He could. He's God. Did He? I think He took [what we would think of as] hundreds of millions, or billions, of years. To a God outside of time, what is that?

Where I strongly agree with you is that: (a) our understanding of the mechanisms of God's creation is not a salvific issue. Even if we interpret it "wrongly," God doesn't deny us our salvation, any more than on the basis of our views on women's ministry or whether the gifts of the Spirit are still active; and (b) as such, we should not hold our brethren to an unacceptable standard of conformity of belief. We should aim to be humble and let God guide us in our understanding of His Word.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not exactly a fan of lifepsyop's arguments, and am much more closely aligned with yours. I think you articulate it much more eloquently than I could. But I don't think you're accurately representing their position at all.

I'm just puzzled at his particular stand. I do understand that most creationists do believe that most, if not all of the Bible is literal history. Yet he's questioning the reality of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, one of the best documented OT events in secular historical sources.

St. Augustine thought that creation was instantaneous, followed by an undetermined period of development from that initial creation. To him the "days" were representative of different aspects of creation, not literal time periods. That seems remarkably astute of him, given the relatively little information available at the time.

 

[lifepsyop]

Indeed. The fact that the creation story and other parable are figurative does not preclude the fact that much of the Bible is historical.

No. Nowhere in the Genesis flood story does it say it was world wide. And in fact, "world" meant something quite different in Biblical, Hellenistic, and Roman times. It was, as Luke documented, used to describe the limits of the Roman Empire.

Yes, "world" can mean different things, but there are other parts of the account that make it obvious that this is an event of global impact. In Genesis 8 and 9 we read that the devastating effects of the flood are such that the Ark's passengers will have to replenish the earth. How does that work with a regional flood, where far greater numbers of other peoples and animals living outside the floodzone, ready to move in and compete with the Ark passengers as soon as the waters recede? Genesis 9:1 says that this was God's blessing, that those on the Ark would be the ones to multiply and fill the new land. Also, in Genesis 9:11-16 God marks this covenant by the appearance of the phenomenon of the rainbow, suggesting the world was very different before the flood and attesting to its global impact.

These are just a couple points of many, but basically none of the account makes sense in the context of a regional flood... and yet it all flows naturally in the context of a worldwide flood. And you don't arrive at the conclusion of a regional flood from anywhere in the text, it's only because you need to fit the text into the greater belief in naturalistic origins where the the sediments of the earth represent long ages instead of the catastrophism of a worldwide flood as it is plainly characterized in scripture.

If you doubt this, you might want to look at Egyptian records, which record the entry of "asiatics" into Egypt, and their eventual departure. This is not debatable. The Egyptian word "Apiru" ("Hebrew") had the perjorative meaning of "vagrant." Which gives you some idea of the way the Egyptians thought of Joseph's descendants in Egypt.

I'm puzzled. On one hand, you seem to reject things that are clearly figurative, but are, on the other hand, unwilling to accept other things that are clearly historical. What gives?

You must understand, those Christians who are not creationists accept all of scripture. We just don't accept some of your particular interpretation of it.

I do believe the Exodus account, as I do the rest of the OT, since it is God's revealed history to us. The Exodus account is overwhelmingly emphatic that the events surrounding the parting of the Red Sea were real and brought Israel miraculous salvation. An entire national identity was built around this shared miraculous experience.

I was curious if you believe it, but I'm still not sure what you believe. If it really happened as accounted, or if it was largely a myth built around a kernel of truth like the presence of some Hebrews who maybe waded through a shallow swamp later on?

My point is that the consensus of mainstream scientific institutions says that there definitely was not any large scale Exodus event as described.
The Exodus - Wikipedia

Do you agree with the "science" ?

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, "world" can mean different things, but there are other parts of the account that make it obvious that this is an event of global impact. In Genesis 8 and 9 we read that the devastating effects of the flood are such that the Ark's passengers will have to replenish the earth.

No. The word is "eretz." "Land." Not the planet. This is just one of many reasons scripture rules out a world-wide flood.

I do believe the Exodus account, as I do the rest of the OT, since it is God's revealed history to us.

It contains history, poetry, hymns, and figurative material.

I was curious if you believe it, but I'm still not sure what you believe.

Pretty much orthodox Christian. Not a YE creationist.

If it really happened as accounted,

It seems you don't want to believe it as accounted.

or if it was largely a myth built around a kernel of truth like the presence of some Hebrews who maybe waded through a shallow swamp later on?

Not even creationists believe that as far as I know.

 

[The Barbarian]

And you don't arrive at the conclusion of a regional flood from anywhere in the text,

In fact, only God knows for sure if it's an actual history of a great (but not worldwide) flood, or if it's an allegory like the parables Jesus told us.

 

[KevinT]

I think "evolution" means different things to different people:

-- Option A: genetic variance from built-in mechanisms such as gene rearrangement and others, occasional genetic accidents from replication errors, free radicals etc -- all combined with selection/survival of the fittest leading to the best possible population. There is direct evidence for this happening today.

-- Option B: the idea that life began as a very simple molecular processes, and gradually added complexity, until the current state of the world was reached. This is an extrapolation of option A.

I just thought it might be helpful to clarify the word. I personally feel there is no conflict between Option A and the Bible. God certainly seems to have made his creation to be adaptable and resilient. But because Option B involves action prior to our time, it will always be speculative to some degree.

KT

 

[Job 33:6]

I think "evolution" means different things to different people:

-- Option A: genetic variance from built-in mechanisms such as gene rearrangement and others, occasional genetic accidents from replication errors, free radicals etc -- all combined with selection/survival of the fittest leading to the best possible population. There is direct evidence for this happening today.

-- Option B: the idea that life began as a very simple molecular processes, and gradually added complexity, until the current state of the world was reached. This is an extrapolation of option A.

I just thought it might be helpful to clarify the word. I personally feel there is no conflict between Option A and the Bible. God certainly seems to have made his creation to be adaptable and resilient. But because Option B involves action prior to our time, it will always be speculative to some degree.

KT

If not option A, then what is your explanation for the fossil succession?

 

[KevinT]

If not option A, then what is your explanation for the fossil succession?

I do believe in option A. But I am less certain that the fossil sequence seen in different geologic layers proves that an increase of complexity.

I was taught (in a Christian school) that the geologic layers were laid down in rapid succession during the flood, and that having different types of animals in different layers can represent varying geographic populations that are trapped. I'm not sure if I still believe this or not as I can see many problems with this theory -- including trying to explain away geologic dating techniques.

I also have concerns with the idea, which seems to be proposed in the first graphic, that a fish is simpler than a human and is thus somehow an older antecedent. Even a single-celled organism is more technologically more complex than anything humans have created to date.

In the end, I find huge problems with the young earth creationism, and also with mainstream long-term evolution. I'm still trying to find a better option.

KT

 

[Job 33:6]

I do believe in option A. But I am less certain that the fossil sequence seen in different geologic layers proves that an increase of complexity.

I was taught (in a Christian school) that the geologic layers were laid down in rapid succession during the flood, and that having different types of animals in different layers can represent varying geographic populations that are trapped. I'm not sure if I still believe this or not as I can see many problems with this theory -- including trying to explain away geologic dating techniques.

I also have concerns with the idea, which seems to be proposed in the first graphic, that a fish is simpler than a human and is thus somehow an older antecedent. Even a single-celled organism is more technologically more complex than anything humans have created to date.

In the end, I find huge problems with the young earth creationism, and also with mainstream long-term evolution. I'm still trying to find a better option.

KT

If you would like to hear more evidence for age dating, feel free to let me know. I tend to focus on relative dating to make a case for the fossil succession, which doesn't relate to radiometric dating. Although relative dating can be used to corroborate radiometric dating.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you would like to hear more evidence for age dating, feel free to let me know. I tend to focus on relative dating to make a case for the fossil succession, which doesn't relate to radiometric dating. Although relative dating can be used to corroborate radiometric dating.

Proving that Links Exist

Here was a simplified or watered down beginning to an explanation of how relative dating affirms the fossil succession.

It should also be noted that evolution isn't about less complex species becoming more complex, or more complex species becoming less complex.

It's more specifically about life continuing to become more fit. So for example, a polar bear might be more fit in the Arctic where it lives, but it isn't necessarily more or less complex than a grizzley bear. So it's more about fitness than it is about complexity.

As it turns out in the end, Option B, turns out to be a valid explanation for what we see in the world, which is why the extrapolation from option A is so widely accepted.

And of course it's also fair to say that if Option A occurs, there's no reason to believe that Option A would ever stop occuring or that species would ever stop changing. In which case, if the planet were billions of years old, it might also logically follow that species would change quite a bit over time, as a product of option A.

@KevinT

 

[KevinT]

Proving that Links Exist

Here was a simplified or watered down beginning to an explanation of how relative dating affirms the fossil succession.

It should also be noted that evolution isn't about less complex species becoming more complex, or more complex species becoming less complex.

It's more specifically about life continuing to become more fit. So for example, a polar bear might be more fit in the Arctic where it lives, but it isn't necessarily more or less complex than a grizzley bear. So it's more about fitness than it is about complexity.

As it turns out in the end, Option B, turns out to be a valid explanation for what we see in the world, which is why the extrapolation from option A is so widely accepted.

And of course it's also fair to say that if Option A occurs, there's no reason to believe that Option A would ever stop occuring or that species would ever stop changing. In which case, if the planet were billions of years old, it might also logically follow that species would change quite a bit over time, as a product of option A.

@KevinT

I can agree with what you have said. I believe in intelligent design. And any such original design would be better if it allowed for change over time. So no problems there.

The issue comes down to the Bible. The Bible seems to describe a young earth creation. And if that turns out to not be the case, then we have to decide:
-- Is the Bible the verbal dictation from God? And every statement is true for all time?
-- Is the Bible just made up stories, created by humans over time? I.e. unreliable myths?
-- is the Bible made up of God-loving human beings relating their own understanding over time? (E.g. Psalms 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.")
-- (something else I haven't thought of)

And most specifically, we want to know if the Bible's description of eternal life are real too.

Where I am right now, is that it is unlikely I will ever have a full reliable understanding of reality during my lifetime. I believe in a Creator and savior, Jesus. I don't understand all the details, but trust that it is not necessary for salivation.

KT

 

[The Barbarian]

I think "evolution" means different things to different people:

Yep.

-- Option A: genetic variance from built-in mechanisms such as gene rearrangement and others, occasional genetic accidents from replication errors, free radicals etc -- all combined with selection/survival of the fittest leading to the best possible population. There is direct evidence for this happening today.

-- Option B: the idea that life began as a very simple molecular processes, and gradually added complexity, until the current state of the world was reached. This is an extrapolation of option A.

There are other options, but you've covered the two most common ones. A is a pretty good description of the phenomenon of evolution. B is mostly a consequence of evolution(but the origin of life is not part of evolution). Because it was not clear at the time that complex organic compounds could form apart from living things, Darwin assumed that God just created the first living things. Other than that niggling issue, your summary is excellent.

I just thought it might be helpful to clarify the word. I personally feel there is no conflict between Option A and the Bible. God certainly seems to have made his creation to be adaptable and resilient. But because Option B involves action prior to our time, it will always be speculative to some degree.

The world being orderly and knowable, we can often correctly infer things from evidence left by the process. And do it is with common descent. Genetics pretty much nailed it down, because we can test the hypothesis with organisms of known descent.

If I can add to your very good post, this is useful to remember:
1. evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. "Descent with modification" as Darwin put it.

2. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Individuals don't evolve.

3. Things like natural selection, mutation, and so on, are agencies of evolution, not evolution.

4. Things like common descent are consequences of evolution, not evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

f you would like to hear more evidence for age dating, feel free to let me know. I tend to focus on relative dating to make a case for the fossil succession, which doesn't relate to radiometric dating. Although relative dating can be used to corroborate radiometric dating.

Are you familiar with Joe Meert's material on dating? Joe and I used to talk a lot on forums and he always had clear and understandable explanations for the way radioisotope dating worked.
One of the main objections to radiometric dating

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you familiar with Joe Meert's material on dating? Joe and I used to talk a lot on forums and he always had clear and understandable explanations for the way radioisotope dating worked.
One of the main objections to radiometric dating

Never heard of him, but thanks, I'll have a look^

 

[lifepsyop]

No. The word is "eretz." "Land." Not the planet. This is just one of many reasons scripture rules out a world-wide flood.

Was not the whole Land flooded? You're arguing against Biblical "literalism" by trying to be hyper-literal with a single word, and even then it doesn't work since the word has multiple meanings in scripture. That's why the context of the account is so important, and noticing how every detail of the flood account flows naturally with a global-effect interpretation.

It seems you don't want to believe it as accounted.

I don't know why you keep saying this? Twice now I've stated openly that I believe the historicity of the Biblical Exodus account as written (I believe in the historicity of Genesis, why wouldn't I believe Exodus???) , and you've yet to come out and state plainly what your position is. It seems you like to keep people guessing.

This is the problem, when you say you "believe" the Exodus account, nobody has any idea what that means. You believe in the message? You believe it actually happened? With theistic-evolution, the text can be whatever you want it to be, anything can be literal or figural depending on how you feel that day.

 

[The Barbarian]

Was not the whole Land flooded? You're arguing against Biblical "literalism" by trying to be hyper-literal with a single word,

So it's literal unless you don't want it to be? Isn't that what you're accusing other Christians of doing? As you see, every element of the account fits nicely with a large regional flood. And since there is nothing within to indicate a global flood, why not just accept it as it is?

I don't know why you keep saying this? Twice now I've stated openly that I believe the historicity of the Biblical Exodus account as written

Why did you question it then? You're not making much sense here?

This is the problem, when you say you "believe" the Exodus account, nobody has any idea what that means.

You told me you believe the Exodus account, but offered no evidence. I showed you evidence for it. I would think that's pretty good meaning.

You believe it actually happened?

Notice that we have not only scripture, but historical accounts from Egyptian sources.

With theistic-evolution, the text can be whatever you want it to be

You're not making sense, again. Theistic evolution has exactly nothing to do with that. If God had poofed every species into existence magically, it wouldn't change anything in Exodus.

With YE creationism, the text can be whatever you want it to be, anything can be literal or figural depending on how you feel that day.

 

[lifepsyop]

So it's literal unless you don't want it to be? Isn't that what you're accusing other Christians of doing? As you see, every element of the account fits nicely with a large regional flood. And since there is nothing within to indicate a global flood, why not just accept it as it is?

I don't have any problem at all with the word eretz. It flows perfectly with the account of all the Land being flooded, and the detailed context of the account continues to affirm it is worldwide in scope, just as the Sodom and Gommorah account is obviously regional. It's really not very hard to make these distinctions when you read what is happening in these accounts. I just wanted to point out the irony of you trying to invoke a literalist interpretation to argue against Biblical literalism.

Why did you question it then? You're not making much sense here?

I don't question it. I believe it completely. I was asking your opinion on Exodus, which you continue to be cryptic about.

You told me you believe the Exodus account, but offered no evidence. I showed you evidence for it. I would think that's pretty good meaning.

I believe it because it's scripture, God's Word, and I submit to it as the truth.

For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? - John 5:46-47

Yes I think there is also plenty of evidence for the Exodus. Actually I think it is very unlikely you could fabricate a story containing the account a shared National Experience like the Exodus from Egypt and the Red Sea crossing (when the account says every single member of the nation directly experienced these miracles, and was formally instructed to pass the story down to their children). History abounds with claims of private experiences and personal interactions with the divine, but it's pretty hard to fake something where the story includes your entire nation as direct participants and eyewitnesses.

Notice that we have not only scripture, but historical accounts from Egyptian sources.

All I notice is that you still haven't stated what you actually believe. When you say we have 'evidence' for it, for all I know you're talking about the mere presence of Hebrews in Egypt which is only a small part of the whole account.

What I'm wondering is if you actually believe the Exodus account as it was written, i.e. nation of Israel being enslaved, then set free by God's wrath/plagues sent upon Pharaoh, then Israel's deliverance through the parted Red Sea which drowned the pursuing Egyptians, and then the nation of Israel's sojourn through the wilderness.

But I've given up expecting a clear answer.

 

[The Barbarian]

So it's literal unless you don't want it to be? Isn't that what you're accusing other Christians of doing? As you see, every element of the account fits nicely with a large regional flood. And since there is nothing within to indicate a global flood, why not just accept it as it is?

I don't have any problem at all with the word eretz.

Seems like you do. "Eretz" means "land" not "world." The word for "world" is "tebel." You've just redefined a word to fit your expectations of God.

It flows perfectly with the account of all the Land being flooded,

But not, as you see, the whole world. And the detailed context of the account in no place says it is worldwide in scope.

"Eretz" means "land"; "tebel" means "world." It's really not very hard to make that distinction when you read what is happening in these accounts. I'm just pointing out the irony of you trying to invoke a relativist interpretation to argue for Biblical literalism.