6,000 Years?

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know or really care. I just know there are many who do so, and many others who come to that conclusion based upon evolutionary teachings. Whose testimony to such I have heard over the years of examining this issue.


No, they are examples of exactly what you asked for. Nothing is empty rhetoric simply because you state that it is. I would venture to say that most atheists are probably evolutionist, would you not agree? Why wouldn't they be, they have all been taught that it is a scientific fact in their schools, in this country at least. What else would they believe?


No not really, and you make some rather poor comparisons. Yet I will say again, most atheists are most likely evolutionists.


The theory of evolution is absolutely faith based. It has not been and is not observed anywhere. Change and adaption are observed, evolution from one species into another has not and is not.


I never said such. Even a great many evolutionists believe there is a God. I argue that scripture nowhere even hints at anything like evolution as the mechanism of our existence. I personally believe the theory of evolution to be on the level of fairy tale, especially when considered as the mechanism of our existence.


I never said I knew anything about your work, or personally addressed you with my views. I maintain my view, that deep timers contradict the overall testimony of holy scripture, and choose to believe unproved deep time scenarios. Are you saying that you do not subscribe to deep time evolutionary beliefs?


Of course they do not, because they have never established that the earth is ancient, but in their own minds.


I'm not mandating that scientists do anything. I of course consider your deep time views a you issue. Simply that which you have chosen to believe.


Correct. This of course does not mean that their conclusions regarding the evidence they study will be or are correct. Leaving a lot of room for difference of opinion, and often based upon certain presumptions assumed in the processes. To the effect, that many scientists have been proved wrong over and again, conceding that which they once declared to be scientific facts.


Okay, I'll copy and paste what I have already written to you. -

Real science has now proved that these deep time scenarios concerning the formation of the world we now observe, simply are not necessary. Which is why many scientists now lean toward Catastrophism over deep time developments for the greater part of what we observe concerning the geography and surface of the earth. Evolutionists also admit of much more rapid change and adaption to environment than they once propagated. While observing that complexity seems to have consistently appeared further and further back in time than they once thought. Suggesting of course that it was there from the beginning. They are now finding this concerning their speculations regarding the formation of the universe as well, largely from observations made by the James Webb telescope.


Lines of evidence and diverse methods of testing which all include certain presumptions about the unknown. And to the contrary, the slow theoretical processes of evolution have and do require deep time scenarios. Even with evolutionists presently concluding that these processes do occur much faster than they once thought.


I could post many articles from the past that I have addressed on other boards concerning as already stated, tendencies toward more rapid processes than once thought, and continued observations of complexity further and further back in time which is suggestive of complexity from the beginning of course. If you would like.


No not uniquely. If however, their base assumptions are wrong, then everything that follows is likely wrong as well. Which would mean that although they are ever learning, they will never come to a knowledge of the truth. As holy scripture describes a certain class.


Apparently so. What exactly do you believe it describes?


That is kind of strange. I thought you just pretty much said you don't believe Genesis describes evolution. So what, you are a deep timer, but not an evolutionist? Or are you disagreeing with the idea that the theory of evolution creates problems for the gospel message?

I'm an evolutionist and 'deep timer,' and I while I don't mind if other, fellow Christians are YEC or not, I don't have a major problem holding evolutionary science in one hand and the Bible in the other. It's not a deal breaker for my faith.

 

[Job 33:6]

Another good video by Answers in Genesis Canada

The Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless and void before God began to create it. YEC is unbiblical.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

 

[Zceptre]

The Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless and void before God began to create it. YEC is unbiblical.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

lol, pardon, but what?

Without concern for what anyone's stance is at all...

How long it was void before creation bears no impact on how long it has been since it was created. Whatsoever.

Just the same as how long the hospital I was born in had been there doesn't have any bearing on how long it has been since I was born.

Creation and Void are opposite states. The void was the state prior to creation, not part of it. "Formless" aka no creation yet.

You can fight that fact, but it isn't going to help your argument from a base logic position.

 

[Zceptre]

I'm an evolutionist and 'deep timer,' and I while I don't mind if other, fellow Christians are YEC or not, I don't have a major problem holding evolutionary science in one hand and the Bible in the other. It's not a deal breaker for my faith.

Just curious as to how "ape like" your versions of Adam and Eve are and when in the lineage did they appear?

I don't really want to get into a "well that's just wrong" dialogue, but I simply can't fathom how Genesis can be meshed together with evolution and it not be vaporized as far as the story-line and principles of sin, the obvious allusions by Christ and Paul that Adam and Eve were the first humans and according to the book they weren't "preceded" by monkeys, but were made directly by God. Then there is the whole "death" being there for thousands of years before Adam and Eve in the evolution narrative... why tell them they would "die" if that was the default scenario?

When is the "breathing" of life into Adam in the evolutionary allegorical version? Why would God make specific categories of things in their full forms in the account, but in evolution everything is a string-line of progressions?

Then there is Satan himself, and he must love this idea of making allegory out of his rebellion and trickery because then he gets to hide behind the extremely well worn narrative presented by Satanists and Luciferians that he is really just a "force" or "idea" and there isn't really any "enemy" that God has, but rather the principle that exists in people.

Not to mention, why would it say "...and the evening and morning were the second day." ?

I just don't see anyone alluding to morning and evening to describe a one thousand year period.

Lastly, verse 14 of chapter 1 specifically lists both periods of time, days and years, and so what would years be if "days = years." ?

My curiosity is stirred by the idea that somehow God made man but not from dust, rather from monkeys, and somehow that fits in Genesis.

I think someone has to re-write the account differently to include the evolutionary narrative and to say they overlap seems more than just a tiny bit problematic.

How do you accommodate for such discrepancies? If I may.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just curious as to how "ape like" your versions of Adam and Eve are and when in the lineage did they appear?

I don't really want to get into a "well that's just wrong" dialogue, but I simply can't fathom how Genesis can be meshed together with evolution and it not be vaporized as far as the story-line and principles of sin, the obvious allusions by Christ and Paul that Adam and Eve were the first humans and according to the book they weren't "preceded" by monkeys, but were made directly by God. Then there is the whole "death" being there for thousands of years before Adam and Eve in the evolution narrative... why tell them they would "die" if that was the default scenario?

When is the "breathing" of life into Adam in the evolutionary allegorical version? Why would God make specific categories of things in their full forms in the account, but in evolution everything is a string-line of progressions?

Then there is Satan himself, and he must love this idea of making allegory out of his rebellion and trickery because then he gets to hide behind the extremely well worn narrative presented by Satanists and Luciferians that he is really just a "force" or "idea" and there isn't really any "enemy" that God has, but rather the principle that exists in people.

Not to mention, why would it say "...and the evening and morning were the second day." ?

I just don't see anyone alluding to morning and evening to describe a one thousand year period.

Lastly, verse 14 of chapter 1 specifically lists both periods of time, days and years, and so what would years be if "days = years." ?

My curiosity is stirred by the idea that somehow God made man but not from dust, rather from monkeys, and somehow that fits in Genesis.

I think someone has to re-write the account differently to include the evolutionary narrative and to say they overlap seems more than just a tiny bit problematic.

How do you accommodate for such discrepancies? If I may.

Those are all useful questions, brother Zceptre, and welcome to CF! I'm not going to answer your questions unless doing so would somehow help your faith. Since I've already seen you firmly affirm your view on YEC, I will refrain from challenging it since I have no felt need to butt heads with fellow Christians over interpretive issues with Genesis. I have my reasons, many of which I've already mentioned dozens of times over the past nearly 20 years I've been on CF.

Just trust that I've worked it out to my own satisfaction.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I see, of course. All honest Creationists agree with you,

Mostly the honest and knowledgeable ones. The others, not so much.

and the rest of course then, are what?

Mostly not very knowledgeable. But many of the professional creationists lie or tell obvious fairy tales. Would you like some examples?

 

[Zceptre]

Those are all useful questions, brother Zceptre, and welcome to CF! I'm not going to answer your questions unless doing so would somehow help your faith. Since I've already seen you firmly affirm your view on YEC, I will refrain from challenging it since I have no felt need to butt heads with fellow Christians over interpretive issues with Genesis. I have my reasons, many of which I've already mentioned dozens of times over the past nearly 20 years I've been on CF.

Just trust that I've worked it out to my own satisfaction.

While I'm glad you've answered them for yourself, and you are aware that I'm confident in my own conclusions, I'm more concerned for the young minds that are yet to have established any such things (in addition to my curiosity) nor even considered them from what I've learned having observed some of their discourse on the matter.

You're welcome to decline my request for sure, and I purposely intended it as a friendly challenge to make sense out of what seems to me very unaligned.

I will admit, I did at least expect a concise explanation considering you are quoting Einstein. After all...

"...ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand...""
-Albert Einstein
(New Perspectives in Physics)

Apologies, I simply couldn't resist. lol

 

[The Barbarian]

No, they are examples of exactly what you asked for. Nothing is empty rhetoric simply because you state that it is. I would venture to say that most atheists are probably evolutionist, would you not agree?

Most of them also accept the existence of lightning. For the same reasons. Most of the world's Christians accept evolution. Again, for the same reasons.

Evolutionists also admit of much more rapid change and adaption to environment than they once propagated.

You were misled about that. Darwin himself pointed out that the rates of evolutionary change would depend on selective pressure. And very rapid evolution (in some cases) was predicted by his associate Thomas Huxley.

While observing that complexity seems to have consistently appeared further and further back in time than they once thought. Suggesting of course that it was there from the beginning.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, the first billion years or so of life shows only fossils of prokaryotes. The Edicaran fauna (preceding the Cambrian) showed only very simple animals. Again, it's not what they told you.

They are now finding this concerning their speculations regarding the formation of the universe as well, largely from observations made by the James Webb telescope.

Biological evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origin of the universe. They might have lied to you about that, or they could have actually been ignorant enough to think it does.

Apparently so. What exactly do you believe it describes?

Genesis is about God and man and our relationship. If you try to twist it into a science text, you'll be constantly misled.

That is kind of strange. I thought you just pretty much said you don't believe Genesis describes evolution.

It doesn't describe plate tectonics, either. There's a lot of things that are true, that aren't mentioned in Genesis. Again, it's not intended to be a science text.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While I'm glad you've answered them for yourself, and you are aware that I'm confident in my own conclusions, I'm more concerned for the young minds that are yet to have established any such things (in addition to my curiosity) nor even considered them from what I've learned having observed some of their discourse on the matter.

It's good to know you're concerned for young minds, as am I. Which means I try to be circumspect in how and why I met out answers on a topic that has garnered way too much cognitive dissonance among too many people.

You're welcome to decline my request for sure, and I purposely intended it as a friendly challenge to make sense out of what seems to me very unaligned.

I will admit, I did at least expect a concise explanation considering you are quoting Einstein. After all...

"...ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand...""
-Albert Einstein
(New Perspectives in Physics)

Apologies, I simply couldn't resist. lol

I can appreciate your attempt at humor. But if you really want to know what influences my thinking, before I spell it out, feel free to look at the books on my book list which I've placed on my CF personal page.

 

[Zceptre]

It's good to know you're concerned for young minds, as am I. Which means I try to be circumspect in how and why I met out answers on a topic that has garnered way too much cognitive dissonance among too many people.


I can appreciate your attempt at humor. But if you really want to know what influences my thinking, before I spell it out, feel free to look at the books on my book list which I've placed on my CF personal page.

I'll take that response.

 

[Dan1988]

Sure there are. That's what geochronologists do for a living. They're not stupid people you know.


Since when? As far as I can tell not one person who actually works with C-14 dating would agree with you. So why should I believe what you say over the actual professionals?

That's all well and good if you put your faith in scientists and reject what God has said. I personally don't trust any scientists, because their method relies on circular reasoning, whereby you must first accept their (unproven method) and then everything must conform to the false premise to begin with, so it's all a big sham.

Placing your trust in some ever changing theory, may give you a sense of security. But I personally reject it, because I see it as a desperate attempt to make sense of God's supernatural creation.
The truth is actually stranger than fiction, secular science uses simple means in an attempt to explain the infinitely complex and mysterious handywork of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's all well and good if you put your faith in scientists and reject what God has said. I personally don't trust any scientists, because their method relies on circular reasoning, whereby you must first accept their (unproven method) and then everything must conform to the false premise to begin with, so it's all a big sham.

Perhaps you don't know what circular reasoning is. We use computers, fly aircraft, heal cancers, and all rest for one reason. It works. We see it all working because theories are only theories when their predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by real results.

Placing your trust in some ever changing theory, may give you a sense of security. But I personally reject it, because I see it as a desperate attempt to make sense of God's supernatural creation.

God gave us the ability to do just that. And that's what science does. Nothing man can do, works better for understanding the physical universe God created.

The truth is actually stranger than fiction, secular science uses simple means in an attempt to explain the infinitely complex and mysterious handywork of God.

And yet it works. I suppose you could find peace with your assumptions by finding a nice cave and rejecting all the things science has taught us to do to understand and use His creation.

But it seems kind of pointless, doesn't it?

 

[River Jordan]

I don't know or really care.

Then I can't take your claims about scientists seriously.

No, they are examples of exactly what you asked for.

Uh no, that first link is nothing but three paragraphs of baseless claims.

I would venture to say that most atheists are probably evolutionist, would you not agree? Why wouldn't they be, they have all been taught that it is a scientific fact in their schools, in this country at least. What else would they believe?

I'd bet most atheists probably believe in a spherical earth too. Just because most atheists accept something as real doesn't mean Christians are obligated to reject it.

The theory of evolution is absolutely faith based. It has not been and is not observed anywhere. Change and adaption are observed, evolution from one species into another has not and is not.

Yes it has, lots and lots of times. I've even participated in a study of a recently evolved species.

I never said such. Even a great many evolutionists believe there is a God.

So then there's no reason to try and link evolution with atheism.

I argue that scripture nowhere even hints at anything like evolution as the mechanism of our existence. I personally believe the theory of evolution to be on the level of fairy tale, especially when considered as the mechanism of our existence.

Okay.

I never said I knew anything about your work, or personally addressed you with my views. I maintain my view, that deep timers contradict the overall testimony of holy scripture, and choose to believe unproved deep time scenarios. Are you saying that you do not subscribe to deep time evolutionary beliefs?

If you don't know about my work then maybe consider not acting like you do. If you believe deep time conflicts with how you read scripture, then focus on that rather than trying to argue against science.

Yes, I agree with the scientific conclusion of an ancient earth and universe.

I'm not mandating that scientists do anything.

That's good because nothing you post here will ever affect anything any scientist does.

Correct.

Then we can move on from the idea that an event has to be seen before it can be studied.

Okay, I'll copy and paste what I have already written to you. -

Real science has now proved that these deep time scenarios concerning the formation of the world we now observe, simply are not necessary. Which is why many scientists now lean toward Catastrophism over deep time developments for the greater part of what we observe concerning the geography and surface of the earth. Evolutionists also admit of much more rapid change and adaption to environment than they once propagated. While observing that complexity seems to have consistently appeared further and further back in time than they once thought. Suggesting of course that it was there from the beginning. They are now finding this concerning their speculations regarding the formation of the universe as well, largely from observations made by the James Webb telescope.

I'll ask again if you can show where any scientist who works in a field associated with deep time is considering ditching deep time in favor of everything being less than 10K years old.

I could post many articles from the past that I have addressed on other boards concerning as already stated, tendencies toward more rapid processes than once thought, and continued observations of complexity further and further back in time which is suggestive of complexity from the beginning of course. If you would like.

I'm asking if you can show any geochronologists or other scientists in deep time fields who are abandoning deep time in favor of young earthism.

No not uniquely.

Then there's no need to try and present it as if scientists are more dishonest than any other group.

Apparently so. What exactly do you believe it describes?

I believe Genesis is a lyrical and poetic introduction of God the Creator, description of His relationship to mankind, and literary framework for the 7 day week.

That is kind of strange. I thought you just pretty much said you don't believe Genesis describes evolution. So what, you are a deep timer, but not an evolutionist? Or are you disagreeing with the idea that the theory of evolution creates problems for the gospel message?

The latter. Like the majority of Christians, I don't see evolution as a problem for the gospel message.

 

[River Jordan]

That's all well and good if you put your faith in scientists and reject what God has said. I personally don't trust any scientists, because their method relies on circular reasoning, whereby you must first accept their (unproven method) and then everything must conform to the false premise to begin with, so it's all a big sham.

Uh, I am a scientist. Are you calling me and all my co-workers liars?

Placing your trust in some ever changing theory, may give you a sense of security. But I personally reject it, because I see it as a desperate attempt to make sense of God's supernatural creation.
The truth is actually stranger than fiction, secular science uses simple means in an attempt to explain the infinitely complex and mysterious handywork of God.

Do you think you could do my job better than me?

 

[River Jordan]

I'm more concerned for the young minds that are yet to have established any such things (in addition to my curiosity) nor even considered them from what I've learned having observed some of their discourse on the matter.

I'm in between services right now, so I'll make this quick.

I've been a youth leader at our church for a while now and what I've seen more often is anti-science young-earth material turning kids away from the faith. Some of their stuff is incredibly dishonest, with "quote mining" being a classic example. When one of our kids shows me something from one of these groups that has quotes from scientists in it, I help them find the original source and let them read it for themselves (if they want). I can't tell you how many times they've come back to me appalled at how the creationist material misrepresented things.

If someone wants to believe scripture teaches young-earth creationism, that's not a problem but it doesn't justify doing something like falsely misrepresenting the work of others.

 

[Zceptre]

If someone wants to believe scripture teaches young-earth creationism, that's not a problem but it doesn't justify doing something like falsely misrepresenting the work of others.

I have a big problem with anyone who serves the Jesus Christ, God the Son, the way, the truth, the life... yet cannot be honest about their work.

There are cases of which people simply believe things without much evidence and they have great faith in the direction of the Bible, and sometimes this looks to be misleading when it is only child-like faith. Other times, I have seen what seems to me to be absolutely overreaching in regards to trying to defend the Bible and/or their own beliefs.

For an example, the King James Bible being a "fifth grade reading level." This is an outright lie used (not that many of them don't believe it themselves) to promote the KJV Bible, but it doesn't help their case for it.

Telling lies or exaggerating things to attempt to satiate someone's particular personal preferences for "evidence" of anything is unacceptable.

I was not raised in a Christian school and indoctrinated by "young Earth creationists" with all sorts of special claims and quotes and beat over the head for the first 20 years of my life to believe what I was told. I was thrown to the deep end of evolution and all that it professes to be accurate and reality, and I found it wanting in my own estimations and dug up every single instance of a discrepancy I could find. I done the same thing to the Bible and everything I couldn't understand in it, and I made no partiality about it, I questioned God on things that just seemed "off" to me.

With that said, for anyone to be dishonest is to misrepresent Christ and I hope and pray for their sake it wasn't deliberate because the judgment is real and I personally wouldn't want to have to answer for that. Worse case scenario, I pray they actually are saved and not "playing Christian" when they don't actually know Christ, because that is nightmare street at the dead end conclusion.

But these particular instances don't determine what is truth and what isn't. Reality stands in justification of itself and time tells all things. In the not so distant future, this argument will be answered when we all enter eternity.

If, on the other hand, every time a person who calls themselves a "scientist" says something everyone must jump on board and believe it is the de facto case... well, I'm here to put a flood light on the scene, I've found many liars on both sides over the years and the title means zilch. I personally know of many famous pastors and the secrets they keep, and I know people that know them and their secrets... they are very dishonest. But that doesn't mean the Bible or Christians are, it simply means there are people full of pretenses in every camp and fakes around every corner.

Lesson to be learned, cover your own rear end and do your own homework.

 

[Zceptre]

Uh, I am a scientist. Are you calling me and all my co-workers liars?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest he is probably saying what most of us believers say, and that is men are imperfect.

I don't think he intended such malice in that paragraph.

Do you think you could do my job better than me?

This isn't relevant to the addressed statement. The man said that man's understanding is perpetually changing, and it is. He also said that the realm of knowledge that we aren't aware of is larger than the knowledge we are aware of. It is. Even Einstein has admitted this in his writings, never mind what his position on the matter of faith or God.

As for the "job," it must satisfy our own souls as to whether we believe the conclusions we arrive at. To "trust in others" is to delegate out to others what someone should be doing for themselves.

Our life is our responsibility. We should be diligent enough to ensure we are believing what is true and not believing anything anyone tells us without verifying it ourself within reasonable standards.


This wasn't addressed to me, no... but I felt compelled to offer my opinions, so I'm not speaking nor interjecting for Dan1988 per se. Just volunteering my thoughts.

 

[Job 33:6]

lol, pardon, but what?

Without concern for what anyone's stance is at all...

How long it was void before creation bears no impact on how long it has been since it was created. Whatsoever.

YECs assume the age of the earth is 6,000 years old, but that's meaningless when you ignore how much time passed, and thus the earths age, while it was formless before God began to create it.

Just the same as how long the hospital I was born in had been there doesn't have any bearing on how long it has been since I was born.

In fact you did exist and you were growing in the womb before you were born. You are older than your birthday. Sorry if you've never considered this before. It's one of the primary reasons that people oppose abortion.

You may have been formless in your mother's womb, but you very much still existed and were there before your birth.

Another example would be if I said:
In the beginning when I made cookies, the cookies were formless in my refrigerator, then I gave them form by molding them over 6 days.

The true age of the cookies is longer than just the 6 days.

Another example would be a clay pot. In the beginning when I made a clay pot, the clay pot was formless and empty. And in 6 hours I molded and formed it, and filled it with water.

The true age of the object is not just the 6 hours. The object is much older, it was just formless.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

 

[Zceptre]

Sure it does. Because in fact you did exist and you were growing in the womb before you were born. You are older than your birthday. Sorry if you've never considered this before. It's one of the primary reasons that people opposed abortion.

Right. Like I said, null via base logic position.

I can grasp that you are reaching into implications beyond the surface level conclusions that most resolute to, but that doesn't equate to basic rationality and you can't blanket that across your knowledge base as if it were tangible information you possess and can present to others.

You can try, but you will exist in a bubble all your own and very few if any will benefit from such projections. To claim you existed before you were born is a bit of an overreach in terms of "understanding" and you are tip-toeing all over that area that River Jordan was just mentioning where people are perceived as dishonest for making exaggerated claims and stating unverifiable "facts" they don't have evidence for.

I get it, in "your" world you can see how we exist before we are born, sure, that's great. But the rest of the world doesn't exist in your world inside your head and they would like to communicate with people that live in the world we all do, not in a secluded bubble observable only by you.

You can say that we exist in God's mind before we are born, and I'm sure people can "see" that. But this claim you are on right now is borderline "do not engage" territory for lack of verifiable substance in reality. Very respectfully.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm in between services right now, so I'll make this quick.

I've been a youth leader at our church for a while now and what I've seen more often is anti-science young-earth material turning kids away from the faith. Some of their stuff is incredibly dishonest, with "quote mining" being a classic example. When one of our kids shows me something from one of these groups that has quotes from scientists in it, I help them find the original source and let them read it for themselves (if they want). I can't tell you how many times they've come back to me appalled at how the creationist material misrepresented things.

If someone wants to believe scripture teaches young-earth creationism, that's not a problem but it doesn't justify doing something like falsely misrepresenting the work of others.

False misrepresentations of science is the name of the game. It is creationists best card. Sell content today, make some cash. And when kids feel violated and mislead, just ask for forgiveness later.