A simple question

[GenemZ]

How do you know that when God told the earth to bring forth vegetation and animals, that he was not commanding evolution?

Because? Adam needed to eat after he was created. He did not have a million years to wait for his first meal.

Scenario 2 relies on women having freedom to choose when and with whom they will have sex. Society has often distorted nature by depriving women of that choice. Also today, with birth control readily available, women themselves can change the picture by enjoying sex while preventing conception.

But? She can not get rid of the emptiness that sex without love produces. Can she? It might have been better when she was not so free. It might have forced her to wait for the right one that would truly fulfill her. More women would have found a faithful partner if God was depended on to get them through their lonliness.

Song of Solomon 8:4
"Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires."

Sex is easy to arouse. Its animalistic. Love requires deferring raw sex as God "evolves" our fallen humanity through suffering (when need be) as to make one capable to love. Making a woman free to have sex when she pleases, is in many cases guaranteeing her misery. She is very free to resist God's grace to overcome sin. Just look at the skyrocketing divorce rate since modern day birth control came out. Society had not distorted nature. It restrained the fallen nature of man which is distorted. God wants us to know Him. God is love.

Song of Solomon 8:6 nasb
"Put me like a seal over your heart,
Like a seal on your arm
For love is as strong as death,
Jealousy is as severe as Sheol;
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
The very flame of the LORD. "

God by grace gives the very passion and fire in a blessed relationship. Raw sex dissipates the soul. That is why drugs became so popular when free sex came out. The soul got worn down by all that free sex which was outside of God's will. Drugs try to recapture the life lost.

And, free sex is nothing new. It is ancient. Society lost its salt in the 60's because churches fell down on their job of sound teaching. The so called sexual revolution was simply a throw back to when primitive men were simply driven by their passions.... not by love.

God introduced love into the world. It was not always that way. Love can be rejected when men refuse to accept the truth. Free sex is an old thing. The ancients used to throw their babies into burning flames inside idols as a form of retroactive abortion. All in the name of religion.


Man's nature is distorted when allowed free reign. A moral society does not distort nature of man. It restrains man's distortions.

1 Peter 4:3-4 niv
"For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you."

And, the "free sex crowd" think it strange that someone would be willing to become virtuous. They mock it. They see themselves as being the free ones. But, they have become slaves to their lower fallen nature.

2 Peter 2:19 niv
"They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him."

And, this form of rebellion produces a mentality that is antagonistic to God's truth. It can't help itself. Grace is the help we need. They reject grace. They must oppose truth from God. But, in such a way that it appears to be for God. It must go undetected to those whom do not see their hidden unhappiness that those in rebellion experience. For if they could not hide their misery, they could not be used to seduce others away from the truth. They take pleasure in seducing others into error. Its part of the distortion I spoke of.


Ephesians 6:12 niv
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

That is why those believers who live in error can say they are led of the "Spirit."

2 Timothy 4:3 niv
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."


They are pseudo inspired. But, its not the same..... That is why God gave us the Word in writing! Its the only objective standard by which we have to protect us from lying spirits.

But, we must choose between having our own desires to be fulfilled, or allow the Lord to replace our desires with his own.

Psalm 37:4 niv
"Delight yourself in the LORD
and he will give you the desires of your heart."

The Lord will give us the correct desires to have. Our hearts are deceitful when left on its own. He will give us what to desire, as to become our own desires.

Jeremiah 17:9
"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

God will not give you the desires of your "unevolved heart." God requires that we evolve spiritually before we can know what true happiness is. That only comes from accepting the truth in the power of the Spirit.

When accepted it will grow and produce in the believer happiness! Not a desire to prove oneself to others who oppose you. Just present what you know works.... then leave them be to make up their own mind. Yet, refuting the lies that are raised up in opposition to the truth, as to leave them without excuse. But, there will always be wriggle room allowed for freedom of choice. God must aloow for the wriggle room. If he did not, we could not be judged for our own choices,

The world only offers stimulation, not happiness. Yet, God's happiness is its own source of stimulation when its ours by grace.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

God included the ability for evolutionary change in certain creatures.

Not some. All

Was it evolution? Or, something God had already designed in the creature that remained latent all these years?

It was something God designed. It is called evolution.

Just the same, the chameleon does not eventually become a bird.

True. Chameleons are not dinosaurs.

That's where evolutionists are wacky in their ability to take what is subjective conjecture and run with it as if it has to be truth. They need to do that for the theory to work.

You only think it is wacky conjecture because you have not examined the evidential support. Or you do not understand the evidential support.

Just like God replaced the last world with this present one, he will do it again in the future. It will take place too quickly to be evolution.

That may be true of a new creation. Are you saying it was true of the last creation as well—that the old destroyed earth was replaced too quickly for evolution?

This will not be evolution! It will be a new species appearing everywhere at once!

And that is in total conflict with the appearance of species on this earth. What am I to believe: speculations about the interpretation of Genesis which don’t appear to have much biblical or theological support—or the hard evidence of geology? This is a reason why day-age theory makes more sense to me than gap theory. Even though I disagree with it too.

Its going to be interesting when folks alive at that time find in digs bones of the animals we have today. Think anyone will come up with theory of evolution? It will seem so logical if they leave God out of the equation.

Evolution doesn’t leave God out of the equation. It just relies on evidence to tell us what God did.

 

[Critias]

Why do you say that? I don't see any Scriptural evidence that says that God created natural scientific laws and then ripped them up and threw them aside while creating the universe.

You misunderstand. I believe God created natural laws to sustain what He had created.

I would say Scripture is neutral on this. You can look at Scripture and say it was supernatural, I can look at it and say it was natural. When we have such a coherent body of natural evidence that points to a logically understandable natural origins, I find little need to press the requirement that it was un-understandable.

You really honestly think that all we see was not even intiated as a supernatural event that it is all naturalistic? Is it because you cannot believe God could created everything we see by His Word in six days or because science says He did not?

To look for a natural cause is not to deny the supernatural cause. When a young child asks where he came from his Christian parents will say "From God." When he grows of age they will tell him instead that he came about as a result of his parents' sexual activity. The fact that there is a logical natural reason (sex) doesn't negate the existence and preeminence of the supernatural reason (God).

Let me make a better analogy for you. A child asks his parents who his/her mother and father are. The parents say, we are your mother and father. The child says ok, but goes out into the world in search for his/her mother and father.

That is what te's do. They say God created everything we see, but I am going to go out look for the who created all we see. TE's seem to believe God is the Creator and God is not the Creator at the same time. TE's know God is the origin of all life, yet they are in search of the origin of all life.

Look at July 4th. Scientists send up a probe to attached to a comet so that they can learn how the universe was created. They want to know how it initially started and if they ever come to a conclusion on it, they will then look for the next step: how did the matter get there; who put it there? Will you support the continuing look for the who? Or will the TE's voice finally ring out to scientists and say GOD created this?

Personally, I think TE's are much more concerned with telling yec's they are wrong instead of telling atheists they need to come to grips with there being a God and His name is the Alpha and the Omega.

All I have seen here in this forum is TE's teaming up with atheists to bash yec's. It is like the arm trying to cut off the other arm because it is there. So the other reacts and does the same.

Debates like this do not attempt to bring unity or bridge a gap. Debates like this are intended for you to say "I am right, you are wrong" and for me to say "No, I am right you are wrong."

Let me make this clear so that you don't misunderstand. I have no problems with people believing evolution, Christian or not. What I see, that is a problem, is the hermeneutical approach of those who do believe in evolution. All TE's that I have come into contact with impose their meaning into Genesis instead of looking for the author's meaning.

This shows a lack of care for the Bible, God's Written Word. I do not think one will be condemned because they approached Genesis by imposing their meaning into the text. I do think that many will lose such wonderful knowledge that can be attained, from the Holy Spirit, through God's Written Word.

You see, TE's also start with their own presuppositions when reading Genesis. They may vary, but they do have them and for anyone to deny that they don't have one, is lying. It is a fact that all people have a presupposition when reading the Bible.

Besides, isn't Prof. Humphreys' white hole theory an attempted naturalistic theory? Isn't the idea that the flood was caused by plate tectonics ripping up a flat seabed naturalistic theory? It is only supernaturalist if there is no naturalistic evidence. So isn't creation science wrong to look for naturalistic evidence?

Humphrey's starts with the presupposition that God created in six days. TE's deny this, even when the Bible plainly - yes plainly - says six days the heavens and the earth and all that is in the earth were created.

The only way to deny this six day creation is to impose your meaning into the text. Secondly, declaring Genesis 1-3 as a myth is also imposing your meaning into the text. If you want to understand Hebrew Poetry, read Psalms. If you want to understand ancient myths, read the Atrahasis Epic and Enuma Elish. Each take the position to assert that their king is a form of deity. These writings vary greatly in presentation of a literary style than Genesis.

Also, the first writings were not of myths, they were of literal historical accounts. The Sumer's were very diligent in recording their actual events in history. This disproves people's statements that the ANE did not record literal historical accounts.

Because creation is a supernatural event, looking for where the origin of all life came from is futile. You can study what we have before us, but when one begins to study what he/she cannot test or see repeated it becomes speculation and assertions. Not facts.

The white hole theory is rather interesting. It is not looking for the origin of the universe, it is looking to understand what was/is created.

Evolution which goes down to abiogenesis and then to the big bang are all theories on origins, looking for where we came from, who put us here, how did we get here. I have no problem with people studying life, but science is on a never ending question to figure out how we got here, where or who is our origin. Because they will not accept God as an answer, they will continue to look for Him, but never see Him.

Accept evolution all you want, but don't you think it is your duty as a Christian to point scientists to God? To tell them that God is the origin that you are looking for. Or do you prefer that they never hear of God, that God should not be introduced into science as the alternative of who Created us?

The latter seems to be many TE's position, whether they realize it or not. They don't want God mentioned within Science. His not must not be declared to the scientists as the Creator. Instead science should march on in ignorance. I would think, sense you are in so much agreeance with the Scientists, you would be a good tool for the Lord to declare His name. Instead you seem to take the stance that God, the Creator, should not be declared in Science.

I would say that it's wrong. What is science? To me science is simply establishing a system with physical explanations that corroborate identifiable causes with predictable, repeatable consequences. Science begins with the primary assumption that such a system is possible. In other words, scientists don't create theories, they discover them. And if scientists don't create science but discover them, who created science? I would contend that God created science.

Science would not exist, as we know it, without people. God does not study His own creation in search to better understand it. God already understands it.

Science is a study to gain knowledge. Doesn't God already contain all knowledge?

I would agree that God created science, but I was speaking about the carrying out of science.

Scientists do created theories. What about the theories that have been proven wrong, did they create those or discover them? To discover them sounds as if they are there as something that is already correct and true.

Why? Because I believe that God created a world which has logical cause-effect relationships for the purpose of our intellectual mastery, stimulation and enjoyment. He had no necessity to. He could have made a world where gravity is sometimes attractive, sometimes repulsive and sometimes not there at all, and then held it together simply by His Will alone. He could have made it so that metals are soft at some times and hard at others, that radioactive materials decay at wildly different rates according to His mood - but He didn't. Partly to give our created intellects something to play with, and I believe that He also intended to portray a greater truth: that His constancy is reflected in the constancy of the laws of nature.

If you believe that in addition (though I admit it is not Scripturally necessary), then you will see that creation scientists' claims about science being flawed might actually be assaults on the constancy of God. Though I don't need to go that far to find fault.

The main difference between naturalists and creationists is that creationists start with a presupposition that God did indeed create as the Bible says - six days. Naturalists deny this - all to different extents.

Name some. When Kelvin studied heat, did he just say "I guess God wants heat to flow from hot to cold" and stop there? He looked further for natural causes. That in no way stopped him from acknowledging the supernatural First Cause that is God.

Newton always gave credit to God.

Firstly, science chooses not to attribute anything directly to God. It tries its best to keep God out because one cannot quantify God. Take the Grand Canyon lava flow report for example. Why didn't the ICR scientists say this: "Then again, God could have made the lava flow really 4 billion years old, and deleted a few million nucleons from the sample 5 minutes before we examined it which made us find an assumed age of a few million years"? Why aren't AiG's papers chock full of this kind of disclaimer? Because even their science is naturalistic by premise. Which makes it kind of rich for them to accuse the mainstream of being atheistic - when they're playing by the same "acts of God ignored!" rules.

Go read AiG's website, you will see there stance about God. Go read TalkOrigins website you will see that they don't have a positive stance on God.

My assertion is not that every sentence needs to have "God did this..." but rather a stance or presupposition (getting redundant) that God does exist. You can't even find naturalistic scientists making such a stand. There are some who are Christians, and I find that to be great, but many deny God.

Again, I see this as fertile ground, waiting for a seed to be planted. Yet, TE's, who would be the best seed planter, rather argue yec's instead of planting seeds. I don't understand this.

I know TE's have said yec's are attacking them, but have you not read what Jesus said? "Give them the other cheek."

Who cares about yec's go proclaim the message! Don't get atheists to team up with you so you can try and cut your own arm off within the Body of Christ. Go tell atheists of God, that He is the origin of all life.

But on a deeper level, science subconsciously acknowledges God. As I said, science assumes rational rules govern the universe - and that can be taken to assume a rational God made those rules to govern the universe. That is a wholesomely Christian assertion. Only that in recent years quantum physical research seems to make a direct assault on this assertion of fundamental rational causality, and if the Christian scientific community knew their priorities and their roots they'd see that the ToE's "atheism" is nothing compared to this.

Most naturalistic scientists don't assume God is at the helm. That is where you can come in and proclaim God. Stop taking the stance that within Science there is no room for God to be declared!

I'd say "creation science isn't really science, so You'll have to look elsewhere." But don't put words in His mouth.

How do you know I put words in His mouth? How do you know that I have not spoken what He has given me?

It is amazing that if God asked you why didn't you declare my name, that the above would be your answer to Him. I highly doubt you would say that Him.

"He who is ashamed of Me, so too will I be ashamed of him when it comes time to tell about him to My Father." -- paraphrase of Christ's words.

Quoting verses does not a Christian scientific paper make. Like I showed, AiG and ICR scientists operate on the same naturalistic premises as the rest of the scientific world. They're just a bit more shy about it.

I didn't ask for verses to be quoted. I didn't ask for anything. I just want to know why you feel God shouldn't be declared within Science.

AiG and ICR do declare God, go look at their website and they will give you their stance. There are other scientists out there that are naturalists that do give God credit, but there are far too few of them out there.

If a Christian car mechanic doesn't quote verses to you when he's telling you how to maintain your car does that make him a bad Christian, or a bad mechanic? Economics, politics, fine art, music theory, and healthcare are also "silent on God" by your criteria. Science seems to have an awful lot of good friends for being an "exception".

You don't need to make a mockery of my question. It is a simple one: why do you feel God shouldn't be declared within Science. If you feel He should be declared, why spend so much time arguing against yec's when it is the TE's who have the best opportunity to speak of God to those who follow Science or to Scientists themselves.

You have a great opportunity to be a seed planter, why waste it?

 

[shernren]

You really honestly think that all we see was not even intiated as a supernatural event that it is all naturalistic? Is it because you cannot believe God could created everything we see by His Word in six days or because science says He did not?

There is a good naturalistic explanation for origins. It's called science. I believe that God could have done it naturalistically, simply because He left a lot of evidence behind that He, uh, did.

Let me make a better analogy for you. A child asks his parents who his/her mother and father are. The parents say, we are your mother and father. The child says ok, but goes out into the world in search for his/her mother and father.

That is what te's do. They say God created everything we see, but I am going to go out look for the who created all we see. TE's seem to believe God is the Creator and God is not the Creator at the same time. TE's know God is the origin of all life, yet they are in search of the origin of all life.

Look at July 4th. Scientists send up a probe to attached to a comet so that they can learn how the universe was created. They want to know how it initially started and if they ever come to a conclusion on it, they will then look for the next step: how did the matter get there; who put it there? Will you support the continuing look for the who? Or will the TE's voice finally ring out to scientists and say GOD created this?

But TE's can say "God naturalistically created everything." I think I finally understand your issue with abiogenesis. Thanks for making it clear!

All I have seen here in this forum is TE's teaming up with atheists to bash yec's. It is like the arm trying to cut off the other arm because it is there. So the other reacts and does the same.

Debates like this do not attempt to bring unity or bridge a gap. Debates like this are intended for you to say "I am right, you are wrong" and for me to say "No, I am right you are wrong."

Let me make this clear so that you don't misunderstand. I have no problems with people believing evolution, Christian or not. What I see, that is a problem, is the hermeneutical approach of those who do believe in evolution. All TE's that I have come into contact with impose their meaning into Genesis instead of looking for the author's meaning.

This shows a lack of care for the Bible, God's Written Word. I do not think one will be condemned because they approached Genesis by imposing their meaning into the text. I do think that many will lose such wonderful knowledge that can be attained, from the Holy Spirit, through God's Written Word.

You see, TE's also start with their own presuppositions when reading Genesis. They may vary, but they do have them and for anyone to deny that they don't have one, is lying. It is a fact that all people have a presupposition when reading the Bible.

It's kind of strange, because normally TE's are more honest about their presuppositions than YECs. But I believe you're honest about yours. You say that Moses intended six literal days. What if I say, "When you read the text with a presupposition that Moses intended six literal days, the text will sound awfully like Moses intended six literal days while writing it"? Can you honestly say that you did not start with that presupposition when you read Genesis 1?

I believe, frankly, that YECism is shot through with error. That is why I hack at it. Not because it's there, but because it's opposed to what I believe. I am ready for the possibility that I am wrong, but it has not been shown me. Actually, I used to be active on the Open Forums before you started posting here, until I realized that it is indeed a shame for TEs to team with atheists. But then again isn't that what YECs do as well? By attacking evolution they identify it with atheism. And because evolution is true within the public eye, indirectly YECs affirm that to the public atheism is true. Why not cut off evolution from atheism and show that atheism can be false while evolution is true?

Humphrey's starts with the presupposition that God created in six days. TE's deny this, even when the Bible plainly - yes plainly - says six days the heavens and the earth and all that is in the earth were created.

The only way to deny this six day creation is to impose your meaning into the text. Secondly, declaring Genesis 1-3 as a myth is also imposing your meaning into the text. If you want to understand Hebrew Poetry, read Psalms. If you want to understand ancient myths, read the Atrahasis Epic and Enuma Elish. Each take the position to assert that their king is a form of deity. These writings vary greatly in presentation of a literary style than Genesis.

Also, the first writings were not of myths, they were of literal historical accounts. The Sumer's were very diligent in recording their actual events in history. This disproves people's statements that the ANE did not record literal historical accounts.

Like I said, I'm not good with ANE mythology. I used to assert that the ancient Jew didn't recognize history in myth, but I'm not so sure of such assertions now. Ask gluadys.

Anyway, I gtg now. More later....

 

[gluadys]

Let me make a better analogy for you. A child asks his parents who his/her mother and father are. The parents say, we are your mother and father. The child says ok, but goes out into the world in search for his/her mother and father.

That is what te's do.

That is not a better analogy and that is not what te's do. Shernren's analogy is the one I would also use (and have). God's action does not exclude natural process, nor vice versa. So there is no search for an alternate origin. Only a search for understanding how God brought us into being.

They say God created everything we see, but I am going to go out look for the who created all we see.

Not the who. We already know who. What we seek is the how.

Look at July 4th. Scientists send up a probe to attached to a comet so that they can learn how the universe was created.

Actually that probe is not looking for the origin of the universe. It is looking for the basic elements of life, which may have been brought to earth by comets.

Will you support the continuing look for the who? Or will the TE's voice finally ring out to scientists and say GOD created this?

I don't support looking for the who. We already know who. I do support looking for the how.

You have been told this enough times now, that for you to continue to misrepresent the te position in this way amounts to false witness.

And how do you know that te's are not saying to scientists that God created this? For heaven's sake, thousands of scientists agree with you about this. And say so publicly.

Science itself is leading in this direction, especially in modern physics. There are two physicists (Henry Stapp and Geoffrey Chew, University of California, Berkeley) who are convinced that the fundamental processes of the universe occur outside of space and time, but generate events that can be located within space-time.

If they are right, this explains why science (as a body of knowledge*) cannot acknowledge God. Science is limited to exploring events which occur in space-time. If the fundamental causes of events in space-time occur outside of space-time, science has no way of dealing with them.

*Scientists, of course, can acknowledge God and many do.

Now here is a personal scientific/theological speculation. One of the recent discoveries of science is the perpetual and random appearance of particles out of the quantum vacuum. These virtual particles don't last long, since the equivalent anti-particle or particle of anti-matter is also generated, and the two collide annihilating each other. (I hope I have that right)

A current theory for the existence of the universe is that in a massive collision of matter-anti-matter branes, there was a slight excess of matter particles which survived the mutual annihilation and became the universe we know.

Scientifically, this suggests that the universe emerged out of the quantum vacuum.
Theologically, this suggest to me that the quantum vacuum may be the interface of space-time reality and divine causation.
That would make sense of the idea that the fundamental processes of nature actually occur outside of space-time. For the fundamental processes are the hand of God.

Total speculation. Take it FWIW. And with a large grain of salt.

Personally, I think TE's are much more concerned with telling yec's they are wrong instead of telling atheists they need to come to grips with there being a God and His name is the Alpha and the Omega.

That is because you are encountering TE's in this and similar fora. You are not listening to Vance counselling students at the university or when he distributes Gideon bibles. Or any of us when we are meeting atheists in other circumstances. Please don't assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

All TE's that I have come into contact with impose their meaning into Genesis instead of looking for the author's meaning.

And you think that creationists never impose their meaning into Genesis instead of looking for the author's meaning? I can give you many examples of creationists doing just that.

It is a fact that all people have a presupposition when reading the Bible.

Thank you. So you do agree that creationists also come to the bible with presuppositions about how to read it.

Also, the first writings were not of myths, they were of literal historical accounts. The Sumer's were very diligent in recording their actual events in history. This disproves people's statements that the ANE did not record literal historical accounts.

I don't think anyone has stated that no ANE documents are historical. It is more a matter of ANE writers not making a clear distinction between history and myth as we do. They appear to have thought of history and myth as the same thing, not as one or the other.

Because creation is a supernatural event, looking for where the origin of all life came from is futile.

If that is the case, the scientific search will eventually come to a dead end. Meanwhile, we are learning a lot of useful stuff before we get to the dead end.

Accept evolution all you want, but don't you think it is your duty as a Christian to point scientists to God? To tell them that God is the origin that you are looking for. Or do you prefer that they never hear of God, that God should not be introduced into science as the alternative of who Created us?

Again, you are assuming that this is not already happening. In fact, it is happening on practically every college campus and in many organizations established by Christian scientists. Unfortunately, the good work they do is often undermined by the anti-science nonsense of creationists, especially YECists.

God is not an alternative to science, nor vice versa. But God does accompany science wherever science is viewed through the eyes of faith. Why do you insist that it is an either-or scenario when it is much better seen as a both-and scenario?

The latter seems to be many TE's position, whether they realize it or not. They don't want God mentioned within Science. His not must not be declared to the scientists as the Creator.

You are confounding two different things here. Declaring God as Creator to scientists is imperative for a Christian and is happening. But science is not a person whom one can evangelize. It is a corpus of knowledge developed through use of scientific method. What do we know of God that has been discovered through scientific method? Whatever it is, it should be part of science, but as far as I am aware, we have never discovered anything of God through scientific study. So how can we put what has never been learned through science in a science text?

Instead science should march on in ignorance. I would think, sense you are in so much agreeance with the Scientists, you would be a good tool for the Lord to declare His name. Instead you seem to take the stance that God, the Creator, should not be declared in Science.

Right. Since we know nothing of God through science, God cannot be declared in science. This is not at all the same thing as saying God cannot be proclaimed to scientists, and to all those with an interest in science. The message that science does not require atheism is an important one to proclaim.

So why do YECists insist that science does require atheism?

Who cares about yec's go proclaim the message!

We care because yec's undermine the proclamation of the message by aligning themselves with atheists who say science must be atheistic. When people are convinced of that both by atheistic scientists and YECists, they very often choose science over the gospel no matter how much te's try to present the gospel as not opposed to science. For te's YECism is a big stumbling-block that impedes communication of the gospel.

Most naturalistic scientists don't assume God is at the helm. That is where you can come in and proclaim God. Stop taking the stance that within Science there is no room for God to be declared!

The gospel is to be declared to people, including scientists. God is to be proclaimed to people, including scientists. Stop confusing science, which is information about nature, with scientists.

There is no place in the body of scientific knowledge to speak of God, because that is not how God is known.

There is plenty of space in the scientific community to declare God, and God is being declared to people in the scientific community by people in the scientific community. You only need to look at how packed the lecture halls are when a presentation on science and theology is scheduled.

 

[gluadys]

Like I said, I'm not good with ANE mythology. I used to assert that the ancient Jew didn't recognize history in myth, but I'm not so sure of such assertions now. Ask gluadys.

It was not a matter of not recognising history, but of understanding history as metaphor.

A good outline of the way biblical literature has been perceived from ancient times to the present is Northrop Frye's The Great Code

Note that this is neither an inanity like The Bible Code nor fiction like The DaVinci Code. It is a serious analysis of the Bible and Literature. The second volume in the series is Words of Power.

Frye was not a theologian. He was a professor of literature and literary criticism at the University of Toronto. He made his name with
The Anatomy of Criticism, a book that was required reading for students of literature in most English-language universities (and many others in translation) globally for over two decades.

He became interested in the bible because, to his increasing frustration, he found the biblical illiteracy of his students prevented them understanding the subtleties of English literature. The first two books above are based on the course in the Bible and English Literature which he designed and taught at UofT for many years.

Note that this is not a study of the Bible as literature, but of the interaction of the bible and English literature. Frye's contention is that the biblically illiterate person will miss a lot of the meaning of much of English literature which would have been obvious to earlier generations. What he does in the first book is apply the principles of Anatomy of Criticism to the bible. Along the way he discusses the metaphorical, metanomical and demotic ways of creating and understanding literature.

We are acclimatized to demotic (from Gr. "demos" = people as in "democracy") literature in which a fictional work like a novel strives to imitate factual reporting. But the bible was written in a culture which understood and expressed itself in metaphor, and treated even factual reporting as metaphor. "Metanomical" refers to the transitional phase which dominated medieval thinking which treated both the metaphorical and the factual as allegorical.

 

[Scholar in training]

There is a good naturalistic explanation for origins. It's called science. I believe that God could have done it naturalistically, simply because He left a lot of evidence behind that He, uh, did.

Naturalism is an atheistic view of the world. It means that there is no supernatural, that God has no action in the regular world (that scientific laws themselves can explain nature, anything else is superfluous). Some Christians believe that God is a deus ex machina, that God made the world and then it operates on its own, but this is a rather deistic view of things. Other Christians (namely, the Eastern Orthodox) are panentheists (NOT pantheists), and I believe Orthodox Jews have a similar view.

 

[shernren]

Let me make a better analogy for you. A child asks his parents who his/her mother and father are. The parents say, we are your mother and father. The child says ok, but goes out into the world in search for his/her mother and father.

From what I read it seems you may misunderstand my boundaries between cause and purpose.

It seems we are using the offensive word "abiogenesis" (like many others) in different ways. I am referring to a cause; you are referring to a purpose. The distinction is as such. I refer to abiogenesis as "the natural arising of life from non-life through scientifically explicable chemical change". Of course this is a shorthand description (what about viruses? what about self-replicating simple molecules, such as AATE? what about self-organizing dwilipid membranes?) but you get my drift. And I believe that abiogenesis is possible.

You, on the other hand (it seems) think of abiogenesis as "the natural arising of life from non-life through scientifically explicable chemical change without God's guidance" but that is not a statement of cause, that is a statement of purpose. When I do something, I may not do it directly, but I bring it to pass because I have a purpose in doing so (most of the time). Your rendition of abiogenesis basically says that "because God did not guide this process God is not responsible for it". Which of course even I oppose.

But I do not say, as a result, that life cannot result from natural processes from non-life! I instead say that life could have resulted from natural processes from non-life which God brought to pass.

Your analogy does not describe the YEC-TE divide, but the YEC&TE vs atheists divide. We are on the same side of the analogy. We both believe that God wanted life and therefore God caused it to happen. We may disagree on whether He did this in a way we can understand, or not; but we are united against atheists who believe that there was no God who wanted life. (At least, we should be.)

Let me give you an analogy. Remember when Moses parted the Red Sea? Person A might say, "God stepped in and made sure no water passed." Person B might say "A certain wind blew into a strategic location along the Red Sea and caused a tidal surge which cut off water from the route which the Israelites took. But if both Person A and Person B were Christians they'd agree that it was God who did it, whether He used a natural or an unnatural i.e. unscientific means.

The problem is that when we take that metaphor and apply it to the C-E debate, sometimes Person B is a TE, and sometimes Person B is an atheist. Then the Person B position is identified with atheism and YECs say "All those who take the Person B position are God-denying compromisers!"

Science would not exist, as we know it, without people. God does not study His own creation in search to better understand it. God already understands it.

Science is a study to gain knowledge. Doesn't God already contain all knowledge?

I would agree that God created science, but I was speaking about the carrying out of science.

Scientists do created theories. What about the theories that have been proven wrong, did they create those or discover them? To discover them sounds as if they are there as something that is already correct and true.

It seemed to me that you are criticising modern science as something bad and shameful. I replied by saying God wanted there to be science. If God didn't want science He wouldn't have created the human brain. If God didn't want science He wouldn't have made the world so understandable. The ideas that God made man with intellects that can analyze, and that God made the world that can be analyzed, are the foundations of science - and flow out of Christianity naturally. The idea that God created a messed-up world about which you can't say anything rationally is a modern idea, and likely a heresy.

Go read AiG's website, you will see there stance about God. Go read TalkOrigins website you will see that they don't have a positive stance on God.

At least TalkOrigins is honest about leaving God out. AiG is dishonest about leaving science out. AiG says that it does science, yet it says that any evidence that disagrees with (its own hallowed reading of) the Bible is immediately dismissible no matter what it is.

My assertion is not that every sentence needs to have "God did this..." but rather a stance or presupposition (getting redundant) that God does exist. You can't even find naturalistic scientists making such a stand. There are some who are Christians, and I find that to be great, but many deny God.

ICR and AiG doesn't need this presupposition, you know.

Atheists can admit that isochrons look fishy when they're the result of mixing.
Atheists can admit that bacteria lose information and viability when they become antibiotic-resistant.

Any scientific statement can be made without God. So what is the difference between an AiG paper and a normal paper? It isn't that the first is "Christian" and the second "heathen". (Often, though, and sadly, it's that the first is far more dodgy than the second.)

On the other hand, if you suppose He exists, you must also suppose that He could have tampered with your results in an unquantifiable way, and if you are an honest scientist you should note that supposition. AiG and ICR don't, which was my point.

Again, I see this as fertile ground, waiting for a seed to be planted. Yet, TE's, who would be the best seed planter, rather argue yec's instead of planting seeds. I don't understand this.

I know TE's have said yec's are attacking them, but have you not read what Jesus said? "Give them the other cheek."

Who cares about yec's go proclaim the message! Don't get atheists to team up with you so you can try and cut your own arm off within the Body of Christ. Go tell atheists of God, that He is the origin of all life.

Why do you attack TEs? Because you believe they have faulty hermeneutics of Scripture.
Why do we attack YECs? Because we believe they have a faulty understanding of science.

It's not a vendetta, or a personal grudge, or simply an argument for the sake of one (at least I pray, with God's guidance, it won't be one for me). It's simply that I think you are wrong in this and you probably think I'm wrong too. If the circumstances were right I would have no qualms whatsoever about going tracting or hosting skits or making mega-concerts or whatever it is you all do to evangelise, with you. I wouldn't say a single thing about Genesis 1 in front of the stranger. But I'd still disagree with you on this non-fundamental.

Most naturalistic scientists don't assume God is at the helm. That is where you can come in and proclaim God. Stop taking the stance that within Science there is no room for God to be declared!

Science is a declaration of God - that God is a rational God, that God is a loving God who supplies all our physical needs, that God is a wise and all-knowing God. When you see science as such there is no need for "room within Science" for God as if He's next on the agenda after analyzing the data and writing the abstract. It's all one big doxology. Unless, of course, you make science your enemy for disrupting convenient numbers within your pet theological scheme.

Newton always gave credit to God.

Well, I'll overlook that he dabbled in alchemy and Unitarianism (as far as I remember). Just because Newton gave credit to God doesn't mean he stopped there. He didn't feel the need to say "God created the rainbow in Genesis, therefore it must not have rational governing principles".

How do you know I put words in His mouth? How do you know that I have not spoken what He has given me?

It is amazing that if God asked you why didn't you declare my name, that the above would be your answer to Him. I highly doubt you would say that Him.

"He who is ashamed of Me, so too will I be ashamed of him when it comes time to tell about him to My Father." -- paraphrase of Christ's words.

Your original question: "why shouldn't My Name be proclaimed even within science?" I doubt He'd ask it. He might instead ask "Why should you attach My Name to something you call creation science, when it isn't science?"

But you're right, I wouldn't stop there. I would ask Him if He expects something that doesn't even know what it really is - namely "creation "science"" - to glorify Him. I would praise Him for the wonders of nature that He has made. I would praise Him for that even greater wonder, the human brain, in which He has created something that can integrate the laws of the universe and even grasp something of the nature of Him. And I would say that I had thus proclaimed His name in science, as I am doing right now here on this forum.

And personally I'm sure that, in the question of science at least, He'd be satisfied. Though other areas are needing attention in my life.

You don't need to make a mockery of my question. It is a simple one: why do you feel God shouldn't be declared within Science. If you feel He should be declared, why spend so much time arguing against yec's when it is the TE's who have the best opportunity to speak of God to those who follow Science or to Scientists themselves.

So you say TE's have the best opportunity to speak of God to scientists? Why not be a TE then - you never know if God will want you to minister to a scientist.

 

[GenemZ]

Not some. All

There is no proof that all animals were designed to evolve.

It was something God designed. It is called evolution.

Its called a revelation of God omniscience and forknowledge. He knew a need before it was recognized. The ability to adapt was already built in.....on a very low level.

True. Chameleons are not dinosaurs.

Yet, they may be dinosaurs of a another color.

You only think it is wacky conjecture because you have not examined the evidential support. Or you do not understand the evidential support.

You know what I have examined?

That may be true of a new creation. Are you saying it was true of the last creation as well—that the old destroyed earth was replaced too quickly for evolution?

Numerous times. That is why we find in the strata totally different creations, and watch TOE's scramble to find those illusive missing links.

And that is in total conflict with the appearance of species on this earth. What am I to believe: speculations about the interpretation of Genesis which don’t appear to have much biblical or theological support—or the hard evidence of geology? This is a reason why day-age theory makes more sense to me than gap theory. Even though I disagree with it too.

You still don't get it. Jewish scholars long before Darwin started his theory who had an intimate understanding of the Hebrew texts had already determined from what the texts reveal that other worlds preceded this one.

They did not understand what they could be. And, they had not seen any fossil evidence to motivate such a claim. They only had the Word of God before them. Which goes to show, the gap theory was not created to be an answer to TOE. It preceded TOE, and only entered into public attention after TOE became a popular concept bantered around against the church's traditional misunderstanding of the creation account.

If it were not for TOE, we most likely would not be hearing about the gap theory. It was before then viewed by scholars as an item only shared amongst the circle of serious scholars. It was not a controversial issue for them at that time. It was just something that some saw and wondered about.

Jewish scholars centuries ago put on record the findings of multiple creations.

"Now after or during the Babylonian Captivity, the Jewish people gradually accumulated the comments and explanations of their best known teachers about the Old Testament for some 1500 years - or well on into the Christian era. This body of traditional teaching was gathered together into the Midrash which thus became the oldest pre Christian exposition of the Old Testament. It was already the basis of rabbinical teaching in the time of our Lord and must have been quite familiar to Paul.

According to the Revised Edition of Chambers's Encyclopedia published in 1860, under the heading "Genesis" the view which was then being popularized by Buckland and others to the effect that an interval of unknown duration was to be interposed between Gen. 1. 1 and 1. 2 was already to be found in the Midrash. In his great work, The Legends of the Jews, Louis Ginsberg has put into continuous narrative a precis of their legends, as far as possible in the original phrases and terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob, he has this excerpt on Genesis 1:4


"Nor is this world inhabited by man
the first of things earthly created by God.
He made several other worlds before ours,
but He destroyed them all, because He was


pleased with none until He created ours."

....taken from:

http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html

YEC's run from this insight and try to belittle or minimize it, because it exposes their ignorance of what the Word teaches. And, TOE's try to push it aside because it ruins their fun of proving how intellectually superior they are to YEC's. But, I have evolved beyond that.

​

Evolution doesn’t leave God out of the equation. It just relies on evidence to tell us what God did.

TOE distorts what God did, and then tries to tell us that God could not be straight with men back then. That God had to make up "myths" to try and explain creation. Yet, in Genesis it tells us that God zapped the serpent and made it to crawl on on its belly. They were very capable to grasp the concept of God transforming creatures from one form to another. Yet, God could not explain evolution if he wanted to? That God had to replace the truth with myths?

Not, so...... Hinduism believes in coming back in another form. Its primitive. Yet, its a concept readily grasped by the primitive mind. Evolution would have been a snap to explain. God refused to do this in the Bible. He misled us if evolution was his way.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Critias]

From what I read it seems you may misunderstand my boundaries between cause and purpose.

It seems we are using the offensive word "abiogenesis" (like many others) in different ways. I am referring to a cause; you are referring to a purpose. The distinction is as such. I refer to abiogenesis as "the natural arising of life from non-life through scientifically explicable chemical change". Of course this is a shorthand description (what about viruses? what about self-replicating simple molecules, such as AATE? what about self-organizing dwilipid membranes?) but you get my drift. And I believe that abiogenesis is possible.

If abiogenesis was presented as man being created from dust, I would accept it. Instead it is presented as non-life to bacteria - single celled organism - in a matter of billions of years. I don't have problem accepting this argument except for the time frame.

Moses wrote six days, an honest approach to Scriptural interpretation would be understanding that Moses meant six literal days. I could accept evolution if it was presented a bit differently. Genesis states man was created from dust, so man was created from dust. Animals were created in a similiar fashion, but man was not created out of animals. That is an honest interpretation of Genesis using an author hermenteutical approach. It is not looking at Genesis with the presupposition of it being literal, but rather looking at it to see what type of genre the author used to relay his message to the readers. Comparing Genesis with the Sumer myths and Babylonians myths shows that Genesis is not of the same form. Comparing Genesis with the Psalms shows Genesis is not of the same form. Comparing Genesis with other historical accounts shows similiar form.

One thing I want to convey to you is that I don't really care about te, yec, oec, gap, progressive creationists, etc. I care about reading the Bible with the intention of understanding what the author wanted to convey. If Genesis was written differently, indicating a long period of creation, I would follow that belief. If Genesis indicated that it was the second creation or the seventh creation, I would believe that. If it indicated that it was a mythical genre, I would believe that. If it indicated it was poetry and not a historical account, I would believe that. My presupposition, when reading the Bible, is to read it looking for author's intended meaning. I am not worried about what the world has to say about how the Bible is wrong or right, I am more concerned with what God has to say to my heart and what the Holy Spirit is teaching me.

Secondly, I don't honestly have anything against evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang. I find it fun to debate them every once in a while, but honestly it isn't much of a concern for me. I know some here might scoff at me for saying such a thing, but in my life I am more concerned with what God has to say to me, what God has to teach me, and what God wants from me. This life, to me, is about what God wants for me and me responding to that. I don't concern myself with making sure I follow every popular belief or go against what is popular to be popular. I am concerned with God because it is Him who will judge me and whom I have to answer to. I don't have to answer to President Bush and I don't have have to answer to Science. That is not to say they can't teach me anything, but in the end, for my beliefs that concern the Bible, I have no choice in my walk with God but to follow Him completely and to surrender my will to Him.

You, on the other hand (it seems) think of abiogenesis as "the natural arising of life from non-life through scientifically explicable chemical change without God's guidance" but that is not a statement of cause, that is a statement of purpose. When I do something, I may not do it directly, but I bring it to pass because I have a purpose in doing so (most of the time). Your rendition of abiogenesis basically says that "because God did not guide this process God is not responsible for it". Which of course even I oppose.

I think it would be better said that I don't see the naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis and evolution being compatible with an author's hermeneutical approach to Genesis. And for me, there is not other way to approach Scripture then to understand what the author was trying to convey to his readers.

But I do not say, as a result, that life cannot result from natural processes from non-life! I instead say that life could have resulted from natural processes from non-life which God brought to pass.

I have no problem with a naturalistic explanation of something that we see happing within our world. Ex. the plant grows because a seed was planted and watered. I have no problem with that.

What I see, is many leading scientists who make remarks that they must advance evolution because an alternative - believing God is the Creator - is unspeakable. I tend to think that many other scientists follow in suit. As someone said here, evolution is in every piece of science these days. To really go against it would be something; look at creationists they go against it and the everyone, including Christians want to tear them down. It isn't a simple disagreement, it is personal attacks on them. Look at this forum, people say all Creationists are dishonest, liars, don't use real evidence, make up evidence, etc. I guarentee you that those here in this forum, aren't there with the Creation scientists looking over their shoulders, seeing what they are doing, to make such accusations. Instead they could say, they disagree, but no, instead they hurl personal attacks. Is that Christian like? No, it is bigotry, because evolutionists, many of them it seems, are intolerant of any view point that is against evolution. They don't counter with, you are wrong, they counter with you aren't real scientists, even when they hold the same degrees from the same institutions.

Clear and simple, personal attacks to discredit the creationists so that no one will listen to them.

Your analogy does not describe the YEC-TE divide, but the YEC&TE vs atheists divide. We are on the same side of the analogy. We both believe that God wanted life and therefore God caused it to happen. We may disagree on whether He did this in a way we can understand, or not; but we are united against atheists who believe that there was no God who wanted life. (At least, we should be.)

I agree, we are united against atheism.

Let me give you an analogy. Remember when Moses parted the Red Sea? Person A might say, "God stepped in and made sure no water passed." Person B might say "A certain wind blew into a strategic location along the Red Sea and caused a tidal surge which cut off water from the route which the Israelites took. But if both Person A and Person B were Christians they'd agree that it was God who did it, whether He used a natural or an unnatural i.e. unscientific means.

I agree that God most likely used naturalistic events for many of the things He did do throughout history. I just don't think creation was one of them. I would agree that evolution did and does occur within the animal kingdom. Common descent, I believe has many problems, but I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me.

The problem is that when we take that metaphor and apply it to the C-E debate, sometimes Person B is a TE, and sometimes Person B is an atheist. Then the Person B position is identified with atheism and YECs say "All those who take the Person B position are God-denying compromisers!"

Well first off, stating such a statement is damaging a persons ability to persuade someone that they are wrong. Second, disagreement over creation does not necessarily mean 'God-denying' unless they did infact deny God. I can understand where compromising comes from. I would think even you, being intelligent, could see this as well. You most likely disagree with it, but I would think you can see how someone might see it this way.

What I tend to think about this argument is that everyone is wrong. Each side has it partially right and partially wrong. YEC's are partially wrong when they say evolution doesn't exist. That it never happened; I am not referring to common descent, but change over time. TE's say evolution - all of it - did happen. I see it as God created everything in six days. He created the animals, not every animal, but the "parent" type animals for the animals we see today to evolve to. God created man as a separate creation from the rest, but within the world as written. So, basically, evolution with a starting point of everything created, but not fully evolved into different species as we see today, and no common descent.

I know, from an evolutionists perspective it is all or none; it cannot be partial.

It seemed to me that you are criticising modern science as something bad and shameful. I replied by saying God wanted there to be science. If God didn't want science He wouldn't have created the human brain. If God didn't want science He wouldn't have made the world so understandable. The ideas that God made man with intellects that can analyze, and that God made the world that can be analyzed, are the foundations of science - and flow out of Christianity naturally. The idea that God created a messed-up world about which you can't say anything rationally is a modern idea, and likely a heresy.

It is not modern science that I necessarily criticising. It is modern scientists who make up science that I am criticising. Those who are Christians who believe in evolution have not raised their voices loud enough to declare God within science. I know it is harsh, but I feel they have such a great opportunity and are not using it well. There are those who are absolutely silent when it comes to God within science.

When you are silent and you don't speak up, you are acting ashamed of God. Jesus warned against this, if we are ashamed of Him, so too will He be ashamed of us. Jesus gave us a command, 'go and tell all nations about what I have done.' This shouldn't be taken lightly and I believe it has been.

At least TalkOrigins is honest about leaving God out. AiG is dishonest about leaving science out. AiG says that it does science, yet it says that any evidence that disagrees with (its own hallowed reading of) the Bible is immediately dismissible no matter what it is.

This is exactly what I meant by what I said earlier. You honestly believe AiG has never done any real science? And do you have absolute proof, seen everything they have done, read everything they have said, to make such an accusation? I am speaking about your comment that they leave science out.

As you can see, they are honest about their presupposition. You may disagree that something that denies what is written in the Bible should be accepted, but some people don't. And because they don't, doesn't mean you can start making false accusations about them. You can make such claims, if you have been there, seen it, and know for a fact that they have never done any real science on anything. If you don't, you would be wise to just say I disagree with them.

This honestly seems much more like a political debate, creation vs evolution, than one that is concerned with Truth. It is more about mudslinging from both sides rather than a search for real Truth.

ICR and AiG doesn't need this presupposition, you know.

They do need to have the presupposition that the Bible is God's Word, infallible and innerant, if they are going to stick with a traditional perspective, within Christianity.

 

[Critias]

Atheists can admit that isochrons look fishy when they're the result of mixing.
Atheists can admit that bacteria lose information and viability when they become antibiotic-resistant.

Any scientific statement can be made without God. So what is the difference between an AiG paper and a normal paper? It isn't that the first is "Christian" and the second "heathen". (Often, though, and sadly, it's that the first is far more dodgy than the second.)

On the other hand, if you suppose He exists, you must also suppose that He could have tampered with your results in an unquantifiable way, and if you are an honest scientist you should note that supposition. AiG and ICR don't, which was my point.

What do you mean by tampered with your results? That God changed the results after the scientists tested them to get his/her results?

Why do you attack TEs? Because you believe they have faulty hermeneutics of Scripture.
Why do we attack YECs? Because we believe they have a faulty understanding of science.

I didn't think of this as attacking TE's, if that is how it came off, I apologize. I didn't think I had personally attacked any TE here with personal insults about them or their understandings. I have said I think TE's are wrong, but I didn't think I went beyond that.

I apologize if you felt I went beyond saying I feel your understanding is wrong and personal attacked you.

It's not a vendetta, or a personal grudge, or simply an argument for the sake of one (at least I pray, with God's guidance, it won't be one for me). It's simply that I think you are wrong in this and you probably think I'm wrong too. If the circumstances were right I would have no qualms whatsoever about going tracting or hosting skits or making mega-concerts or whatever it is you all do to evangelise, with you. I wouldn't say a single thing about Genesis 1 in front of the stranger. But I'd still disagree with you on this non-fundamental.

First, I agree, I would love to stand with you and proclaim the Gospel. We can leave origins to a time when the meat is ready to be served. Until then, milk is in order.

Second, you have stated that you don't know a lot of ANE mythology. Nothing wrong with that. So, I am curious if you don't, have you concluded Genesis is a myth? If so, on what grounds if you are not familiar with ANE mythology.

We obviously disagree, so I don't really care about talking about who is right or wrong, but rather how you got to your belief. I believe I have shared much of mine, so I am curious how you came to believe Genesis is not a historical account, if that is what you believe.

Science is a declaration of God - that God is a rational God, that God is a loving God who supplies all our physical needs, that God is a wise and all-knowing God. When you see science as such there is no need for "room within Science" for God as if He's next on the agenda after analyzing the data and writing the abstract. It's all one big doxology. Unless, of course, you make science your enemy for disrupting convenient numbers within your pet theological scheme.

Science is not my enemy. I have been asking questions for one, to better understand a TE's position here in this forum, and two because it is enjoyable to share perspectives.

I know this is a touchy forum, where many get very angry over issues, but that hasn't been my intention here, to get anyone angry or be angry. My initial posts in this forum, was to make a point about people who don't ask others what they believe, but instead tell them what they believe. We all make this mistake at times, I included, but this shouldn't be an excuse to do so. In the latter posts, here in this forum, have been more out of fun for the conversation for me. I am not really attracted to creation debating that much, yet I am. I don't know if you understand that position or not, but that is how I see myself. So, this has just been a fun and enjoyable bantering back and forth with you and a few others here.

Science has never actually been the real issue for me. It is the hermeneutical approach of those who subscribe to evolution and naturalistic explanations for all things, when the Bible is concerned. Sadly, Churches do not spend enough time teaching the congregation how to properly read the Bible and to test everything, including the pastor himself, against the Bible. That is when someone is proclaiming something that is written within the Bible.

Well, I'll overlook that he dabbled in alchemy and Unitarianism (as far as I remember). Just because Newton gave credit to God doesn't mean he stopped there. He didn't feel the need to say "God created the rainbow in Genesis, therefore it must not have rational governing principles".



Your original question: "why shouldn't My Name be proclaimed even within science?" I doubt He'd ask it. He might instead ask "Why should you attach My Name to something you call creation science, when it isn't science?"

But you're right, I wouldn't stop there. I would ask Him if He expects something that doesn't even know what it really is - namely "creation "science"" - to glorify Him. I would praise Him for the wonders of nature that He has made. I would praise Him for that even greater wonder, the human brain, in which He has created something that can integrate the laws of the universe and even grasp something of the nature of Him. And I would say that I had thus proclaimed His name in science, as I am doing right now here on this forum.

And personally I'm sure that, in the question of science at least, He'd be satisfied. Though other areas are needing attention in my life.

God knows us better than we know ourselves. So, it can be concluded that they may not even know what we truly are, within ourselves. We think we know, but in the perspective of God, we could be wrong. As you say, if we don't even know what we really are - highly evolved primates or special creation - are we expected to glorify God?

Shernren, we all need more attention to our spiritual lives. It is good that you recognize this about yourself, it means you will continue to try and put God's teachings into practice in your life. May God Bless you and help you in doing so.

So you say TE's have the best opportunity to speak of God to scientists? Why not be a TE then - you never know if God will want you to minister to a scientist.

LOL!! That is a good one. I would, if I thought the Genesis was teaching creation in that perspective. Instead, we can just agree to disagree, uplift one another in Christ, and share our love for the Lord together, so that others may know Him as we do.

 

[shernren]

Can I ask you a very simple question? Do you believe that if you put the Bible aside and honestly look at the scientific evidence, nearly all of it adds up to evolution and the Big Bang? Notice I would not include abiogenesis. I believe that the evidence is sketchy, I personally believe that life was something supernatural, and that even if God did make abiogenesis happen He would quite probably bring about the end-times before our civilization advances to the hubris of making our own life naturalistically.

I really have almost nothing against YECism, itself, besides the dualism - physical death and Sabbatarianism issues we have been discussing. To share my personal approach to this problem, I was born and raised pretty much a YEC person since young. I also had an inclination for science ("God made the universe to be understood" - you can see my rational bent there ) and I spent lots of time and a little money on YEC "science" and all the latest fashionable debunkings of evolution.

That state continued until about February this year (I think; it was around there) when I joined Christian Forums. I saw the open C&E thread. Immediately I saw two trends: 1. The arguments for evolution looked much more polished than the arguments for creation, 2. The arguments for creation seemed to come mostly from AiG and sometimes ICR, whereas the arguments for evolution seemed to have a wider research base. So I asked the evolutionists if there was any convenient central souce for their arguments. They showed me TalkOrigins.

I was very much won over, but I still didn't feel convinced. So I asked the YECs if they could answer the scientific issues I had. None did! At the same time I asked the TEs and atheists if they could answer the theological issues I had (At that time I hadn't found the Closed forums yet. Stupid me.). And they answered quite convincingly with things like natural explanations of the week, mythologizing of Genesis (which does chime with me, being familiar with the Eastern myth-form as a Chinese Malaysian). I guess I was hooked.

And yet for a time I had a very chimeric belief system. I still did believe that God created in six days, but I could see that there was simply no proof of it. It was quite crazy. I was in thought and belief a YEC, but in scientific standing an evolutionist. I got quite into refuting scientific creationist "evidence" with the young people on their forum when it was the craze there. That was when I realized that hey, for all practical purposes I might as well be a TE and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference to the outside world from a YEC who doesn't believe AiG.

I hope that explains my hostility (as I admit) towards "scientific creationism / creation science" in general, and AiG and ICR in specific. Yes, they are openly Christian organizations. Yes, I'm sure their arguments do convince those superficially involved in the debate and might well win some atheists to Christ. But I dislike the shallowness with which it's all done - the fudging of data and quoting of 50-year-old sources, their calling their business science when the fundamental and irreconcilable motivation is theological, their ignoring the Sabbatarian implications of their work (and not handling it), and their scathing criticism of other Christian creationist groups who just don't like their timeline as if they were atheists too.

As for the ANE mythology angle, I believe that maybe it takes an Easterner to personally understand the force of the argument. We grew up with epics like The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which has historically verifiable rebellions and emperors, and yet whose crucial naval battle is sealed when Confucius summons the winds through occult sacrifice. There were Malay stories like that of Hang Tuah, who was a real historical character found in non-Malay records, and whose biggest exploit involves killing a real Indonesian rebel and gaining a very obviously fictional short sword ("keris") which grants him immortality. Myth or history? Or both? To me it seems at least reasonable, though probably not ironclad, that Genesis 1 could have been such a myth-form. Like that wonderful sig "The Bible is true, and some of it happened".

I guess it is a matter of thinking and analytical styles. I do believe, although I'm not sure, that if you were more scientifically inclined you would likely see the TE side of the debate stronger than the YEC side, just like me. To me it is a simple matter of God not allowing any self-contradiction: if His Scriptural revelation seems to contradict His general revelation through nature, then I must have read His Scriptural revelation wrong.

And no, you have not offended me anywhere. I used the word "attack" because you used the imagery of the Body of Christ chopping off its own arm. Come on, I'm not *that* violent to you, am I?

 

[shernren]

To clarify: I dislike "creation science" in its current popular form. I would have almost nothing against YECism that doesn't include creation science; but since a large section of YECs are creation science proponents, that makes me irritated.

And I shouldn't have mentioned "tampering with the results", that was imprecise of me. I meant more towards tampering with the experiment. Once God steps in you can't do science any more. I can't say iron is less dense than water. Although that occurrence was observed once, it was a result of God's bending the rules of nature.

 

[Solomonthewise]

Well, you are wrong. I do believe God has the power to say something and it is done. In fact, I believe that is exactly how God creates. I also believe science shows us what was done when God spoke, and how it was done. And a big part of that for living creatures is evolution. How do you know that when God told the earth to bring forth vegetation and animals, that he was not commanding evolution?



Not 100% sure. As sure as the evidence permits. And right now that is in the neighbourhood of 99.99% sure.

Why would you pity me if it turns out to be wrong? What do you think would happen other than my recognizing that new evidence sheds new light on the matter?



Again you are wrong. I am passionate about truth and I am a Protestant (Presbyterian to be specific). What is it about being a Protestant that says we cannot be passionate for truth? Did Jesus not say “The truth will make you free”?



Which history? Church history? Reformation history? Historic teachings of the church? I am probably better informed on these topics than on science.



That is what it always comes down to, isn’t it? A Christian who accepts evolution is not a “proper” Christian. I still don’t know what that has to do with being Protestant.

That may be your opinion, but as far as I know it is not God’s opinion. Where does it say that a person’s take on evolution is a salvation issue?



Thanks for the link. I especially liked this article



It doesn’t so your premise is wrong.





I can see two obvious reasons:
1. Females inherit genes from their fathers as well as their mothers, so why would they not inherit the capacity for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?
2. Females who are able to have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] enjoy sexual intercourse more, and seek it more often, leading to improved reproductive success i.e. they are likely to have more children than women who avoid sexual intercourse because it is not especially pleasurable for them. And their female children will also inherit the capacity to have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and also tend to have more children than females who don’t, and so on.


Scenario 2 relies on women having freedom to choose when and with whom they will have sex. Society has often distorted nature by depriving women of that choice. Also today, with birth control readily available, women themselves can change the picture by enjoying sex while preventing conception.

All you seem to do is try to justify evolution by using god as a front, no matter what you say you cannot prove it simply based on the most fundamental fact which is, ITS NOT IN THE BIBLE!

You can try to justify that all you like but no matter what you say it doesnt change the fact that its not in the bible!

I must say in saying that a scientific process happens when god says somthing to happen, is a very logical idea!

But at what point does science try to explain too much? or at what point does the bible try to explain too much? (retorical question!!!)

Why not back up a step and say well hey at least if i take exactly what was in the bible about creation, for gospel then ill have no problems about being wrong!

If its in the bible its valid and theres no denying it, but evolution is not therefore i see absolutely no reason to go and try to understand somthing that no human will ever be 101% positive about!

(what did you think of that link? quiet informative isnt it, amazing about the nano-technologey )

 

[shernren]

The Bible doesn't tell me I am Chinese. So how can I ever be 100% sure about it? And how do I know it's true?

Because I can observe myself, and I can make predictions of my behaviour and characteristics that are best explained by the fact that I am Chinese.

In the same way, we can observe nature, and we can make predictions concerning natural biological occurences that can be best explained by the evolutionary hypothesis.

 

[depthdeception]

All you seem to do is try to justify evolution by using god as a front, no matter what you say you cannot prove it simply based on the most fundamental fact which is, ITS NOT IN THE BIBLE!

Why is not being able to prove anything that is not in the bible "the most fundamental fact"???

You can try to justify that all you like but no matter what you say it doesnt change the fact that its not in the bible!

I can just as easily say--depending upon my hermeneutics--that YECism isn't in the bible either!

I must say in saying that a scientific process happens when god says somthing to happen, is a very logical idea!

You have a very interesting defintion of "logical." Actually, what you propose is anti-logical, or supra-logical. But whatever it is, it is not "logical."

Why not back up a step and say well hey at least if i take exactly what was in the bible about creation, for gospel then ill have no problems about being wrong!

How can I be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is right? Besides, I do feel that my position (TE) is what is in the bible about creation.

If its in the bible its valid and theres no denying it, but evolution is not therefore i see absolutely no reason to go and try to understand somthing that no human will ever be 101% positive about!

Like God? Or the Incarnation? or the Trinity? Perhaps we should stop trying to understand these also, since there is no possible way that we will ever be 101% positive about the exact nature of these things...

 

[GenemZ]

So, we have nothing left to discuss. Too bad. I was hoping to find a gap theorist who would at least make an effort. I still see neither a biblical nor a scientific reason to adopt gap theory.

Like I said. Its not my job to convince you. For some, when shown the reasons for the gap theory, it just drives them to learn more about it from their own motivation. It has to come from the the Spirit. If not, and even if I convinced you...it would be a mere intellectual act... not a spiritual one.

Matthew 16:16-17 niv
"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

I have all the material needed to refute you intellectually. But, it would require breaking forum rules to keep rubbing your nose it it before I would anger you and force you to stop denying what is before you. That is not how it works. Our Father in Heaven has to reveal it to you if you are to believe. Its not a matter of making you change your mind from one state of human energy to another. When it is spiritual, it is a gift from God to see truth from the Bible. Unregenerate humans argue logic all the time. They remain as unregenerate when corrected by being shown their inconsistencies and shown what is consistently logical. Yet, they remain unspiritual. God does not want us to win the argument and leave the person as they were. So, why should I take that approach with you?

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

Jesus said ....

Matthew 11:30
"For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

If we were all walking in the Spirit as we should be, we would all be in agreement. To try to keep convincing someone of something after they have been shown more than enough for the Spirit to bear witness to..... is making that burden heavy.

The spiritual believer's job is to present truth. Not to keep hammering it home after more than enough has been said. For if the one in error gets back in fellowship with the Spirit by being humble before God in prayer, then the Spirit will guide that believer into seeing what they are blind to. Its the Holy Spirit's ministry to do what you think is my job. I can only tell you what is to be known and has been shown to be more than enough for those who do get it. The Spirit opens our eyes. Intellectual pride locks them shut. Any form of pride does. Who knows? I may be the proud one here? And, the Spirit can not show me that evolution is how God created life? Who knows?

But that is how I would have to see evolution as being the way. It would have to be the Spirit opening my eyes to the truth. Finding truth is not an execise in narrowing down things via logical deduction. If that were the case, all who saw Christ would have believed in Him. Instead, those who saw more than they could deny, had him nailed to the Cross. Such is the way it is in the realm of God's system of coming to believe in truth....

John 4:23-24 niv
"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."


The Spirit must show us the truth that we are blind to! Left to our own natural abilities we will never see the truth in the proper light.

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

That's how it has to happen. For seeing truth is being honored from God's volition to man. Not as an entitlement we demand of him . Its not something we simply have the ability inborn to see. God honors us with truth. Its an honor. Its by grace that it is accomplished by God.


If that were not the case those with higher IQ's would be able to know God better than those with average IQ's. That would eliminate the purpose for God's grace. Grace is the great equalizer of all believers. When grace is at work we all become actively a part of a greater whole. The body of Christ.

We can not glory in ourselves. Even when we are right and the other is clearly wrong. We can not see ourselves as being superior to them. Only as in a superior place for the moment. For the same grace is available to the one in an inferior place for the moment. Why some walk in grace and others refuse, is between them and God. Those walking in grace will find truth. The very same truth that those who are outside of grace will refuse to accept.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

Like I said. Its not my job to convince you. For some, when shown the reasons for the gap theory, it just drives them to learn more about it from their own motivation. It has to come from the the Spirit. If not, and even if I convinced you...it would be a mere intellectual act... not a spiritual one.

I think it is interesting when you have backed yourself into a wall (like in the other forum for our discussions) you step away from the discussion by falling on this "I'm not going to refute you anymore because to do so would be an intellectual act, not a spiritual one." If this is so, why do you even participate in the forums at all? It seems more likely that you realize you cannot substantiate your position anymore, and now you are trying to find an out.

I have all the material needed to refute you intellectually. But, it would require breaking forum rules to keep rubbing your nose it it before I would anger you and force you to stop denying what is before you. That is not how it works.

The forum rules do not prohibit you from refuting anyone's position intellectually. If you can really do such a thing, there is nothing in the rules stopping you. Unless, of course, part of your "intellectual refutation" is personal attacks (which you have already proven you are quite willing to do--remember, everyone who disagrees with you in unregenerate and not listening to God?).

Our Father in Heaven has to reveal it to you if you are to believe. Its not a matter of making you change your mind from one state of human energy to another. When it is spiritual, it is a gift from God to see truth from the Bible. Unregenerate humans argue logic all the time. They remain as unregenerate when corrected by being shown their inconsistencies and shown what is consistently logical. Yet, they remain unspiritual. God does not want us to win the argument and leave the person as they were. So, why should I take that approach with you?

If you really believed this and followed through with it, you wouldn't even bother participating in these forums.

If we were all walking in the Spirit as we should be, we would all be in agreement. To try to keep convincing someone of something after they have been shown more than enough for the Spirit to bear witness to..... is making that burden heavy.

I doubt that if everyone was walking in the Spirit (which I don't automaticaly doubt we are) we would still all agree on everything.

And the burden in made heavy for who? You? My shoulders feel okay right now, if I'm being honest.

 

[shernren]

I doubt that if everyone was walking in the Spirit (which I don't automaticaly doubt we are) we would still all agree on everything.

I agree on that. We read in Scripture that Paul and Barnabas parted ways over a HR decision, and that Peter (like most of us) found Paul difficult to understand.

 

[GenemZ]

I think it is interesting when you have backed yourself into a wall (like in the other forum for our discussions) you step away from the discussion by falling on this "I'm not going to refute you anymore because to do so would be an intellectual act, not a spiritual one." If this is so, why do you even participate in the forums at all? It seems more likely that you realize you cannot substantiate your position anymore, and now you are trying to find an out.

No. Its just that I already gave anyone who is enabled to see it, more than enough to believe what was said. Its like arguing with someone about not believing in Christ will send them to Hell. And, then they wish to continuously debate different things about Christ being the reasons they do not believe. They key is this. Without grace you can not believe what is supoosed to be believed. If the truth strikes a chord in your soul that caused you to become reactionary, being reactionary is sin. Sin cuts one off from grace. And this vicious cycle is sent down the conveyer belt of the emotions.

If what someone was told is truth? And it was said in various ways and shown for what it is? If it is truth? Only grace can reveal it to the soul of the one who does not yet believe it. If this area of truth keeps stirring up an arrogant reaction, he will never believe. Arrogant reactions cuts one off from grace.

The Bible does not say to keep driving the point home. It says to limit how much one is to say. For the real problem concerning the truth is not the one communicating it. It is really a problem in the person's relationship to God Himself. That is why Jesus said....

Matthew 16:16-17 niv
"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

Its is really an issue between the person and his relationship with the Father. Those who may have truth are not told to keep trying to make their point. Matter of fact, he is told the opposite.

Titus 3:10 niv
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him."

It all depends on the nature of the debate. Not everyone who disagrees is divisive. Some are. Some are not. Just the same, it is God who must work in that person's heart. That is why we are told to leave him be. No intellectual rebutal will win him over if his soul is determined to buck the tide of the Spirit. In some cases, that is the case.

Heaven knows I have tried more than twice with you (and others). We are not all of the same spirit of attitude. So, I move on when I see its an issue of attitude rather than simple ignorance.

Annnnnnd! That's what I did. For I know with others they can connect with what I say without a problem. Some are a little slow. Others are quick. Others just have an attitude that is a wall. We each must decide if we are to continue. And, I made my choice.

Everyone who believes is given the gift of the Holy Spirit. But, not everyone who believes walks in the Spirit at all times. You seem to think we do. Fine.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ