Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

[Halbhh]

Ah, the it looks old to me so there's no way God could have created the way he says .. How many times has the explanation of the Big Bang been true then changed a few years later ? Or other theories only to be shot down , yet Gods Word remains the same .. And what do you tout now that will be obsolete anytime now . ''Ever learning but never coming to the truth'' , what does this mean ?

I thought very differently than 'no way God could have'!!

I thought like this, even when young -- if it looks old, that means God created over a long period of time. I didn't even have a conflict to some doctrine, because I trusted God above doctrines.

I thought "ah, that's how God did it -- over long periods of time".

After all, the text itself looks poetic in word, to begin with, also. So, this is a very natural way of reading it.

But.... We are discussing what is really just small detail which are only relevant to just a minority of people even.

Many never worry about stuff like this -- time duration and lengths in Genesis chapter 1 -- in any manner, and trust that God is above us, superior to us. They don't even worry about it at all. I know. I talked to more than one like this.

One wonderful believer I personally am close to thinks God has in some way made it look older, but it's really not. And I love her just fine, and we have zero conflict on it.



But for some people, a few, they will need, really need, to know how the scripture fits together with what we observe in science.

It fits fine.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ah, the it looks old to me so there's no way God could have created the way he says .. How many times has the explanation of the Big Bang been true then changed a few years later ? Or other theories only to be shot down , yet Gods Word remains the same .. And what do you tout now that will be obsolete anytime now . ''Ever learning but never coming to the truth'' , what does this mean ?

Old earth geology has been around since the late 1700s, and has only grown over time.

The alternative is taking a position that everything was created to look as if it were old, but is not really. In regards to the latter, if an old wrinkly, hunched over man walks past me at church, it is fair for me to assume that he is indeed old and wasn't born yesterday.

 

[Steve Petersen]

And you still can't explain Polonium halos almost instantly formed in granite without untruthful spin

You are using 50 year old arguments. Here is a refutation of the polonium radio halo argument used by YECs:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

 

[sfs]

The topic is not science. It is the creation of Adam through evolution, of which the Bible does not state.

You: "Evolution is not science."
Me: "Evolution is science. I'm paid as a scientist, and one of the things I study is evolution. If it isn't science, then both I and my employers are badly mistaken -- as are all of the funding agencies, research universities, scientific professional associations, scientific publishers and national academies of science in the world.
You: "You are badly mistaken."
Me: "So you know what science is better than the world's scientists? That's really your position? Exactly what expertise do you have in science?"
You: "The topic is not science."

Did you forget what we were talking about? You claim that evolution is not science. If that is indeed your claim, I want to know why you think you understand science better than the all the scientists on the planet.

That is the problem with you, too. It is your "religion". You make no reference to the new birth of which the Gospel depends.

Yes, Christianity is my religion. Not my "religion" -- just my religion. I assumed from your icon that it was also yours.

You failed to address my point: where do you get off adding "and you must believe that Genesis is an accurate, literal, historical account" to the gospel?

 

[4x4toy]

Might I suggest it absolutely does not matter even the slightest bit for salvation whether God chose to create the Universe by His design and His natural laws, physics, or instead to create all as it is now less than 10,000 years ago -- that both are fitting to Genesis 1 perfectly....since we are only supposing how much time passed during verse 1 before the Earth came into being. And then, many supposing about what time passed between the days, whether much or none or little, etc.

In other words, these suppositions all are making -- they are not in the text, and not relevant even, since they are merely about merely time duration amounts that have no consequence on the spiritual level, for believers.

It's only interesting to us as for our curiosity, science. We are trying, hard, to discover more of what God did physically. Physics.

You can study all the physics and science you want, I love it too and it intrigues .. But when you nullify Gods Word with it then what else creeps in now that you've OK'd a standard .. I see YEC scientifically , but also a starting/working point in time where God receives more glory with no help from you or yours . In my experience God will allow you to keep marching in the wrong direction if you insist , me too .. I've caught myself drinking poison a couple times then shock when I've realized I was off path and usually when I was fixin to go deeper with vain imaginations that seemed right. Unless you use the Word you can never see the warning, that's a big part what the Word does for us .. Did not many people began to lose faith when Darwin pied piped them away . Will God send a great delusion in the End time to deceive even the very elect if possible ? What you believe is none of my business, but try to understand my side, Not only have I come to be YEC with full confidence it was imo Gods opening the door for me .. What does he devil prefer you believe and even he knows better .. He's just looking for a little space to enter in and be co-pilot and unaware .. Foolishness ?

 

[4x4toy]

You are using 50 year old arguments. Here is a refutation of the polonium radio halo argument used by YECs:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

50yrs of sweating it out for you maybe, I've seen no satisfactory answers, same as moon dust accumulation . Just because you put a check beside it means nothing to me ..

 

[EpiscipalMe]

You can study all the physics and science you want, I love it too and it intrigues .. But when you nullify Gods Word with it then what else creeps in now that you've OK'd a standard .. I see YEC scientifically , but also a starting/working point in time where God receives more glory with no help from you or yours . In my experience God will allow you to keep marching in the wrong direction if you insist , me too .. I've caught myself drinking poison a couple times then shock when I've realized I was off path and usually when I was fixin to go deeper with vain imaginations that seemed right. Unless you use the Word you can never see the warning, that's a big part what the Word does for us .. Did not many people began to lose faith when Darwin pied piped them away . Will God send a great delusion in the End time to deceive even the very elect if possible ? What you believe is none of my business, but try to understand my side, Not only have I come to be YEC with full confidence it was imo Gods opening the door for me .. What does he devil prefer you believe and even he knows better .. He's just looking for a little space to enter in and be co-pilot and unaware .. Foolishness ?

A reading of Genesis as allegory has strengthened my faith. I have no problem accepting science and Jesus.

I'm sorry you can't (or won't) grasp that.

 

[4x4toy]

A reading of Genesis as allegory has strengthened my faith. I have no problem accepting science and Jesus.

I'm sorry you can't (or won't) grasp that.

I can't and won't and even if I hear a voice say ''did God really say'' I'm gonna break out the Word beginning Genesis 1 and reply ''yes, He says right here''

 

[Steve Petersen]

50yrs of sweating it out for you maybe, I've seen no satisfactory answers, same as moon dust accumulation . Just because you put a check beside it means nothing to me ..

Did you even read the link?

 

[4x4toy]

Did you even read the link?

no

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I can't and won't and even if I hear a voice say ''did God really say'' I'm gonna break out the Word beginning Genesis 1 and reply ''yes, He says right here''

Do you agree that faith in Jesus (+/- works) is necessary and sufficient for salvation?

 

[JacksBratt]

We have the fundamentals of chemistry and physics supporting ages of millions of years old. We have correlation of numerous dating methods reported by independent laboratories on independently gathered samples of the K-T boundary.

All formulations, observations and theories of mankind.

Thank you for stating that. I did ask what it was that diverted people from their belief in the literal genesis and you have stated it right there.

Do you have a better explanation for how varying radioactive dating methods can yield the same results when reported by independent laboratories on independent samples collected worldwide?

That is elementary.... they all have the same common error that they are unaware of. Every process is missing a very important physical, chemical or mechanical factor that is common to them all that causes their aging of items to be skewed, or otherwise in error by the same margin.

The best explanation aside from an old earth I heard, was related to bizarre white holes and time dilation.

OK, whatever. Sounds like typical mumbo jumbo double talk by people that are grasping.

Some day, some scientist will discover some factor in physical measurements of the behavior of the aging and decay of atomic molecules.... then.... eureka...but what do they do with this new discovery that voids all the aging techniques... be famous.... be infamous..... it's a tough call.

Or, in glory, when we are made aware of the ways of God, we will all look and go "Awe... no it makes sense, why all the dating methods could not possibly work right."

Call it a foundation of sand if you want, you are in denial of all that modern chemistry and physics stands for.

Are you saying that modern chemistry cannot have theories that are in error?

Like I said, you have no known sample of anything that is cerifiable as being 50 million years old in order to calibrate your instruments. Thus.... all of them are calibrated to a theoretical datum.

 

[4x4toy]

Do you agree that faith in Jesus (+/- works) is necessary and sufficient for salvation?

I believe you must be born again of the Spirit of God, a new creation . Many are called but few are chosen .. The words ''depart from me I never knew you'' is a very sobering thought and motivator . Even frightening and I've felt this fear of being out of the presence of God in a dream .. Talk about lighting a fire under my lukewarm butt

 

[Job 33:6]

no

Just as the discussion about Mt. St. Helens and the discussion about the marine succession of rocks, regarding polonium halos, we must also take a closer look at the rock to establish its origins.

If you aren't familiar with the rocks of this topic, you should be hesitant in supporting claims of their alleged age.

If you have a source for your information, I would be happy to show you why.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is elementary.... they all have the same common error that they are unaware of. Every process is missing a very important physical, chemical or mechanical factor that is common to them all that causes their aging of items to be skewed, or otherwise in error by the same margin.


.

Do you have any idea of what that common error may be? Or are you just randomly suggesting such a thing because it opposes your personal views?

 

[Job 33:6]

Like I said, you have no known sample of anything that is cerifiable as being 50 million years old in order to calibrate your instruments. Thus.... all of them are calibrated to a theoretical datum.

Out of curiosity, regarding the marine succession we had discussed yesterday, it sounded like you were somewhat receptive of the idea that it represented rising and dropping of sea level.

Do you still view that succession as something produced by the global flood and that it is less than 4500 or so years old?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I believe you must be born again of the Spirit of God, a new creation . Many are called but few are chosen .. The words ''depart from me I never knew you'' is a very sobering thought and motivator . Even frightening and I've felt this fear of being out of the presence of God in a dream .. Talk about lighting a fire under my lukewarm butt

That was a non-answer. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[4x4toy]

Just as the discussion about Mt. St. Helens and the discussion about the marine succession of rocks, regarding polonium halos, we must also take a closer look at the rock to establish its origins.

If you aren't familiar with the rocks of this topic, you should be hesitant in supporting claims of their alleged age.

If you have a source for your information, I would be happy to show you why.

I said that I didn't read the link, not that I didn't know .. It boils down to the decay half life and whether or not it can be frozen quickly out of water as creation calls or out of a big bang blob of molten matter gradually cooling but losing ability to freeze the short lived halos in place

 

[4x4toy]

That was a non-answer. A simple yes or no will suffice.

You answer it

 

[JacksBratt]

The "sand' verse is in Matthew 7, v 24-27 about the fact that anyone will only survive in faith by hearing and doing Christ's words, and not otherwise.

It only came into the discussion because some might suggest our salvation depended on reading Genesis 1 a certain way, and that would be a wrong idea, because the real basis of salvation isn't ever according to an interpretation of Genesis 1 but instead by faith in Christ and then following in that faith by doing His commands to us.

Well, if you look at the gospel account, Christ turned water to wine.... no grapes, no time, no aging and produced the best wine at that wedding. He healed lepers, deaf, dumb, crippled. One woman healed by touching his garment. He stopped a storm, walked on water, fed over 5000 people with two fish and five loaves or buns.... He predicted His own death and resurrection, had no bones broken but was beaten, flogged and died on a cross, only to show up 3 days later and appear to over 500 people.

Then, He ascended to heaven, in full view of many people and disappeared...

Believing these things is pertinent to being saved.

I have to ask how many of these accounts would be disputed today by man kind if it was not for one thing and one thing only>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you must believe them to be saved.


If salvation did not depend on these facts..........they would be explained away as allegorical, mythical and metaphorical........just like Genesis 1

You believe because you must.

You deny Genesis because you can say "my salvation doesn't depend on it..

Both are equally true and literal. One is tossed out because it's not necessary.