Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist

[fragmentsofdreams]

I still believe I can clearly see much evidence of different plants and animals and even at the cellular level of God designing things. From a logical perspective (as that is how I see things) I would see DNA and RNA as proving design from my understanding of them. I look at certain plants and animals and I cant see WHY they exist from a survival point of view. Some plants and animals simply would have no reason to other than to give pleasure to us humans by looking pretty or something. I dont think someone can prove that there is no designer by looking at plants or animals...as you cant prove there is one. These days we have DNA and RNA and so many other things we can study....so I guess we will have to go to that level to see if there is a designer.

What do you mean by survival point of view?

 

[Andy D]

I don't. After all, I read parts of the Bible literally. However, when you say the whole Bible is literal or when you say that parts of the Bible are literal when the internal text says "no" and God says "no" in His Creation, then yes, that becomes Bible worship.

Now, please go back and read what you quoted from my post. I was very careful to discuss ideas in that post, and never mentioned people. I said that this is where Biblical literalism ends up. In order to evaluate the ideas, you need to separate yourself from the idea. Look at the idea objectively, not that it is your idea or an idea that you agree with. Just an idea. That way, you can discuss the idea with me objectively and calmly. Also, if the idea turns out to have consequences you don't like, you can easily give it up.

I'm glad to hear this. But it isn't the extreme position of Biblical literalism.

Andy D, I'm going to ask you to consider a couple of ideas:
1. There are different types of truth. You are assuming that there is only one type of truth: complete accuracy in all aspects -- no fiction involved. So to you historical truth and theological truth and human truths are combined. Now, I ask you to consider that these can be separated. Let's take this out of the Bible so it isn't so emotional for you. Think of Shakespeare's Macbeth. The Scottish history is totally fictional. Never, ever happened. No such persons as Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Duncan, etc. However, why is the play been so popular for nearly 4 centuries now? Because it tells human truths about lust for power, greed, corruption, honor, and justice. These truths are true no matter that the history is fictional.

So now I'm going to say that the OT, particularly Genesis 1, 6-8, and Job, is set in the known science of the day -- Babylonian. Flat earth, crystal firmament over the earth, caverns underneath, waters above the fimament, water filled caverns under the earth. The science is wrong. But the theological truths are just as true in modern science as they were in Babylonian science. The problem is, when you link the two types of truth, having the Babylonian science be wrong also says the theology is wrong.

2. The second idea is that if God is using humans to write, then He is bound by the limitations of the people. God can't impart knowledge to them that their language doesn't have. The Bible doesn't have a Glossary of terms. So God is limited to using the language and concepts of the humans doing the writing. God can't say "billions of years" or "Big Bang" or "DNA" or "natural selection" or "evolution". Either the words don't exist in Hebrew or the people can't grasp the concept. So, God tells the message He wants in terms of the language the people have at the time. God set theological messages in concepts and stories of the authors at the time. It is up to us to put ourselves, as best we can, in the position of the people of the time to see what God's messages were. To say that there are only translation errors is, I submit, thwarting the will of God and imposing your own ideas of what the Bible should be, instead of what God intended.

I understand what you are saying and as I talk about the Bible being truth, I am allowing for the fact that Moses did give commandments that were not God's law, and there are many things in the Bible that would be said to be wrong....but it doesnt mean that God didnt want those things in the Bible to be able to show more about Himself through all of man's problems, etc. I know that they couldnt understand so much that science understands today, but God knew this and I dont believe an account of His work was going to be written in His word to only be one day proven that it was just a myth after all these thousands of years.

 

[Andy D]

This contradicts your statement that God didn't allow "lies" in the Bible and directed the human authors so there weren't any. After all, it was Moses that put the divorce commandment in the Bible. Remember, at the time Jesus spoke the Torah was scripture. In fact, it was the only scripture.

Also consider Acts 7. Remember all those dietary laws? Well, Acts 7 says those were wrong, too! They had been in effect for at least 1500 years and now God says "remove them". If God didn't want them in the Bible, why did He inspire them to begin with?

The attempt to preserve a Bible without errors is causing more problems than it is answering.

Two different things. David slept with a woman married to another man. And then, worst of all, got the guy killed when he got her pregnant! This was a command that supposedly came from God about divorce.

We are not saying Moses was perfect, but whether the Bible is perfect. However, your argument about people not being perfect brings up another idea: why do you insist that imperfect people are going to write a perfect Bible? If you go back to God overseeing the writing, then we are back to Moses making a mistake!

I think the problem here is that we are both seeing this from two different angles that can never match up or be argued on the same level. I am talking about God not lying, or putting errors into the Bible...but when it comes to showing the nature of man, He has of course allowed us to see the bigger picture here or man being sinful and lying and making errors and not able to live up to the laws or standards of God. God used imperfect people of course, (there were no perfect people)...and this somehow shows us more of the character of God....His grace and mercy and love. I dont see anything in the New Testament stating that things shouldnt be in the OT. I see it saying that God would say different to what man would say....but it doesnt say that it shouldnt have been recorded...it was an actual event..and was recorded in the Bible even though what man said was wrong. This doesnt equate to God being wrong even for inspiring man to write all this and for it to all be put into the Bible.

 

[Andy D]

Why would it be redshifted? Why would God create an images of galaxies of stars that look very far away and then shift the wavelenghs of the light to give the appearance of an old, large, expanding universe?

For a start, I would only be speculating on why because I am not God. I thank God for the starlight and moonlight though. It is really beautiful

 

[Andy D]

What do you mean by survival point of view?

What I meant was that some species I have seen dont seem to have any reason for surviving....it was nothing to do with survival of the fittest that some species exist...from what I have seen...and that was seeing these species described on secular TV. Some animals may have certain colours to camouflage them....but that doesnt seem to explain why a heap of fish have all these bright colours...even when they may not live near a colourful reef.....I Know there are always scientific theories for everything...in order to prove God didnt just create all for our pleasure...and to keep with the theory of evolution...but there are many things that dont add up when looking at it from creation or evolution perspective...man doesnt always interpret data the correct way...same as we dont always interpret the Bible the right way.

 

[Redhat 9.1]

I Know there are always scientific theories for everything...in order to prove God didnt just create all for our pleasure...and to keep with the theory of evolution...

There are scientific theories because the human race has always attempted to understand the natural world. However, only those whose faith is fragile claim that science is a direct attempt to 'do away with God'.

Tell me, how many scientists do you think approach hypothesis and theory with the thought in their mind 'Now, how can I remove God from the world'?

..man doesnt always interpret data the correct way...same as we dont always interpret the Bible the right way.

Aha, you mean exactly what you are doing.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What I meant was that some species I have seen dont seem to have any reason for surviving....it was nothing to do with survival of the fittest that some species exist...from what I have seen...and that was seeing these species described on secular TV. Some animals may have certain colours to camouflage them....but that doesnt seem to explain why a heap of fish have all these bright colours...even when they may not live near a colourful reef.....I Know there are always scientific theories for everything...in order to prove God didnt just create all for our pleasure...and to keep with the theory of evolution...but there are many things that dont add up when looking at it from creation or evolution perspective...man doesnt always interpret data the correct way...same as we dont always interpret the Bible the right way.

Things don't need a reason for surviving. They just do. Those that don't, by definition, aren't around anymore.

 

[Andy D]

There are scientific theories because the human race has always attempted to understand the natural world. However, only those whose faith is fragile claim that science is a direct attempt to 'do away with God'.

Tell me, how many scientists do you think approach hypothesis and theory with the thought in their mind 'Now, how can I remove God from the world'?

Aha, you mean exactly what you are doing.

I dont have a problem at all with scientists trying to interpret the data. Evolutionary theory did start with finding another possiblility other than God creating all. Now many have combined evolution and God. What I am doing is interpreting the Bible how it appears to have been written. Some here will say Genesis was not meant to be read literally and will have a go at me for it...on the other hand, many great theologians will state that it was in fact meant to be read literally and will come up with much evidence for it. Whilst science is wonderful to try and explain many things and come up with so many cures....does God need to use our science to cure someone miraculously? Do we say He used the medical cure....that we havent discovered yet? Does God need to?? He created us from the dust, why would He need to use medical cures to miraculously heal us? He could have....but no one can state if He did or didnt because He simply hasnt told us.

Genesis is one account where He has told us I believe. He hasnt gone into detail on how He created us in 6 days.... Unless I see something that is solid evidence prove that evolution is the way God used to create everything, then how can I leave my interpretation of the Bible and follow man's scientific view? You must understand my point here. You must realise that as a Christian, we will be given scientific data AND Biblical data that backs up both sides and neither gives us such solid evidence that we can leave faith and follow science. In the end, it is by faith I believe in God and not by scientific facts or evidences or theories. I am sure if you beleive in evolution, you also believe in God by faith...not evidence right?? After all, we are to walk by faith and not by sight. Things of this world may appear to be something that they are not.

I dont think all scientists approach science with "how do I remove God?' I think Satan will do absolutely whatever he can to keep people away from God...yes...a conspiracy....you better believe it if you are Christian..that Satan is deceitful....I dont know all his plans....but I am not ignorant to our enemy...it isnt the scientists...it is Satan and his demons. I believe most scientists approach the evidence with the desire to find out new things about this world....but I believe many go with the assumption that we are here because of evolution...not with an open mind...as I am being told to approach this subject.

 

[Andy D]

Things don't need a reason for surviving. They just do. Those that don't, by definition, aren't around anymore.

We are here today...male and female...reproductive organs...miracle of birth...knowing that God is in control....and that there is no reason for anything to have survived...if there was not a purpose for us to all be here today, quite simply...we wouldnt be here. God wouldnt put us here just as animals to have fun with. He could...but He didnt. He wouldnt create animals with free will just so He could damn them all to hell. He created us so He could show His great love towards us and give us a choice...a reason to live....how wonderful that is..that He gave me a reason to live....that is my reason for surviving...other than that...am sure myself..and many others would just quit....Even with using the theory of evolution..it takes GREAT faith for anyone to be athiest...to believe God didnt control everything...difference with my belief is that it is written in the Bible.