Creationism

[budoka]

budoka: What I want to know is, if Genesis is literally accurate, why has God created SO MUCH false evidence to contradict it? Geological, astronomical, biological ...

JohnR7: The evidence is not false and the evidence does not contradict Genesis. Man's interpertation of Genesis may contradict mans interpertation of the evidence. But this just shows that man is finite and limited in his understanding and knowledge.

There certainly seems to be a diverse, disparate array of creationist theories for why the evidence appears - by conventional scientific standards - to point away from Biblical literalism.

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Is there something inherently wrong with the scientific method, that leads scientists of different fields to all make mistakes (that are harmonious with each other)? Or do you believe that there is an anti-Biblical conspiracy in science that thousands of experts all belong to?

If you thought atomic theory was unBiblical would you oppose it? How about quantum mechanics, without with we would not have computers?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:53 AM Arikay said this in Post #58

Again, you need to show that the spin down rate was constant many many years ago.

Well, there is always the possibility that God created everything 6000 years ago, then just made it look like it was all drifting apart. As long as there is a moon and a ocean, there is going to be a tide and that is going to cause the earth to slow down. So is there a time in the history of the earth that there was no ocean and no moon? The earth is actually spinning quite a bit slower than the speed most of the rest of the universe is moving at.

  

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 07:28 AM budoka said this in Post #61

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Is there something inherently wrong with the scientific method, that leads scientists of different fields to all make mistakes (that are harmonious with each other)? Or do you believe that there is an anti-Biblical conspiracy in science that thousands of experts all belong to?

There is something "inherently wrong with man. He is in a fallen state. He has fallen away from God, and God's purpose, plan and intention for him.

It seems like the more wrong man is, the more puffed up with pride he gets, and the more he insists or thinks that he is right. But no man is right, only what comes from God is true. That is why we need the Holy Spirit of God to guide us and lead us into all truth.

If you thought atomic theory was unBiblical would you oppose it? How about quantum mechanics, without with we would not have computers? [/B]

What would I know about atomic theory or quantum mechanics? I have not studed any of that stuff. I was a carpenter, you do not need atomic theory to saw wood and to hammer nails. You use mostly geometry along with some algebra and trig.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 10:56 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #51 Yes I was. I also remember pointing out that that spindown rate you obtained was not constant  

I have figured it both ways if the spindown rate was 1.5 per 10,000 years and if it's 2.0 seconds ever 10,000 years. It does not make that much difference. You will still reach a point where the first day is only 1/100,000 of a second long.  

Whether God is deliberately guiding evolution or just letting it happen by itself isn't something that science can really determine. 

Actually, in the last 50 years, with the discovery of DNA the option does become possable that God created a master plan that was able to execute itself using RNA.

But there was something different that took place 6000 years ago, with Adam & Eve and the Garden in Eden. I am a craftsman, I can follow a blueprint pretty good. I even have worked as a draftsman taking the Architect's blueprint and drawing up shop plans to build from. But I am not an artist. There is a big difference. A artist just forms things using his hand and eye. He does not usually follow a plan, and measurements are not determinded in advance.

Science does not seem to recognize the difference between a craftsman and a artist. But there is a lot of difference between the two. There are a few people who are both, but most people are one or the other.

 

[budoka]

So you are saying that the scientific method is false (being a creation of Fallen Man). Therefore, why does it only fail in the very specific fields that are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Bible? Evolution is based on the scientific method but it must be false because it claims humans have a common ancestry with apes. Quantum mechanics is based on the scientific method but it must be true because we wouldn't be having this debate otherwise...

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 05:47 AM Micaiah said this in Post #6

G'day and welcome to this forum YEC 12.

As you will see there are a number of people who post on this forum who are antagonistic toward the Scriptural account of Creation given in Genesis. They come from within and outside the Christian camp. Their arguments sound impressive but clearly are contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture and the ever growing evidence that contradicts their position or is consistent with Scripture. 

YEC 12, here you see one of the distortions of the debate.  Micaiah equates his interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself.  What most Christians accept is that the two creation accounts in Genesis are not meant to be read literally, any more that the Psalms or the parables are meant to be read literally.  So the disagreement is not with Scripture and certainly not with the theological messages of the two creation stories, but with one particular human interpretation of these stories.

Creationism, specifically young earth creationism, was tried as a scientific theory in the period 1700-1830.  Scientists, all of whom were theists and most of whom were ministers, found data that could not possibly be there if young earth creationism were true. Since true statements cannot have false consequences, that meant that creationism was false. Instead, Christians realized that God had created the universe by the processes discovered by science, including evolution.

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

[Micaiah]

And here we see the words of one who clearly refuses to accept the plain words of Scripture. I have done it in the past and invite our friend to do it again. Let us have a detailed look at the text of Genesis 1 and 2, and discover the plain truth that can be clearly understood in these passages.

You should also be aware that our friend makes many assertions about what Scripture does and doesn't teach with no indication that he is a Christian. I've requested clarification on this matter numerous times in the past but he seems afraid to commit himself. I get responses like this isn't an appropriate forum to discuss such matters. Well if this isn't, then what is?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:22 PM yec_12 said this in Post #22

All the anti-creationists i am having trouble understanding the difference between me believing the bible literally and you believing scientists. How do you know for sure that this "factual evidnece" is the truth i dont think there is any one amoung us who can determine the truth.

Who created the universe?  God, right?  Then that means that God must have put all that evidence in the universe.  Who else could have?  Not Satan, because if you believe a literal reading of Genesis Satan had nothing to do with creation.

Science is such a reliable form of knowledge because it limits itself to evidence that everyone can experience under approximately the same conditions.  Anyone can same granites from the Canadian Shield and perform the radiometric tests on them to determine that they are 4 billion years old.  Most of us don't for lots of reasons, but we can. And we will get the same results as the scientists who did the test.  All of us can go to the American Museum of Natural History and compare the skeleton of "Lucy" to those of modern chimps and gorillas and modern humans because they are all there.  And we all see that Lucy is intermediate between apes and humans.

People have worked out a method of telling true statements from false ones.  It is called the hypothetico-deductive method. We all use it routinely in our lives.  Say you come home one night, flip the light switch in your kitchen and the light doesn't come on.  What do you do?  You make a statement that the light bulb has burned out.  OK, that means that if you put a new light bulb in then the light will turn on.  So you do so and the new light doesn't go on after you flip the switch.  That means that the statement was wrong. Then you make the statement that the circuit breaker has tripped. You find the panel and reset the circuit breaker.  The light goes on.  You have just used the hypothetico-deductive method to find the truth about why the light didn't go on.

Science uses this method to test statements about the physical universe.  Creationism (not Creation) makes statements about the physical universe that we can test.  When we test them, the statements are false. So we know that creationism is not true.

But stop, you must separate creationism from creation.  God can still exist and still create.  God just didn't create the way creationism says He did.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:50 AM Micaiah said this in Post #67

And here we see the words of one who clearly refuses to accept the plain words of Scripture. I have done it in the past and invite our friend to do it again. Let us have a detailed look at the text of Genesis 1 and 2, and discover the plain truth that can be clearly understood in these passages. 

We did discuss the details of the contradictions between the two creation stories, using the plain words. That the stories contradict is just one indication that they are not meant to be read literally.

What is the "plain truth"?  Micaiah, I have never claimed God doesn't exist or that God didn't create.  And those are the two main theological messages of the creation stories. 

Your "plain truth" is a specific how that God created.  I see no reason God had to create that way or even insists in the Scripture that He did create that way. As I said, the contradictions between the 2 creation stories are a clear indication for anyone not blinded by their pride that the stories are not literal.

A question you have never addressed: what negative effects on Christianity happen if God did create by the processes discovered by science, including evolution?  Is God any less the Creator? Is Jesus any less the Savior? What changes?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:08 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #63

There is something "inherently wrong with man. He is in a fallen state. He has fallen away from God, and God's purpose, plan and intention for him.

It seems like the more wrong man is, the more puffed up with pride he gets, and the more he insists or thinks that he is right. But no man is right, only what comes from God is true. That is why we need the Holy Spirit of God to guide us and lead us into all truth.

You do realize, don't you, that it is that same "fallen man" that makes the interpretations of the Bible?  Yes, God may have inspired the Bible, but it is humans who decide what intepretation they use.  Now, your statements on pride and insistence on being right describe Biblical literalists perfectly.  They insist that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.

However, other Christians used the Holy Spirit and God's other book -- the Creation -- to tell them that their interpretation wasn't correct.

What would I know about atomic theory or quantum mechanics? I have not studed any of that stuff. I was a carpenter, you do not need atomic theory to saw wood and to hammer nails. You use mostly geometry along with some algebra and trig.

You have already admitted you don't know anything about biology, either. Yet from your admitted ignorance you state categorically that Schroeder is correct about physics and that evolution is wrong.  Doesn't that sound like "the more puffed up with pride he gets, and the more he insists or thinks that he is right"

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 10:02 PM lucaspa said this in Post #69 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677094#post677094)

We did discuss the details of the contradictions between the two creation stories, using the plain words. That the stories contradict is just one indication that they are not meant to be read literally.

What is the "plain truth"?  Micaiah, I have never claimed God doesn't exist or that God didn't create.  And those are the two main theological messages of the creation stories. 

Your "plain truth" is a specific how that God created.  I see no reason God had to create that way or even insists in the Scripture that He did create that way. As I said, the contradictions between the 2 creation stories are a clear indication for anyone not blinded by their pride that the stories are not literal.

A question you have never addressed: what negative effects on Christianity happen if God did create by the processes discovered by science, including evolution?  Is God any less the Creator? Is Jesus any less the Savior? What changes?

Let's not evade the issue here. I made a statement that evolutionists deny the plain teaching of Scripture. You make the claim that my interpreatation of the plain truth is no more valid than others. Again I invite you to discuss the passages in question and allow the readers to form their own opinions on what Scripture plainly teaches.

Again I invite you to respond to questions on your beliefs regarding the God of Scripture.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:50 AM Micaiah said this in Post #67

You should also be aware that our friend makes many assertions about what Scripture does and doesn't teach with no indication that He is a Christian. I've requested clarification on this matter numerous times in the past but he seems afraid to commit himself. I get responses like this isn't an appropriate forum to discuss such matters. Well if this isn't, then what is?

I have told you numerous times that it is irrelevant what my personal beliefs are.  One doesn't have to share a belief to represent that belief accurately.  I have read the Bible. I have read commentary on the Bible by such Christian theologians as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and others.  Whether I share their beliefs or not I can accurately represent them. 

For instance, do I have to be a Republican to accurately state Bush's policy toward Iraq?

Also, Micaiah has made it plain that Christians who don't accept his interpretation aren't really Christians anyway. So even if I were to state that I am a Christian (and I am not stating that), I would simply be denounced as not being a "true" Christian.  So why should I bother? It's a lose-lose situation no matter what my personal beliefs are.

Micaiah confuses accuracy with advocacy.  In his mind unless you advocate a postion you cannot state it accurately.  That is patently false.  What is also incorrect is that any Christian reads all the Bible literally or accepts the "plain words".  Not even Micaiah accepts Luke 2:1 as saying what the "plain words" say: that the whole world was taxed.  Micaiah, you accept extrabiblical evidence to modify the "plain words" to say that the "whole world" meant only the Roman Empire.  Similarly, the "plain words" of Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5 state that the earth does not move.  Yet you accept the extrabiblical evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth moves around it.

So why don't you accept the extrabiblical evidence and change your interpretation of the "plain words" of Genesis 1-8?  It's exactly the same thing you do in other cases.   So you can't consistently insist on taking "plain words" in the face of contradictory extrabiblical evidence.  What makes this case so much different that you are even willing to commit false witness about taking plain reading?

 

[Smilin]

Today at 07:55 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #62 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677004#post677004)

Well, there is always the possibility that God created everything 6000 years ago, then just made it look like it was all drifting apart

If this is the case John, then we are following a God of deception.
If God would deceive us with the age of the Earth, then who's to
say he's not deceiving us concerning eternal life?

If God is truly deceptive... i.e. the Earth is actually 6,000 years old while the science shows us a 4.5 billion old Earth... then how can I trust him with other matters?

 

[Micaiah]

Here is the thread where I attempted to get people to discuss their interpretation on the plain teaching of Scripture. You will not how readily the discussion got derailed, and now one continued the discussion after the first day of Creation.

Scripture on Creation

YEC 12, I interpret the reluctance of others to continue the discussion demonstrates they cannot support their claim their interpretation reflects the plain teaching of Scripture.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:09 AM Micaiah said this in Post #71

Let's not evade the issue here. I made a statement that evolutionists deny the plain teaching of Scripture. You make the claim that my interpreatation of the plain truth is no more valid than others. Again I invite you to discuss the passages in question and allow the readers to form their own opinions on what Scripture plainly teaches.

Again I invite you to respond to questions on your beliefs regarding the God of Scripture.

I made the statement that your interpretation of Scripture is in error.  That means your interpreation is not "plain truth".  See how you cleverly worded your statement to equate your position to  "plain truth"?

Historically what happened, Micaiah, was that scientists accepted as true a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  They even accepted as true Bishop Ussher's counting of the generations.  Creationism was the scientific theory from 1700 to 1830.  What happened first was that scientists -- all of whom were Christians and most of whom were ministers -- first found that the geology said that the earth was not 6,000 years old.  By 1800 a young earth was discarded.  In doing so they concluded from the data in the earth that the days in  Genesis 1 could not be literal 24 hour days.  They still accepted a global flood, but only to account for the most superficial layers of strata, and separate creation of species.

Then in the period of 1800-1830 these same Christian scientists gathered data on the geographical distribution of species and looked at those superficial layers of strata.  From the data they concluded that a literal Genesis 6-8 was not correct: there had never been a global flood and the present distribution of animals could not possibly have come from one point (which would have had to have happened if there were an Ark). During the same time a number of scientists -- again all Christian -- found data that was inconsistent with separate creation of all species where species did not change from one species to another.  Also, again during the same time frame, fossilized bones of animals that were not living now were being found.   This again meant that a literal reading of Genesis 1 with all the animals created within two days and all living together could not be correct.

In the period 1830-1859 more data was found to indicate that species transformed to other species.  Some of this can be found in the Historical Sketch in the 6th edition of Origin.  Finally, Darwin, Hooker, Gray, and Lyell found data that falsified that species did not change and were separate creations.

So, what happened was that Christians who were also scientists concluded that a literal reading of Genesis 1-8 was not correct. 

If we discuss passages, we have Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a clearly stating that it took 6 days for creation.  In Genesis 2:4b we have the statement that creation took place within one day (beyom).  The order of creation is different. In Genesis 1 we have plants, water creatures, birds, land animals, then humans plural with both male and female created together. And all are spoken into existence.  In Genesis 2 we have plants, a single man, animals and birds (no mention of water creatures), and then a single woman.  All are formed from dust.  Finally, "Adam" and "Eve" are not proper names like "Tom" and "Betty" with no function in the language but to serve as names.  Instead "adam" is "earth" and "eve" is "hearth"  The symbolism of those names also indicate that this isn't a literal account.

You haven't addressed these points and there are still others to consider. Whenever you're ready, Micaiah.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:23 AM Micaiah said this in Post #74

Here is the thread where I attempted to get people to discuss their interpretation on the plain teaching of Scripture. You will not how readily the discussion got derailed, and now one continued the discussion after the first day of Creation.

Scripture on Creation

YEC 12, I interpret the reluctance of others to continue the discussion demonstrates they cannot support their claim their interpretation reflects the plain teaching of Scripture.

The discussion got derailed all right, Micaiah, but I'm not the one that did so.  Nor do I see where you continued the discussion after what I had stated about Scripture.  I don't see how your failure to respond reflects badly on my statements.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 10:19 PM lucaspa said this in Post #72 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677124#post677124)

I have told you numerous times that it is irrelevant what my personal beliefs are.  One doesn't have to share a belief to represent that belief accurately.  I have read the Bible. I have read commentary on the Bible by such Christian theologians as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and others.  Whether I share their beliefs or not I can accurately represent them. 

For instance, do I have to be a Republican to accurately state Bush's policy toward Iraq?

You are free to give your views on Scripture. Genuine Christians will have a problem accepting the interpretations of those who fail to follow Christ. I have a sneaking suspicion that you consider yourself a Christian but are too afraid of what people will think to make your beliefs public. I'd suggest the fear of man is the main reason Christian scientists are so willing to distort Scripture to accomodate evolution.

Also, Micaiah has made it plain that Christians who don't accept his interpretation aren't really Christians anyway. So even if I were to state that I am a Christian (and I am not stating that), I would simply be denounced as not being a "true" Christian.  So why should I bother? It's a lose-lose situation no matter what my personal beliefs are.

That is an incorrect assumption. Show me where I've stated or implied that belief. I believe there are many Christians who follow Christ and yet believe that God used evolution as a method for Creation. While there are serious logical implications for this belief, I have a greater affinity to such Christians than to those who believe in ID, yet fail to acknowledge Christ, or believe in other deities. I apologise if I have failed to demonstrate this in our discussions.

Micaiah confuses accuracy with advocacy.  In his mind unless you advocate a postion you cannot state it accurately.  That is patently false.  What is also incorrect is that any Christian reads all the Bible literally or accepts the "plain words".  Not even Micaiah accepts Luke 2:1 as saying what the "plain words" say: that the whole world was taxed.  Micaiah, you accept extrabiblical evidence to modify the "plain words" to say that the "whole world" meant only the Roman Empire.  Similarly, the "plain words" of Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5 state that the earth does not move.  Yet you accept the extrabiblical evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth moves around it.

So why don't you accept the extrabiblical evidence and change your interpretation of the "plain words" of Genesis 1-8?  It's exactly the same thing you do in other cases.   So you can't consistently insist on taking "plain words" in the face of contradictory extrabiblical evidence.  What makes this case so much different that you are even willing to commit false witness about taking plain reading?

You are confusing my statement re the plain teaching of Scripture with a literal interpretation of all Scripture. I do not suggest that all Scripture should be interpreted literally. We have been over this before. The internal evidence indicates Genesis is a historical account of Creation. We have previously discussed the quotes in the NT by both Christ and Paul and the genealogies that recognise the historicity of Genesis. We should read Genesis as a historical account of Creation.

 

[Micaiah]

Again I invite you to make your position clear before we procede with any other discussion.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 10:46 PM lucaspa said this in Post #75 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677155#post677155)

I made the statement that your interpretation of Scripture is in error.  That means your interpreation is not "plain truth".  See how you cleverly worded your statement to equate your position to  "plain truth"?

Historically what happened, Micaiah, was that scientists accepted as true a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  They even accepted as true Bishop Ussher's counting of the generations.  Creationism was the scientific theory from 1700 to 1830.  What happened first was that scientists -- all of whom were Christians and most of whom were ministers -- first found that the geology said that the earth was not 6,000 years old.  By 1800 a young earth was discarded.  In doing so they concluded from the data in the earth that the days in  Genesis 1 could not be literal 24 hour days.  They still accepted a global flood, but only to account for the most superficial layers of strata, and separate creation of species.

Then in the period of 1800-1830 these same Christian scientists gathered data on the geographical distribution of species and looked at those superficial layers of strata.  From the data they concluded that a literal Genesis 6-8 was not correct: there had never been a global flood and the present distribution of animals could not possibly have come from one point (which would have had to have happened if there were an Ark). During the same time a number of scientists -- again all Christian -- found data that was inconsistent with separate creation of all species where species did not change from one species to another.  Also, again during the same time frame, fossilized bones of animals that were not living now were being found.   This again meant that a literal reading of Genesis 1 with all the animals created within two days and all living together could not be correct.

In the period 1830-1859 more data was found to indicate that species transformed to other species.  Some of this can be found in the Historical Sketch in the 6th edition of Origin.  Finally, Darwin, Hooker, Gray, and Lyell found data that falsified that species did not change and were separate creations.

So, what happened was that Christians who were also scientists concluded that a literal reading of Genesis 1-8 was not correct. 

If we discuss passages, we have Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a clearly stating that it took 6 days for creation.  In Genesis 2:4b we have the statement that creation took place within one day (beyom).  The order of creation is different. In Genesis 1 we have plants, water creatures, birds, land animals, then humans plural with both male and female created together. And all are spoken into existence.  In Genesis 2 we have plants, a single man, animals and birds (no mention of water creatures), and then a single woman.  All are formed from dust.  Finally, "Adam" and "Eve" are not proper names like "Tom" and "Betty" with no function in the language but to serve as names.  Instead "adam" is "earth" and "eve" is "hearth"  The symbolism of those names also indicate that this isn't a literal account.

You haven't addressed these points and there are still others to consider. Whenever you're ready, Micaiah.

Again you are getting side-tracked. What you think others did or didn't believe during the above period of history has little bearing on how we should interpret Scripture. Throughout history man has attempted to demonstrate that his philosophies and theories are superior to those of God. The Roman and Greek empires have crumbled, yet Christianity is a living and powerful force in today's world. No, we're not talking about mans beliefs re Genesis, we're talking about what God intended. It is plain from Scripture that the book must be read as an historical account of Creation. You have failed to demonstrate why this is not the case.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:23 AM Micaiah said this in Post #74

YEC 12, I interpret the reluctance of others to continue the discussion demonstrates they cannot support their claim their interpretation reflects the plain teaching of Scripture.

That's not the claim.  The claim is that the "plain teaching of Scripture", i.e. a literal reading, is the wrong interpretation.  What you have cleverly done, Micaiah, is manipulate the arguments and claims such that you are saying that the non-literal interpretion is not the literal interpretation.  That is true, but is not relevant.

You are accepting that your claim that the "plain teaching" is the correct one as actually being true. But it is the claim that is being disputed.  What you are doing is invalid.

Your thread wanted to see what the "plain teaching", i.e. a literal reading, said.  But that is not the same as agreeing that the literal interpretation is the correct one. 

The real claims of those opposed to a literal interpretation are:

1. The literal interpretation as stated above by Micaiah is bibliolatry -- worship of the the Bible as opposed to worshipping God.

2. The literal interpretation overlooks contradictions in the text.

3. The literal interpretation is contradicted by evidence God left in His other book -- Creation.

4. The literal interpretation obliterates the theological messages.

5. The literal interpretation overlooks the historical context of the text and the intent of the author(s).