Do you agree?

TwinCrier · Sep 10, 2004

My neighbor is an evolutions and a Christian. She claims that while she believes God COULD have created the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days, He didn't because of the evidence she has seen. I'm curious if other theistic evolutionist believe that. Was God capable of creating the Earth is 6 days but chose to go a different route?

Vance · Sep 10, 2004

Well, I think I speak for every theistic evolutionist here when I say:

OF COURSE!!!!

God is God after all. Not only could He have done it in six days, He could have done it is six nano-seconds. He could have just *thought* it all into existence.

What is significant is that we all agree He chose NOT to just have it all happen instantaneously. He chose to follow a process instead. You say this process took six days (based on a literal reading), I say the process took billions of years (based on the evidence of God's actual creation itself, combined with a non-literal reading). Either way, it is simply more time than He really needed. Do you think six days is much different to God than billions of years?

Nothing Theistic Evolutionists say in any way reduces the awesome power of God's creative work or His ability to do it any way He chose.

seebs · Sep 10, 2004

TwinCrier said:
My neighbor is an evolutions and a Christian. She claims that while she believes God COULD have created the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days, He didn't because of the evidence she has seen. I'm curious if other theistic evolutionist believe that. Was God capable of creating the Earth is 6 days but chose to go a different route?

Sure.

God could have created the earth in an instant, too.

It's like Christian Vannillism, which is the belief that God gives everyone a vanilla ice cream cone every day. If you reject this, are you saying God isn't powerful enough to do that?

Vance · Sep 10, 2004

I believe he can, but sometimes I help him out by heading down to Foster's Freeze myself.

JohnJones · Sep 10, 2004

Could God have created the earth in 6 literal days and then planted "evidence" to make it look like evolution occured? OF COURSE!!!!

Could God have created the earth in 6 literal days and then scientists extremely intent on disproving his existence forged and faked "evidence" to make it look like evolution occured? OF COURSE!!!! (And I believe this is what happened).

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

Jesus fed the multitudes twice through instantaneous creation of matured fishes (had to be to eat them). Elijah also performed the miracle of creation of a jar of oil that never emptied.
Why couldn't God the Father do it on a grander scale? So why not a fully matured (as the fishes), dynamic universe as Genesis tells us?

The question isn't can He but did He. Three times other than Genesis is creation seen. I just see little reason that He wouldn't do it right off. Why would God take the long way around to complete His work? "In the beginning God created..." and I believe that. Jesus fed the multitudes from just a couple of fish and I believe that.

Vance · Sep 10, 2004

Well, the first possibility would make God a deceiver, so I am glad you don't believe that is what happened.

Your second possibility makes two unfounded assertions:

1. The scientists who believe in evolution are "extremely intent" on disproving God

2. These scientists forged or faced evidence to make it look like evolution occured

What is your specific basis for making such dramatic assertions? Just your own hunch? What a Creationist told you?

I am sure the scientists who work in evolutionary biology would be very surprised to hear that they are faking evidence in order to disprove God.

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

Actually I'm looking at the bible.
Jesus creates matured fishes. God the Father creates a mutured universe.
I make no assertions other than what's in Genesis and the Gospels.

In the beginning God created...
Jesus fed the multitudes...

<shrug>

Vance · Sep 10, 2004

Sorry, you jumped in between, my response was to John Jones, sorry.

As for your post, there is a difference between creating mature and creating with the appearance of great age. Not just the appearance, but a universe that contains evidence of its ancient age that would be totally unecessary just to be mature. Craters, fossils, and many, many other things that would have had to have been placed into the universe and the earth that would NOT need to be there. This would make God a deceiver, which He is not, so I have a MUCH easier time believing an old earth and evolution than a deceiving God.

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

Me too.
I have no trouble believing God created a matured universe about 6000 years ago as Genesis tells me. I have no trouble believing the miracles Jesus performed. I would imagine that if I were to take some of those fishes to the people and told them this fish is only a few minutes old they'd think I'm a lunatic. And it would be totally impossible for me to prove it otherwise since all they'd have to do is point out that the fish were at least a few months old while holding one up and saying, "see? Fully grown. But thanks anyway." The fish would look old too even in appearance and those fellows eating the fish were more than happy to point that out.

And the bread was already baked... crevices, cracks and crannies included.
I have no problem with evidence that states an age. But when it came into existance is a whole nuther matter. Like the fish and bread. Or a crated moon.

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

God isn't a deciever. I think we decieve ourselves.

Vance · Sep 10, 2004

But you missed the point, it does not just look old, it contains embedded features that would only exist if it WAS old. Why would God bury evidence like fossils that test millions of years old? Why would he create a world with impact craters when such impacts never took place. Why would He create a universe that in hundreds of ways looks, acts and tests EXACTLY as it would if it was billions if years old? To do so would be deceiving. And God doesn't deceive.

You are saying that it is a viable possibility that 6,000 years ago God created a universe and purposefully placed into that universe evidence of events that COULD NOT have taken place within the last 6,000 years. In other words, He created a universe that would fool anyone (anyone who seriously studies it, at least) into believing it was billions of years old.

How would that NOT be deceiving?

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I think the keyword here is "tests".
I'm sure not all those tests produced evidence that supported what the tests were supposed to show.

Evidence presented supports the assumption.
When I set out to gather evidence I begin with an assumption then I put effort, time and money to work to find what supports that assumption. That's science, that's how it should be. Anything not supporting what I seek isn't considered as being relevant to the search.
I think it may be safe to say that the greater portion of money, effort and time are from people who couldn't care less what the bible says since they don't believe it anyway. There are those out there who's beginning assumption is the opposite but they're not popular and have nowhere near the resources available to produce evidence contrary to those who begin with the assumption that Genesis is not to be believed at all, that the bible is a waste of paper. Face it, most of those pushing for evolution are not bible believers. Some are, granted, but their numbers pale in comparison.

Now, if I had that amount of resources at my disposal I'm quite sure the answers to your question could be better answered but the resources are not geared for it. Maybe if by asking the question of "Why would God do it this way?" to begin with we'd have a much better understanding of the world we live in. But it's not that way, it's not to be, it's precisely the opposite. You get what you pay for. If I sink millions of dollars into a project to prove the age of something is "X" billions years old you'd best not bring back evidence that says it isn't. So you'd seek to find evidence to fit the assumption.

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

I'm not against anyone here so please let that be known first and foremost.
Let's say for a minute that God did create a mature universe. The evidence would be there to support that. Now, what do we do with that evidence? Do we say, "God created a mature universe but we still have some questions." or does the secular world look for another way to explain where it came from?
Yes, there will always be questions. Why not try to look for evidence and clues as to why there are some things that don't seem to fit the popular theories of a world that doesn't believe God even exists?

Those people who were served the fish would argue that the fish was older than just a few minutes. And they could verty well be correct. Their error is where they came from in the first place.

Didaskomenos · Sep 10, 2004

No one would argue about the fish! It was a miracle that they were there, and so they weren't concerned with the age of the fish.

Saying "mature" isn't the same as "fully formed". When you say the earth was created like this 6,000 years ago, it's like saying that Adam was created with scars as though he'd been in an accident as a teenager, and a bum knee from his college days. God could totally have made a fully-formed universe 6,000 years ago, but why wouldn't it have been a new universe? The earth actually looks like it's been through a lot more wear than can have happened in 6,000 years. The craters and similar landforms on other planetoids (the moon and Mars). Why in the world would God do that except to deceive, and thereby make his "literal creation account" look silly?

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

God does not decieve and I know you're not saying that. If I said the word "self-deception" though turning things around a bit that may bruise some egos. Therefore Genesis must be wrong or not read properly or something. Heck, the account even shows plants as being created on the third day and not until the next day is the sun created. Could the plants survive one day without the sun? Yes. But the problem comes in because that's totally against the method of creation we want God to use.

Didaskomenos · Sep 10, 2004

Beowulf, you've got a great username. Can't believe it wasn't taken!

Beowulf said:
Therefore Genesis must be wrong or not read properly or something.

You've got it! In fact, if not read properly, without looking at what it was actually written for, it will read as "wrong". If you're looking for scientific history, you'll find it's dreadfully wrong. But that's all right: it wasn't ever meant to be. Some Christians hate mythology. If you're one of those, perhaps you'll allow me to turn around one more thing you said:

But the problem comes in because that's totally against the method of creation we want God to use.

I say: the problem comes in because that's totally against the type of literature we want God to use.

Beowulf · Sep 10, 2004

Who here would donate to ICR or AIG to look for evidence to conform with the "other" Genesis as written?

Gold Dragon · Sep 11, 2004

Beowulf said:
Who here would donate to ICR or AIG to look for evidence to conform with the "other" Genesis as written?

This is exactly what science doesn't do, look for evidence to conform to a theory. That is what politically motivated propoganda organizations try to do.

Instead science looks for evidence, regardless of what theory the evidence seems to support. Judges the evidence based on the integrity of its sources as being unbiased. And generates a theory from that evidence in the hopes that their theory will aslo be unbiased.

Obviously human biases are impossible to completely eliminate in any theory since humans are involved in their creation. And if their biases do creep in, other scientists will look at the same evidence and propose alternative theories that try to reveal those biases. Over time, this method of peer-criticism is intended to remove those biases and also be able to incorporate the inclusion of newer evidence.

meebs · Sep 11, 2004

TwinCrier said:
My neighbor is an evolutions and a Christian. She claims that while she believes God COULD have created the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days, He didn't because of the evidence she has seen. I'm curious if other theistic evolutionist believe that. Was God capable of creating the Earth is 6 days but chose to go a different route?

Yup i agree! but i still see evidence for evolution.

But we all must remember - it is not how God created the earth which is important, it is that he DID create us and that we should love him and respect him. And accept his son's death and ressurection for our sins, which is more important than the creationist and evolution debate.

Do you agree?

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

God Made Me A Skeptic

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Active Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Active Member

Senior Veteran

The dev!l loves rock and roll

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency