Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

[The Barbarian]

A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins.

This is why theistic evolution is a delusion, because there is no observable evidence for it. The "evidence" for it is based on guesswork and artists impressions.

Well, let's see what YE creationists, familiar with the evidence, have to say...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

These are honest and informed YE creationist. Learn the truth from them.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The Bible says that bats are birds.

Leviticus 11:13 These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

This is because the Biblical notion of "bird" is a functional classification, not a biological one. This is what always trips up creationists. They're trying to make two different systems correspond, and they won't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Every world culture has its own flood myth.

This means one of two things:
1. There was a single huge flood that encompassed all places humans lived.
2. Floods are fairly common things in this world.

One of those. The evidence supports the latter, but not the former.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you consider the account in Genesis 1 beginning with verse 2 as being an account of what happened after the last ice age it fits without any effort.

Never gave that any thought. So I don't really know. Can you fill that in for us? It sounds reasonable, but I would think it was bit late in human history. Still, we have no idea when God chose two people to have immortal souls, so one can't reject it out of hand.

I'd like to hear about it.

 

[Archivist]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

You said in the post to which I was replying that if you are not going to believe one part of the Bible, why believe the rest of it. The Bible tells us that bats are birds. Do you believe that?

 

[Paul James]

That's one of the problems with trying to make it a literal history. If it is, then there's no need for the Resurrection.

On the other hand, if it's about real people, who disobeyed God, then there's no problem with the creation week being an allegory.

I'm aware that many YE creationists adjust the concept to allow a literal week of 24-hour days, and still consider the death and resurrection of Jesus to be necessary for our salvation. It's a little forced, but so long as they accept that fact, they can be wrong about the rest of it, and still be saved.

The problem with the allegory theory is that Jesus and Paul referred to Adam and Eve, along with Noah and the Flood as real people and events. To say that Genesis 1-3 is not a history of actual events is to say that Jesus is a liar.

If God set up creation in six days plus a day of rest to give us the seven day week, and each day is millions of years, then it seems crazy to think that people should work for six million-year days and rest for another million years. Also, the Hebrew word for "day" everywhere else in the Bible, when connected with a definite article, and includes "morning" or "evening" speaks of a 24 hour day, so to say that the Genesis "day" also connected with "morning" and "evening" isn't speaking of a 24 hour day is saying that God isn't consistent with His use of basic language!

 

[Paul James]

Well, let's see what YE creationists, familiar with the evidence, have to say...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

These are honest and informed YE creationist. Learn the truth from them.

Scientific evidence consists in something directly observed, examined, tested, or replicated. If a theory can't be shown by any of these four essential components of the scientific method, then it must remain a speculation from the imagination and not a true science.

I think it is arrogance for mere mortal men to tell God how He created the universe and this world. It's like an ant crawling up a blade of grass looking out over a very small part of a large lawn and say, "I know how all this was created!"

 

[Paul James]

The Bible says that bats are birds.

Leviticus 11:13 These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

This is because the Biblical notion of "bird" is a functional classification, not a biological one. This is what always trips up creationists. They're trying to make two different systems correspond, and they won't.

So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

[Paul James]

This means one of two things:
1. There was a single huge flood that encompassed all places humans lived.
2. Floods are fairly common things in this world.

One of those. The evidence supports the latter, but not the former.

Just let me ask you a question: Do you believe that death existed in the world before or after Adam?

 

[The Barbarian]

Just let me ask you a question: Do you believe that death existed in the world before or after Adam?

Good question the key is what God told Adam. He said that if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, he would die the day he did so. Adam ate from the tree and lived on physically for many years thereafter.

So the death that Adam brought into the world was a spiritual one, not a physical one. In fact, if there was no death in the world before Adam's sin, he would not have comprehended God's words.

 

[The Barbarian]

So what does that prove?

Several things:
1. The Bible regards bats as birds.
2. This is because "bird" was used as a functional term, not a biological term.
3. Any attempt to use Biblical kinds in a biological sense will lead you into confusion.

 

[Paul James]

You said in the post to which I was replying that if you are not going to believe one part of the Bible, why believe the rest of it. The Bible tells us that bats are birds. Do you believe that?

It would be good to examine the original Hebrew to establish that is what is actually said. If you want to use that to try and justify not believing the Genesis history, then it seems to be a fairly weak reason to use just one kind of animal mixed in with a list of others.

In my opinion. because the Genesis record is integrally linked with definite statements about it by Jesus and Paul, then not to believe it is not to believe what Jesus and Paul said about it. And if Jesus and Paul are not believable, then anything that Jesus or Paul has said about salvation cannot be believed, because if they both lied in one place, how can we believe anything else they said?

And if Genesis was just an allegory, or whatever, then we could say the same about the historical Jesus, his death and resurrection. And if they were allegories, then there is no assurance for salvation for anyone. That's my opinion about it.

But I believe that Genesis 1-11 is straight history of how it all happened, and that Jesus and Paul spoke the truth about it, that Jesus was a real person who died on a real cross, taking the penalty for my real sin, and who had a real resurrection, and is a real person at the throne of God interceding before the Father for the people of God.

If you want to destroy your own assurance of salvation because of one type of animal that doesn't seem to fit the list, then so be it. Your choice.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientific evidence consists in something directly observed, examined, tested, or replicated.

Yep. So common descent, as your fellow YE creationists admit, has lots of evidence for it. "Gobs and gobs" as one of them said. But you've confused evolution, which is directly observed, with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.

If a theory can't be shown by any of these four essential components of the scientific method, then it must remain a speculation from the imagination and not a true science.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means. What do you think it means?

I think it is arrogance for mere mortal men to tell God how He created the universe and this world.

Yes, but YE creationists do it anyway.

 

[Paul James]

Good question the key is what God told Adam. He said that if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, he would die the day he did so. Adam ate from the tree and lived on physically for many years thereafter.

So the death that Adam brought into the world was a spiritual one, not a physical one. In fact, if there was no death in the world before Adam's sin, he would not have comprehended God's words.

I've seen this discussion at length before on other threads, and frankly, I see it is just people reading into the Bible stuff from their own imagination, so I don't care about whether it was spiritual death or not. Adam died. Period.

 

[Paul James]

Several things:
1. The Bible regards bats as birds.
2. This is because "bird" was used as a functional term, not a biological term.
3. Any attempt to use Biblical kinds in a biological sense will lead you into confusion.

I'm not confused about the history of Genesis. I merely believe what is written there, and I am not going to be drawn into an off-topic useless discussion about birds and bats.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you want to destroy your own assurance of salvation because of one type of animal that doesn't seem to fit the list, then so be it. Your choice.

That's the beauty of it for creationists. Even if you deny evolution and revise the creation story into a literal history, it won't cost you your salvation. That's not how God judges you.

It's true, some creationists have made an idol of their new doctrines and insist that people must believe them to be saved. That might be a problem for you.

Let God be God, and you'll be fine. Even if you deny evolution; He doesn't care what you think of it.

 

[Paul James]

Yep. So common descent, as your fellow YE creationists admit, has lots of evidence for it. "Gobs and gobs" as one of them said. But you've confused evolution, which is directly observed, with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.



Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means. What do you think it means?



Yes, but YE creationists do it anyway.

I'll let others get into an endless debate with you. I just can't be bothered.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not confused about the history of Genesis.

You're confused about the Bible's claim that bats are birds. As I showed you, it's because the Bible uses bird as a functional category, not a biological one.

I merely believe what is written there,

It's written there that bats are birds. Do you believe bats are birds?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll let others get into an endless debate with you. I just can't be bothered.

You've learned a lot of things to think about. Give it some thought and listen to God. God is, after all, Truth personified. A Christian should never fear the truth.

 

[ZNP]

Never gave that any thought. So I don't really know. Can you fill that in for us? It sounds reasonable, but I would think it was bit late in human history. Still, we have no idea when God chose two people to have immortal souls, so one can't reject it out of hand.

I'd like to hear about it.

2 And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Isaiah 45:18 says God didn’t create the world waste so this verse indicates it is after the fall of Satan.

1. I am looking at this as the end of the last ice age, the sun begins to shine, and the ice begins to melt.

2. Instead of there just being ice, which is resulting in a high pressure system and blue sky, we are now seeing the ice melt, the water and lakes like we are seeing in Greenland, and you are also now seeing clouds and low fronts coming over this melting ice.

3. When the ice melts it retreats, land is left and the melting water gathers into one place, the ocean.

Grass comes along very late in the fossil record, after virtually every other creature mentioned here. However, if we had a retreating glacier it would be the first thing to appear.

4. Obviously God didn’t create the Stars, Sun and Moon at the end of the last ice age. But He obviously didn’t create the Sun after grass appeared either. So I don’t understand it that way, I understand this to emphasize “and God said”. This is about calendars, navigation, learning how to tell time.

5. With the retreating glaciers you will see that the rivers, lakes and oceans in this area begin to swarm with fish. Telling time and using stars is crucial for navigating the oceans, where they might actually encounter the great sea monsters.

6. Likewise you will see the herds of cattle begin to come back once the grass is growing. To me this describes the restoration of an area after the ice age.

I also distinguish between man in the image and likeness of God and homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are apes, and apes are not eusocial. Apes do not operate in groups greater than 100, they don’t care for others young, they don’t differentiate their jobs, they don’t change the environment to suit their needs. Man does all this. There are other species on the planet that also do these things, there are only 18 such species, but they are the most successful species on the planet. So the creation of man here is not the same as the creation of homo sapiens. It is the final master stroke that transforms an ape into a eusocial creature, man. And unlike the other 18 species how does man operate in groups of millions? We teach the word of God, we teach laws, we teach morality, we consider murder and stealing a crime, whereas these are commonly practiced among apes.

2 & 3 -- I also see the temptation to take the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the agricultural revolution. In the agricultural revolution we work by the sweat of our brow. Also the ground is cursed, all of sudden some plants are “weeds” and some creatures are “pests”. The agricultural revolution is all about learning which plants and animals are “good” and which are evil. It is really the tree of death as we have to have pesticides, and herbicides and all kinds of poison to have our farms. Also the two forms of society the hunter gatherer and the agricultural revolution cannot coexist. Farming involves lots and lots of possessions, barns, storehouses, stealing and guarding and barbed wire, etc. So once we fell for the temptation of the agricultural revolution we were kicked out of the garden.

This interpretation means that v 1 -- God created universe v 2 -- Satan fell v.3 to the end of the Bible is about God creating man to be in His image, after His likeness and to rule and reign together with the Son.