Evolution and Genesis account of creation

[Brightmoon]

[QUOTE="miamited, post: 7351054]Hi BM,

So, it is your belief that God misspoke or that we somehow don't understand the word that has been translated as 'kinds' in the ancient Scriptures? Ok, you'll have to go with that because it's what you believe, but I happen to believe differently about the truth of God.

You also responded: We do have enough evidence to support continual evolution over eons.

It would seem obvious that you believe that to be a true statement. I happen to believe that we may have enough evidence to 'support' such an idea, but I don't think we have any evidence that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such an idea is the only interpretation of such evidence. Especially if we allow the Scriptures to be true where we are told that for God, nothing is impossible. Especially if we believe what the Scriptures say about God making foolish the wisdom of the wise.
God bless,
In Christ, ted[/QUOTE]

I’ve got a biology degree so I’m more familiar with the evidence and how it get confirmed than most people. I’ll also take what Nature says about itself over any book, especially one written down in the Bronze Age. I’m not going to look in the Bible to see how Nature works when I can look at Nature directly. The Church has been getting Nature wrong for tha last 600 years since Galileo. I my church has long learned not to use the bible for science

 

[The Barbarian]

Good morning barbarian,
I hope that you enjoyed a day of blessing and reflection on the impact of God's Son to the world.

The Mass that worked for me on Christmas was bilingual. And that was fine, except Mrs. Barbarian (an Episcopalian) loves the old English carols. And "Angels We Have Heard On High" turned out to be in Spanish. Which she can do, but she'd prefer the English version. I'm glad she sang though. She was trained to sing, and her voice is itself like that of an angel.

A few weeks ago, I was in Iowa and Seattle to see my kids (and a brand-new grandchild) and this Christmas, the remaining child and her husband were with us. So a very good Christmas indeed. I hope yours was fine, too.

You know, I read that article, although I admit it was read in a sort of skimming manner, but I didn't see what you are claiming that the article proves.

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 phenacdontids32 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.39 Evidence 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 said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
pages 218 and 219

(Emphasis mine)

The article opens up with the clear statement that the 'transitional forms' themselves are only claimed to be such, depending on the interpretation of the the individual.

Yes. Wise openly admits that his understanding of scripture overrides the evidence. He does not believe that transitionals are actually transitional. He further admits that creationism has no answer for this problem, but expresses hope that someday a creationist understanding might be possible.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. On the other hand, clues that an alternative solution might be forthcoming comes from the following considerations:
page 219

Wise is relentlessly honest. He bases his thinking in a YE interpretation of the Bible. But he's quite aware that there are problems with that thinking that presently have no answers. He is confident that someday there might be.

Ok, and so the only possibility is that archaeopteryx is some transitional form.

As Wise admits, "very good evidence" for that. Why? Because there are no functional reasons why we should have a dinosaur with a few avian characteristics tacked on. It's not quite a bird, but we see a number of modifications to dinosaur anatomy that make it birdlike. Feathers are certainly not sufficient to make it a bird. Lots of non-flying dinosaurs had feathers. They are useful for insulation and display. And yes, many dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

We see the basic dinosaur structure, slightly modified in fingers, skull and jaws, but still dinosauran otherwise. We know it could fly, since it has assymetric flight feathers.

So for a host of reasons, it says "transistional." Of course, it's not the dinosaur that gave rise to modern birds; it would be remarkably lucky if we found the very species from which modern birds evolved. But it's very close to that line.

And there's an issue every Christian must face here. What if God just created living things with all evidence of evolution, but did it instantly so that it just appeared to be evolved? There's an immediate problem in that God is never deceptive. But if we get around that, then there's a slippery slope.

Suppose He just created everything a few thousand years ago, with appearance of age and every detail precisely placed so that rational investigators would conclude it was billions of years old, and living things evolved from a common ancestor. Being God, He certainly could do that perfectly.

But then, He could have done that last Tuesday as well. Or any other point, such as just a moment ago planting false memories in your mind. And if He does it perfectly, how does that differ from all those apparent events really having happened?

And of course, why would God, for whom time is no limitation at all, do it? Given that scripture in no way rejects evolution, why not just accept that He did it the way the evidence shows He did?

So, it seems to me, that Mr. Wise' argument is that 'transitional forms' is an interpretive value,

He does.

but the cost of resources to really study such an issue is prohibitive.

Not the cost. He can't see any way at present to form a rational creationist understanding of it. Hence the title.

Add to that, knowledge of living organisms to even say with any certainty that a particular form is a 'transitional form' isn't available to us yet, and he surmises that it's a battle not worth fighting at this point.

All forms that leave descendants are transitional forms.

I don't really have any disagreement with the understanding that creatures living upon the earth can be established into families of common characteristics. I don't, however, necessarily agree with the conclusion that is made from the existence of these common characteristics that such evidence proves common descent.

The evidence is overwhelming at this point. Not just the many predicted transitional forms. And keep in mind that it would have been impossible for all of these species to have lived at one time. Even if the Earth was entirely dry land, it would have meant a large vertebrate for every area the size of a soccer pitch. No way that would be possible.

But then there's the genetic data, showing that all living things have a common ancestor. And then there's the fact that preserved dinosaur heme and collagen are most like that of birds, not other reptiles, which is a prediction of the theory.

And many other things we can discuss if you like. It's just too much to wave away.

So clearly, even you agree that there is an 'interpretive' problem with how we each understand what the Scriptures say.

Scripture doesn't offer an answer either way; it can be interpreted several ways. So you're still as Christian as the next guy, even if you're a YE creationist. It has no bearing on faith or salvation.

The physical evidence, however, is unequivocal.

Similarly, evening and morning aren't definers of the sun rising or setting, but merely two equal divisions of time for the time that it takes the earth to accomplish one full rotation upon its axis.

As Augustine said, it's problematic to speak of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

I am pleased that this issue is not one on which your salvation or mine depends. So YE creationists, and OE creationists, and theistic evolutionists, and all sorts of others remain brothers in Christ.

Have a blessed new year.

 

[Brightmoon]

Hi BM,

So, it is your belief that God misspoke or that we somehow don't understand the word that has been translated as 'kinds' in the ancient Scriptures? Ok, you'll have to go with that because it's what you believe, but I happen to believe differently about the truth of God.

You also responded: We do have enough evidence to support continual evolution over eons.

It would seem obvious that you believe that to be a true statement. I happen to believe that we may have enough evidence to 'support' such an idea, but I don't think we have any evidence that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt,
God bless, ( snip)
In Christ, ted

. By support I mean that this is the most likely explanation. If I weren’t trained as a scientist I’d say “definitely is “ instead of “most likely”. But scientists just don’t do that. However these are waffle words and basically you can say that common ancestry definitely is the way that organisms line up

. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural because there is no way to confirm or disconfirm those types of beliefs. They’re untestable hypotheses which are a waste of time for a scientist to deal with professionally . Personal opinions are different and might be important when it comes to faith but in science they are worthless. So my beliefs or lack of beliefs are not an issue. This is why I haven’t answered your question about my faith , because it’s irrelevant

 

[miamited]

Early earth didn’t have continents . Just Slivers of land . early plate tectonics would push these together or Vulcanism would make them larger( see Hawaii) . Very early earth had no liquid water it was too hot ; the surface was molten

Hi BM,

I agree that the earth, at its creation, likely didn't have separate continents of land. The Scriptures seem to allude that God separated the waters and the dry ground appeared. That seems to infer that the 'dry ground' was all of one piece, although, we can't declare that categorically to be the truth. We 'assume' that by saying that the 'waters separated', that it was one division and that the dry ground appeared either by the lowering of the water table, or the rising of the dry ground. The 'ground' was always there beneath the water and that by God's separating the water, the 'ground' appeared.

However, we can neither categorically make the claim that the entire earth has always been structured with 'plate tectonics'. This breaking up of the earth's lower crust foundation into plates may well have occurred when God broke open all the springs of the deep. We don't know!!! However, if that's the case (that the plates came about when the flood occurred) then it would be at this point that the great singular piece of dry ground broke apart and literally moved apart from each other and that may well have been at a rapid enough pace to have actually created the mountain ranges that we have today. We don't know!!!! But these are possibilities if we give understanding to the forces that may likely have been involved in God's effort to flood the earth. There is an argument that all the mountain ranges pretty generally run north to south. Because of this general orientation, the argument can then be made that when the great single land mass separated by the violence of what God was doing to flood the earth for His purpose, and knowing also that God didn't really want to destroy all of mankind, the speed and force of crashing huge land masses may have caused the buckling of the stratification of the earth to create the giant mountain ranges that we see today. We don't know and can't say categorically that this is true, but it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for a God who can merely speak entire realms of existence into being.

The picture would be one of a fairly serene life upon the dry ground of the earth. Then one day, it began to rain and the whole earth trembled as the great single land mass broke apart and opened up chasms with water just rushing out by the billions and billions of gallons. As this water rose over the then existing dry ground, Noah's ark would be raised out of its resting place as the millions upon millions of people living on that singular piece of land were either crushed by the movement of all the earth or drowned by flooding. It may be worth considering that there weren't a lot, if any, boats on the earth at the time. There wouldn't be anywhere to sail to if all the land was one piece. Why build a boat when you can just walk wherever you wanted to go. Now, there may well have been small fishing boats like something that Peter may have had in the new covenant account, but they would likely have been overturned and destroyed by the violent quaking of the earth and quickly swamped. Even if they weren't destroyed in such a manner, and a few people did make it into them, they wouldn't have had any food to eat and after 10-15 days would have died of starvation anyway. Noah was told to provision his ark for a long duration. This means that he was prepared to withstand a long time where he wouldn't have been able to just jump off the ark and grab up some harvest of food from the surface of the earth. It is likely that when all of this great turmoil began upon the earth, anyone who might have made it to their fishing boat, wouldn't have had it stored with a month's worth of food stores. They would have just jumped on the boat in an effort to save their life and after a couple of weeks without food, and depending on the salinity of the water, water rations, they would have just starved floating on the top of the water.

According to the Scriptures, very, very early earth had water on the day that it was created.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Brightmoon]

Hi BM,

I agree that the earth, at its creation, likely didn't have separate continents of land. The Scriptures seem to allude that God separated the waters and the dry ground appeared. That seems to infer that the 'dry ground' was all of one piece, although, we can't declare that categorically to be the truth. We 'assume' that by saying that the 'waters separated', that it was one division and that the dry ground appeared either by the lowering of the water table, or the rising of the dry ground. The 'ground' was always there beneath the water and that by God's separating the water, the 'ground' appeared.

However, we can neither categorically make the claim that the entire earth has always been structured with 'plate tectonics'. This breaking up of the earth's lower crust foundation into plates may well have occurred when God broke open all the springs of the deep. We don't know!!! However, if that's the case (that the plates came about when the flood occurred) then it would be at this point that the great singular piece of dry ground broke apart and literally moved apart from each other and that may well have been at a rapid enough pace to have actually created the mountain ranges that we have today. We don't know!!!! But these are possibilities if we give understanding to the forces that may likely have been involved in God's effort to flood the earth. There is an argument that all the mountain ranges pretty generally run north to south. Because of this general orientation, the argument can then be made that when the great single land mass separated by the violence of what God was doing to flood the earth for His purpose, and knowing also that God didn't really want to destroy all of mankind, the speed and force of crashing huge land masses may have caused the buckling of the stratification of the earth to create the giant mountain ranges that we see today. We don't know and can't say categorically that this is true, but it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for a God who can merely speak entire realms of existence into being.

The picture would be one of a fairly serene life upon the dry ground of the earth. Then one day, it began to rain and the whole earth trembled as the great single land mass broke apart and opened up chasms with water just rushing out by the billions and billions of gallons. As this water rose over the then existing dry ground, Noah's ark would be raised out of its resting place as the millions upon millions of people living on that singular piece of land were either crushed by the movement of all the earth or drowned by flooding. It may be worth considering that there weren't a lot, if any, boats on the earth at the time. There wouldn't be anywhere to sail to if all the land was one piece. Why build a boat when you can just walk wherever you wanted to go. Now, there may well have been small fishing boats like something that Peter may have had in the new covenant account, but they would likely have been overturned and destroyed by the violent quaking of the earth and quickly swamped. Even if they weren't destroyed in such a manner, and a few people did make it into them, they wouldn't have had any food to eat and after 10-15 days would have died of starvation anyway. Noah was told to provision his ark for a long duration. This means that he was prepared to withstand a long time where he wouldn't have been able to just jump off the ark and grab up some harvest of food from the surface of the earth. It is likely that when all of this great turmoil began upon the earth, anyone who might have made it to their fishing boat, wouldn't have had it stored with a month's worth of food stores. They would have just jumped on the boat in an effort to save their life and after a couple of weeks without food, and depending on the salinity of the water, water rations, they would have just starved floating on the top of the water.

According to the Scriptures, very, very early earth had water on the day that it was created.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

. Lol you love coming up with these complicated just-so stories.

The earth developed plates simply because the cracks form from the cooling and shrinking of the molten surface . Simple physics . Cold things are denser than hot things. And the minerals that form the surface are also less dense so they would float . Some thinner plates would be buckled or be submerged under thicker denser plates. A combination of these 3 processes gets you plate tectonics where continents move around slowly on a molten center.

There’s no VERIFIABLE evidence for Noah’s Flood . Not geological or nor is there biochemical nor is there biological . None

 

[miamited]

HI barbarian,

Thanks for your reply:

Evidence 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.

Absolutely immediately after that statement is made that such evidence is 'strong', and I understand 'strong' as being not proven beyond doubt to reach the conclusion that evolutionists draw from it but some point of evidence that does need to be addressed, he immediately addresses that with a possible YEC model that would show us the exact same evidence in the earth that we do find.

So again, scientists can't offer any inarguable evidence, but can make a strong case for their theory.

You also responded:

As Augustine said, it's problematic to speak of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

It's a shame that St Augustine's faith didn't provide him the answer to that. Of course, they didn't have a.m. and p.m. as designations then that we could show how evening and morning really don't have to have a sun or moon to have passed. I contend that when God caused to be written 'evening and morning' that His purpose was to show us that two halves of day passed with the six days of creation, just as those same two halves pass by with each passing day today. Otherwise, I have to question why God even put that phrase there for each day? Why not simply say that He created the earth, and the earth was covered with water and without form and void and thus ended the first day of His creating? On the second day God created...and God saw that it was good, and thus ended the second day. I think that we need to understand that St. Augustine's explanation that such a thing is problematic, is not the same as saying that such a thing is a proof that dispels one side of the argument or another. Problematic just means that it needs to be looked into deeper.

I think that's a valid question. Now, whether someone else even gives such an example even a moments consideration is between them and the Holy Spirit. But I've asked that question and I've sought the answer beseeching the Holy Spirit's wisdom in understanding, and this is what I have been directed to. You, if you have likewise sought answers from God's Spirit rather than from man's science, have apparently been given a different answer. That begs another question. Why would the Holy Spirit give you a wisdom and understanding that makes it all pretty plain and simple to you in one way, but give me a wisdom and understanding that makes it all pretty plain and simple in another way, 'IF' God's Spirit is to lead us into all truth? Surely we can agree that both of these scenarios cannot both be true in the reality of what is. For me, that again brings up, what I think could be, a fairly important question that should be answered.

Finally, Peter writes to us that there are some things found in the Scriptures that are hard to understand. Have we any way to 'prove' that this issue of the creation event isn't one of them?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Brightmoon]

Ted , there’s NO evidence against evolution/ common descent and there’s scads of evidence for them . You’d have to come up with evidence that evolution is wrong AND you’d have to come up with VERIFIABLE evidence that creationism is correct . It’s not enough for you to say that because we don’t have every single dead or living organism that has ever lived , that we don’t have enough evidence for evolution. You have to contrast that with the fact that there’s NO evidence for creationist ideas

 

[miamited]

. Lol you love coming up with these complicated just-so stories.

The earth developed plates simply because the cracks form from the cooling and shrinking of the molten surface . Simple physics . Cold things are denser than hot things. And the minerals that form the surface are also less dense so they would float . Some thinner plates would be buckled or be submerged under thicker denser plates. A combination of these 3 processes gets you plate tectonics where continents move around slowly on a molten center.

There’s no VERIFIABLE evidence for Noah’s Flood . Not geological or nor is there biochemical nor is there biological . None

Hi BM,

I'm not sure why you find may account 'complicated', but apparently you do. Were you there when the plates were formed? You know, God spent a lot of time trying to get Job to understand that he really didn't understand much about the earth and its creation. He asks Job when he was consulted about the formation of the earth. Whether he had ever seen the places where the ice and snow were stored. God spends a good section of Job's discussion with Him explaining that Job just didn't understand squat about the earth and its creation or even the creatures that live upon it.

Today, we think that we have wise and brilliant scientists who have given of their life's work to understand, through what we see in the physical earth, an explanation of how the earth came to be as it is today. I contend that God would ask us those same questions and pretty quickly dispel any notion that we might have that we can possibly understand or explain how something that God created, physically came about to be. You even command without the slightest hesitation that there is no verifiable evidence for Noah's flood. I would agree, that other than God said so, there is no verifiable evidence for Noah's flood. But you see, that's the simple difference between living by faith and how others choose to live. By faith, we believe that God's account of all things is completely true. All others only want their faith to go as far as their science can prove that it goes.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Brightmoon]

we know that God brushed off Job. “Were you there?” is one of the stupider ideas in the so called evolution creationism debate ( so called because there is no debate/ creationists have no evidence) and I’ll give you an example of why

Pretend you have a dog . He’s asleep under the kitchen table. You see muddy prints going from the doggy door to the table. Do you really need to see the dog outside in the yard to know that he’s been outside and has tracked that mud all over your clean floor?

We don’t have to be there to determine that the earth’s surface was once molten , to see that the cratons that make up the continents had slivers added to their edges. We don’t have to be there to see that trilobites, ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs lived for millions of years . We don’t have to be there to see the magnetic poles change positions . We can determine all of this from the evidence that these processes left behind. The problem is that the biblical narrative being true would have left behind obvious evidence. Not only geological evidence but biological evidence as well . Since the Flood didn’t leave evidence we know it never happened

 

[The Barbarian]

HI barbarian,

Absolutely immediately after that statement is made that such evidence is 'strong', and I understand 'strong' as being not proven beyond doubt

"Proof" is not possible in science. It's only demonstrable to the point that it's foolish to deny it. This is Wise's point; the evidence points to common descent. As he says the evidence for evolution of whales (for example) is impossible to resolve with YE creationism at this time; he expresses hope that it might someday be explained.

So again, scientists can't offer any inarguable evidence,

By definition evidence cannot be inarguable.

but can make a strong case for their theory.

Yes.

It's a shame that St Augustine's faith didn't provide him the answer to that.

It did. He concluded that the "days" were not literal. If he had been proficient in Hebrew as well, he would also have realized that "yom" did not necessarily mean"day." It can also mean "in my day", "forever"., "always", "a certain period", and so on.

Augustine tried for years to make a literal history fit Genesis. He finally concluded that it could not. But since it's largely poetic, the obvious answer is that the "yom" were figurative for aspects of God's creation.

Most Christians, seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit, have concluded what St. Augustine found. But others, have concluded otherwise. It is, religiously, not a doctrine, but various opinions exist. If we look at the evidence, it's unequivocal for a figurative Genesis.

Why would the Holy Spirit give you a wisdom and understanding that makes it all pretty plain and simple to you in one way, but give me a wisdom and understanding that makes it all pretty plain and simple in another way, 'IF' God's Spirit is to lead us into all truth?

Perhaps one of us is wrong, or maybe both of us are wrong about what the Holy Spirit says about it. Or perhaps the Holy Spirit has no interest in either case. If it's not a salvation issue, why would He even take sides?

[quote\Finally, Peter writes to us that there are some things found in the Scriptures that are hard to understand. Have we any way to 'prove' that this issue of the creation event isn't one of them?[/quote]

At the time Christians saw through a glass, darkly. In more recent times, some of the darkness has been illuminated.

Bless you as well.

 

[miamited]

Ted , there’s NO evidence against evolution/ common descent and there’s scads of evidence for them . You’d have to come up with evidence that evolution is wrong AND you’d have to come up with VERIFIABLE evidence that creationism is correct . It’s not enough for you to say that because we don’t have every single dead or living organism that has ever lived , that we don’t have enough evidence for evolution. You have to contrast that with the fact that there’s NO evidence for creationist ideas

Hi BM,

No, I don't have to come up with anything. It isn't really my job to prove to you or anyone else that God's word can be trusted in its totality of what it tells us. That's the Holy Spirit's job according to God's Son. I'm just offering explanation to counter what those whose only faith is in what science would tell them is the truth. I'm merely responding to the questions that have been brought to this thread with what I believe is the more likely answer, if we start with the knowledge that God's word is true! Working from that foundation, then our answers must align with the truth of God's word. Now, for someone whose foundation is what the science of man has 'proven', then they get to start with a different foundation than I do. That's ok, but I don't think it will be of value to them on that day that we read about coming in the last couple of chapters of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

In that day, when God opens the Lamb's Book of Life to find the names of all those written who trusted in the testimony of His Son. I believe there will be a lot of 'christians' who won't make the cut. Jesus even warns his disciples of this belief that all we have to do is confess the name of Jesus and we're saved. He tells them of the 'many' who will stand before him declaring their good works in 'his name'. They have driven out demons and prophesied the truth of God. It seems painfully obvious to me that these people did, at some point in their life, make a confession that Jesus is their Lord. Who spends their life doing things in Jesus' name that hasn't declared that Jesus is Lord? Who? Certainly not muslims or buddhists or atheists. These seem to obviously be people who lived upon the earth who were considered, by themselves and their friends and family, to be christians. They cry out about all the 'christian' things that they did in Jesus' name.

So, if I'm correct in this, and the determining factor isn't going to just be whether you declared one day that Jesus is Lord, but that you also agreed with His testimony about the Father, thereby making you his brother, living as one in agreement with both him and the Father, then it becomes a bit more serious as to what we believe to be the truth beyond just declaring that Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus even uses that very wording. "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord', will be saved."

So, I just caution that we need to be careful in this proclamation that it doesn't matter what one believes beyond just declaring that Jesus Christ is Lord. I think there's a good argument to be made that 'trusting in Jesus' means believing him and if Jesus came from God or is God and there was some questionable doctrine about the old covenant, he would have addressed that. But to the contrary, Jesus seems to have confirmed, whenever the record of the old covenant came up, that it was true in all that it said. He did, at one point, even make the claim that God's word is truth! He knew in that day, that what was considered God's word among the people of Israel, included the six day creation account of the account in Genesis. He knew that there was an account in that same record of a flood that we are told covered the entire earth. The God I know and love, would not have sent his Son on such an important mission and not corrected any error that man had written as God's word.

So, my final testimony is that I can trust God's Scriptures, His account of the history of the heavens and the earth and all living things, because never once did His Son deny or correct a single word of it, knowing full well what it all said up to the point of Jesus' visitation to us.

God knew, in the very first day that He created the heavens and the earth, that a time would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. He knew that a day was coming when the people of the earth would argue over the veracity of His account. He knew that the word 'day' was a word that could be construed, depending on its context, as two or three different spans of time. He knew that if He closed out each daily account of His creating with the descriptor that each day consisted of an evening and morning, that such a phrase would create the context for the word 'day'. I contend that God knew all this in the moment that He declared, "Let there be light!"

So, when God had Moses write down His account of His creating this realm, He made sure that Moses wrote "...thus ended the evening and the morning the first day."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Brightmoon]

Hi BM,

No, I don't have to come up with anything. It isn't really my job to prove to you or anyone else that God's word can be trusted in its totality of what it tells us. That's the Holy Spirit's job according to God's Son. I'm just offering explanation to counter what those whose only faith is in what science would tell them is the truth. I'm merely responding to the questions that have been brought to this thread with what I believe is the more likely answer, if we start with the knowledge that God's word is true! Working from that foundation, then our answers must align with the truth of God's word. Now, for someone whose foundation is what the science of man has 'proven', then they get to start with a different foundation than I do. That's ok, but I don't think it will be of value to them on that day that we read about coming in the last couple of chapters of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

In that day, when God opens the Lamb's Book of Life to find the names of all those written who trusted in the testimony of His Son. I believe there will be a lot of 'christians' who won't make the cut. Jesus even warns his disciples of this belief that all we have to do is confess the name of Jesus and we're saved. He tells them of the 'many' who will stand before him declaring their good works in 'his name'. They have driven out demons and prophesied the truth of God. It seems painfully obvious to me that these people did, at some point in their life, make a confession that Jesus is their Lord. Who spends their life doing things in Jesus' name that hasn't declared that Jesus is Lord? Who? Certainly not muslims or buddhists or atheists. These seem to obviously be people who lived upon the earth who were considered, by themselves and their friends and family, to be christians. They cry out about all the 'christian' things that they did in Jesus' name.

So, if I'm correct in this, and the determining factor isn't going to just be whether you declared one day that Jesus is Lord, but that you also agreed with His testimony about the Father, thereby making you his brother, living as one in agreement with both him and the Father, then it becomes a bit more serious as to what we believe to be the truth beyond just declaring that Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus even uses that very wording. "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord', will be saved."

So, I just caution that we need to be careful in this proclamation that it doesn't matter what one believes beyond just declaring that Jesus Christ is Lord. I think there's a good argument to be made that 'trusting in Jesus' means believing him and if Jesus came from God or is God and there was some questionable doctrine about the old covenant, he would have addressed that. But to the contrary, Jesus seems to have confirmed, whenever the record of the old covenant came up, that it was true in all that it said. He did, at one point, even make the claim that God's word is truth! He knew in that day, that what was considered God's word among the people of Israel, included the six day creation account of the account in Genesis. He knew that there was an account in that same record of a flood that we are told covered the entire earth. The God I know and love, would not have sent his Son on such an important mission and not corrected any error that man had written as God's word.

So, my final testimony is that I can trust God's Scriptures, His account of the history of the heavens and the earth and all living things, because never once did His Son deny or correct a single word of it, knowing full well what it all said up to the point of Jesus' visitation to us.

God knew, in the very first day that He created the heavens and the earth, that a time would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. He knew that a day was coming when the people of the earth would argue over the veracity of His account. He knew that the word 'day' was a word that could be construed, depending on its context, as two or three different spans of time. He knew that if He closed out each daily account of His creating with the descriptor that each day consisted of an evening and morning, that such a phrase would create the context for the word 'day'. I contend that God knew all this in the moment that He declared, "Let there be light!"

So, when God had Moses write down His account of His creating this realm, He made sure that Moses wrote "...thus ended the evening and the morning the first day."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

you creationists have to come up with evidence for your ideas otherwise you’re simply going be ignored by the scientific community. This is not an issue of faith . But of wilful ignorance and pointless propaganda vs scientific evidence.

As far as arguing over someone else’s religion or religious beliefs is concerned; Those dogmas are unanswerable , you can’t prove them and you can’t disprove them .

 

[miamited]

Hi barbarian,

Ok, last post for me on this subject. We're getting to 200 posts in this thread and that always becomes a bit long to me. No one who joins in, likely reads all of the previous posts that might apply to a particular discussion.

"Proof" is not possible in science. It's only demonstrable to the point that it's foolish to deny it.

That's a wonderful sounding homily, but it just isn't true. I can prove, through the scientific method, that when I turn the light on, on my desk, it takes x amount of time for the waves of that light to reach my eyes. I can prove that because I can repeatedly show that it happens based on some natural properties that I know of light. BUT!!!!!!, I cannot prove, by turning on the light on my desk, that light has always and forever operated in the same manner. I can only assume that, based on countless repeatable experiments that I do with the light on my desk in the here and now. Further, any testing that I do with the light on my desk will absolutely not allow for what God could do with the light on my desk. I believe in a God, who if He wanted, could reach down and turn on the light on my desk and that light would be immediately seen on Alpha Centauri A, at the moment that He turned it on. If that was his purpose in turning on the light on my desk. That's the power of the God that I believe in. I'm sorry.

I believe in a God who can, without any rhyme or reason that would ever be understandable or provable by man, divide a deep sea in such a manner that the water would merely congeal in its place standing as a sentinel as people walked through the chasm so created. The water wouldn't be frozen by the surrounding air temperature suddenly dropping to minus 100 degrees celsius, which is likely what it would take for a deep sea of water to freeze in seemingly mere moments. It would just congeal in its place because God commanded it to congeal. There wouldn't ever be any scientific method to prove that it did, it just would! If great men of science were ever asked to prove it, they'd study water and test water and try a myriad of different experiments with water and explain to us how water is made up of molecules that consist of hydrogen and oxygen and then eventually come to complete and 'proven' agreement that such an account as we find in the Scriptures just couldn't have happened.

This is exactly what they do with the earth. We ask, "How old is the earth?" They study and dissect the earth and run tests and develop theories and, based on a foundation that begins with understanding that all things follow only the natural processes that we see today occurring, that the earth must be several billion years old. That's fine! And if all that was, was the natural processes of things, I'd agree. But I have a pretty strong body of evidence that offers me quite a bit of historical evidence that when God does something, we might as well be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing in the wind to try and explain it. Now, will we come up with an explanation of something that we know does exist? Sure. Do we have any real assurance that our explanation is the truth of what actually happened thousands of years ago when there wasn't a single soul to see God work? Absolutely not!!!!

This is what evolutionists fail to comprehend. That we can really only prove what happens in the here and now based on the natural properties of things. They fail to even consider, and this is what God says of those who make idols out of a block of wood, that we really can't account for how Mary came to be pregnant, based on the account of her life. Isaiah writes of someone who takes a block of wood and with part of it he cooks his food and with another part he carves out an idol. Not even considering that this idol is made from the very same thing that the person just used to heat his food and warm himself. So, the scientific community and evolutionists and such believe that the earth can only have self created and that such an occurrence must have taken billions upon billions of years based on our understanding of the natural properties of things. Completely ignoring a big part of the event, according to the Scriptures. It wasn't done through the working of natural properties!!!! No!!!! It was done by the hand of a God who can create stars and planets that are gargantuan in size and power. It was done by the hand of a God who can immediately cover an entire expanse of land with fully formed flora and fauna that ten minutes before didn't even exist. It was done by the hand of a loving God who can gently lay in the womb of a young virgin woman a fully viable growing baby, for which no man ever provided any sperm. A baby that God laid in that womb to grow up among us and give us the true testimony of this loving and caring and creating God. A baby that would grow into a man who would then provide us with all the testimony that we need to know and trust the truth of the God who implanted him in that woman's womb, and then walk steadfastly to the cross to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all those who would believe him.

I'll leave with this encouragement. Set aside what scientists are telling you for a bit. Fall on your knees in following God's instruction that those who lack wisdom should ask Him for it. Beseech the Holy Spirit of God to show you and give you understanding of the truth of God. I have done this and as I explained before, the Holy Spirit does seem to have provided me with a fully, to me, acceptable answer to the 'problematic' issues between the scientific method and what God has done.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"Proof" is not possible in science. It's only demonstrable to the point that it's foolish to deny it.

That's a wonderful sounding homily, but it just isn't true.

It's demonstrably true. Logical certainty is only possible when we know all the rules and prove the particular case. Science is primarily inductive; we observe particular cases and infer the rules.

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

I can prove, through the scientific method, that when I turn the light on, on my desk, it takes x amount of time for the waves of that light to reach my eyes. I can prove that because I can repeatedly show that it happens based on some natural properties that I know of light.

No, you merely have sufficient evidence to believe that it will always work that way. You can't prove that it will. Like evolution and gravity, your light behavior is established well enough to consider it a fact, but none of them are proven.

Further, any testing that I do with the light on my desk will absolutely not allow for what God could do with the light on my desk.

Nor can we asolutely not allow for what God could do to living things. However, we observe that he neither messes with your light nor miraculously pops new living things into being. So we're pretty sure we can rule those things out.

I believe in a God, who if He wanted, could reach down and turn on the light on my desk and that light would be immediately seen on Alpha Centauri A, at the moment that He turned it on.

If we have to pull in unscriptural miracles to make our idea work, that's probably a pretty good clue that it's not a realistic idea.

Try this:
First tell God that while you are a creationist, you're open to any way that He might have done creation, so long as it is His will.

Set aside what creationists are telling you for a bit. Think about letting God do it His way. Beseech the Holy Spirit of God to show you and give you understanding of the truth of God.

It might be a revelation for you. It was for me.

 

[miamited]

Barbarian observes:
"Proof" is not possible in science. It's only demonstrable to the point that it's foolish to deny it.



It's demonstrably true. Logical certainty is only possible when we know all the rules and prove the particular case. Science is primarily inductive; we observe particular cases and infer the rules.

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof



No, you merely have sufficient evidence to believe that it will always work that way. You can't prove that it will. Like evolution and gravity, your light behavior is established well enough to consider it a fact, but none of them are proven.



Nor can we asolutely not allow for what God could do to living things. However, we observe that he neither messes with your light nor miraculously pops new living things into being. So we're pretty sure we can rule those things out.



If we have to pull in unscriptural miracles to make our idea work, that's probably a pretty good clue that it's not a realistic idea.

Try this:
First tell God that while you are a creationist, you're open to any way that He might have done creation, so long as it is His will.

Set aside what creationists are telling you for a bit. Think about letting God do it His way. Beseech the Holy Spirit of God to show you and give you understanding of the truth of God.

It might be a revelation for you. It was for me.

Hi barbarian,

I know, I said I was done, but I just felt strongly compelled to answer this post. 'IF' your claim and that of those you provide as evidence to support your claim, is true, then why do we even have this disagreement that has gone on for now some several dozen posts? The truth of the matter would then be that there may be more evidence to support one claim over another, but that neither can be proven through the scientific method. Now, some may feel that the evidence for one case is strong enough that they feel comfortable saying that their position is the 'proven' truth of these things, as we have seen repeated a number of times within this thread. But the other side has just as strong an argument that their position may be the truth of such things even though the chance that their position is true might be less.

A chance, still has a possibility to exist so long as it is not a null chance. Our disagreement now is that some believe one way based on a preponderance of evidence, but the chance that they are wrong does exist because there is no absolute proof of either position.

I'm fine with that! Suffice to say that I'm in support of the lesser possible chance based on what God has shown me in the Scriptures. As for your advice, I took that advice long ago. You may not believe me, but I was once just like them that believe in the million billion year old creation of things. It was exactly my prayer, and this was long before I was 'indoctrinated', as some are wont to say in the ways of the 'wrong creationists', for God, through His Spirit, to give me wisdom and understanding of His truth. I believe He has done that because I went from the position of old earth to young earth. It was quite a revelation for me also, but one that I find completely comforting, and supported through the testimony of my God and Creator.

However, as I previously said, man tends to fool himself with his wisdom. He'll take a block of wood and make a god out of it even though he knows that he just used that same block of wood for fire and heat. He'll take the testimony of God and set it aside because now his faith is in those who are 'wise' in all the natural processes of the creation.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[NobleMouse]

Yes, I believe the miracles you mentioned were very literal. Evidently you had already decided I did not.


I said the event, which means a physical reality, was figurative of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. You seem to read into my post what you have preconceived it to say. Do you do this with scripture also?

My belief of evolution is: if any of it is true God would be the first cause in it.

Its good you believe Genesis 3:15 is referring to Christ.

I believe the snake/serpent is figurative for natural/fleshly man.

I believe tree of life is figurative for Christ.

I believe the flaming sword is figurative for The Word/Christ of God, the only way man can return to a union with Him.

I believe the mark of Cain was the mark of a vengeful spirit.

I believe these things because I asked God to reveal them to me and He did.

OK so you believe in some miracles (even if for some you interject your own ideas), and not others? Where in the OT do you draw the line then, and why?

 

[The Barbarian]

Hi barbarian,

I know, I said I was done, but I just felt strongly compelled to answer this post.

That might be a good sign.

'IF' your claim and that of those you provide as evidence to support your claim, is true, then why do we even have this disagreement that has gone on for now some several dozen posts?

As Kurt Wise says, mostly because some people put their understanding of scripture before the evidence.

The truth of the matter would then be that there may be more evidence to support one claim over another, but that neither can be proven through the scientific method.

Of course, science proves nothing at all, but because the evidence is vast and compelling, few scientists now doubt the fact of evolution.

As for your advice, I took that advice long ago. You may not believe me, but I was once just like them that believe in the million billion year old creation of things.

I once wasn't. But then I spent a lot of time in prayer and in study of the Bible. And it became clear to me that it wasn't the way modern creationists say it is. YE creationists suppose that wisdom is on their side.

However, as I previously said, man tends to fool himself with his wisdom.

Sometimes.

Don't give up. There's more to know. God bless and good luck on that journey.

 

[misput]

OK so you believe in some miracles (even if for some you interject your own ideas), and not others? Where in the OT do you draw the line then, and why?

I have already answered those questions but evidently you did not understand. Do you believe the Jesus, Lazureth miracle was figurative of the death burial and resurrection of Christ?

 

[NobleMouse]

( sigh) I see you’ve learned creationist pseudoscience instead of real science. Come back when youve learn not to equate ignorant nonsense and your religious beliefs with science

This is where these discussions almost always conclude (whether in 200 posts or less). It starts with some commentary from both sides then when evolutionists are asked pointed questions about their Christian faith and the claims of the Bible, it has almost always been my experience that they have little to say. Further pointed questions about the lack of conclusive evidence and critiques applying basic logic and the response back is generally true scotsman and ad hominem remarks--a rather disappointing display.

A pattern I consistently see is this: those who believe that the events around creation and Genesis happened as written tend to quote and reference the Bible, while while those who do not believe tend to put on a 'mini science fair' display.

What is evident is that each turns to their source of what they consider their highest authority regarding the truth. Worth noting is that truth doesn't have to be scientific to be true (ex. your birth certificate is not scientific, but will likely give a more accurate testimony to your birth than could be ascertained indirectly through the scientific method).

Also worth noting is that every scientific discovery made and conclusively confirmed through direct observation does not contradict anything in the Bible; however, areas of science where direct observation cannot be made like around origins, ages, and events far in the past (where people otherwise have to make inferences and assumptions within the discipline of science) tend to be in opposition to what God's word says around the same topics. This seems significant.

 

[The Barbarian]

A pattern I consistently see is this: those who believe that the events around creation and Genesis happened as written tend to quote and reference the Bible

Generally, it's between those who believe that creation happened as written opposed to those who have added new material to support YE creation.

And generally, the people who understand the science of biology pretty much support the unedited version.

What is evident is that each turns to their source of what they consider their highest authority regarding the truth.

Both side (we're all Christians here) accept Genesis, but one side adds a few things to make it fit. Some YE creationists also remove a little from Genesis, because it rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of classic YE creationism.

Also worth noting is that every scientific discovery made and conclusively confirmed through direct observation does not contradict anything in the Bible

For example, natural selection, evolution of new species, DNA comparisons, and the discovery of new transitional forms, all of which have been directly observed. On the other hand, the "similar DNA; similar function" claims of YE creationism have never been observed. In fact, just the opposite is found.

So YE has problems other than scripture itself.