Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

[Assyrian]

What I said was that Creationism as doctrine is defined by the Scriptures. The canon of Scripture is found in the original and Oxford was commenting on one facet of Creationism, not the Biblical doctrine. When I introduced the actual definition from Vine's and other Lexicons you simply rejected the Vine's and offered nothing in defense of you 'interpretation' of the text. I don't know what you think your accomplishing here but you moving further away from an understanding of the Scriptures.

Again what has this got to do with the Oxford English dictionary definitions of Creationism and Creationist? You keep changing the subject Mark, swapping from the point I just refuted you to different claims I have refuted somewhere else and you changed the subject then too.

was created from the earth for the earth, his body was made from dust. If you want to take that figuratively that's your prerogative but that doesn't make it a valid exposition of the text. Adam is our first parent according to every New Testament witness and the overwhelming consensus of Christian scholarship. Parts of the Genesis 1 account have been erroneously been rationalized away as figurative, 'day' and 'dust' are not figurative but so be it. You may not believe it but that doesn't give you the right to dictate how it reads.

See you changed the subject again. Here is what I asked you:

Now would you care to comment on the difference between modern Creationists who insist the literal interpretation of Genesis is vital and literalists in the early church who had no problem with other Christians interpreting the Genesis creation accounts figuratively?
​

Bara is ex nihilo creation, you in denial. Only once is it used in the perfect tense, which isn't a reference in time but of completion. I know it will make no difference since you can't handle a basic exposition for there is the exegetical treatment for the grammatical construction. Pay attention to what's being created and try to understand, it's used exclusively of divine activity:

Qal Perfect Genesis 1:1 19t.; Imperfect יִבְרָא Genesis 1:21,27; Numbers 16:30; Infinitive בְּראֹ Genesis 5:1; Imperative בְּרָא Psalm 51:12; Participle בּוֺרֵא Isaiah 42:5 10t.; suffix בֹּרַאֲךָ Isaiah 43:1; בּוֺרְאֶיךָ Ecclesiastes 12:1; — shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon)​

There's nothing left to be learned, drawn out of the text or explained. We did the exact same thing with Adam in the New Testament and you wouldn't listen then either. I made every effort to show you plainly what the word means and why it's the basis for creation as doctrine and you preferred a superficial secular source of the the Scriptures and Christian scholarship. So be it.

You didn't answer me Mark. I asked you why you changed the subject

Mark: Creation is a doctrinal issue, I think you know that.
​

Assyrian: Of course it is. The issue is with you confusing the doctrine of Creation with Creationism. I think you know that, I said it to you often enough.
Mark changes the subject to bara being ex nihilo: Chanting it like a mantra doesn't make it substantive...Creation is an English word that is translated from at least three Hebrew words, sometimes used interchangeably. Certain forms of 'bara' and in certain contexts render it an ex nihilo...

Assyrian points our you just changed the subject: And you change the subject again Mark I talked about you confusing the doctrine of Creation and Creationism. You reply by saying bara is ex nihilo.

Mark continues on with the changed subject: Bara is ex nihilo creation, you in denial...
​

Perhaps you are the one in denial and you can't deal with the fact you have to keep changing the subject.

Incidentally, bara is not only used once in the qal perfect in Gen 1:1, it is also Qal Perfect 1:27 (twice), 2:3, 5:2, 6:7, Deut 4:32 Psalm 89:2, Isaiah 40:26, 41:20 (myrtle and cyprus), 43:7 (people), 45:8, 12 & 18, 48:7, 54:16 (twice: the blacksmith and the waster), Jer 31:22 and Mal 2:7 (everyone). See where you quoted BDB and it says:

Qal Perfect Genesis 1:1 19t.
​

That means it is used in the Qal Perfect 19 times. I have just listed them for you, if you notice, it refers to God creating the blacksmith and waster, and the myrtle bushes and Cyprus trees. The blacksmith was born through natural processes and trees and shrubs grow from seeds.
bara is also used in the Niphal Perfect, Niphal is the passive form of Qal they were created. We find it in Psalm 148:5, Isaiah 48:7 (they are created now) and Ezek 21:30 (the creation of a nation).

...Bara is ex nihilo creation, you in denial. Only once is it used in the perfect tense, which isn't a reference in time but of completion...

You are right to say the Perfect refers to a complete action rather than the time the action takes place at. Your mistake is thinking this means bara is being used in some sort of absolute and ex nihilo sense. It doesn't, it simply means the action that is incomplete in the Imperfect is finished and completed in the Perfect. The Perfect doesn't describe a different sense of a verb than other forms, it isn't more absolute, it just means the work is finished. while the blacksmith's mother was pregnant and while his father was still training him, the blacksmith was still being created (Imperfect). Looking at the completed creation, and you can look at a completed work still to come, you use the Perfect.

You have made this same mistake before in Creationism Darwinism and Natural History, I even gave you a link explaining the Hebrew Perfect. I also showed other passages like the blacksmith one which used bara in the Qal Perfect too. You just claimed I was wrong, then I quote a KJV TVM (Tense Voice and Mood) which gives not just Strongs numbers for the words, but the forms of verbs, and showed you where the Hebrew uses the Perfect form of bara. That was the last post in the thread, you never replied.

For the last time, you don't get to dismiss an historical narrative as figurative because you don't happen to believe it. If there were figurative language there would have been a 'like' or 'as', whether explicit or implied. There is no such language in the text and 'bara' is never used figuratively. An act of God cannot be figurative, I don't know why you don't see the sheer absurdity of what you are arguing but you arguing it in circles.

We were discussing you claim

I take the creation account literally because I take the Creator literally.
​

Now you are changing the subject from one (bad) argument for literalism, which is what I addressed, to a different (bad) argument for literalism. Why do you keep changing the subject Mark why can't you answer me when I take your arguments apart? I can only assume that you can't.

There was no 'like' or 'as' in Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. In fact the verse sound as though it talking about literal events the Israelites witnessed themselves. Of course it contradicts other descriptions of the Exodus, but that has never stopped literalists before from find ways to force seemingly contradictory descriptions to fit each other.

Every single time I have managed to get an evolutionist to produce a definition it was the change of alleles in populations over time. The a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes are never a part of the definition from the genuine article of science. Again, I don't know why you cant or won't understand the difference between Darwinian logic and evolution, Creation and Creation science, science and supposition but that's on you, I am really out of time for this.

How about addressing my point that the science of evolution is much broader than than the allele change definition and includes the mechanisms behind the changes and the the study of the evolutionary history of life on earth?

I have always said that Creation as doctrine and Creation Science are discernibly different. They stem from the same transcendent, hermeneutic that is mutually exclusive with the naturalistic assumptions you defend. The issue here was never semantics, it's a doctrinal issue. You must be a creationist in order to be a Christian, you can't say the same thing for Theistic Evolution now can you?

I asked you why you keep confusing creationism and the doctrine of Creation.
What do you do?
You change the subject to the doctrine of Creation and Creation Science.
And them you repeat original mistake all over again conflating believing in Creation and Creationist.

Amazing not a single point so far where you have answered my point and not changed the subject. Your next response isn't changing the point though, it is accusing me of 'pedantic hair splitting', followed by a 'nothing in the way of substantive proof', and another not answering the point, before you finally try to address a point I make by downplaying the extent of figurative interpretation in the early church.

Again with pedantic hair splitting. Darwinism always has been and always will be one long argument against Creation. I think you understand that, you just won't admit it.

You argued that Francis Bacon (1561–1626) argued against Creationism (1859-present OED), without presenting a single piece of evidence or argument to back you claim up. It is not pedantic to ask why you think he was arguing against creationism.

You haven't made a single point stick, offered virtually nothing in the way of substantive proof and when soundly refuted you just repeat your original error.

The only reason you think I haven't made a single point stick is that you run away from them too fast too see. I regard any point you cannot address as well and truly stuck.

In fact Augustine's interpretation of the creation of Adam figuratively shows there was no contradiction between his doctrine of Original Sin and not taking the creation of Adam literally. Which is the position of TEs here who accept Adam and Eve were real people and believe an Original Sin, but don't take God making Adam from clay literally.

It's not now, nor has it ever been all or none. Original sin is essential doctrine, inextricably linked to original creation, undeniably requisite to accepting the Gospel. Your getting your theology twisted, I take that so much more seriously then I do whether or not you think we evolved from apes. You would to if you knew what you were saying.

I see you haven't answered my point.

They took 'day' figuratively and on occasion to 'dust' figuratively. They never took Adam or creation figuratively and all of them argued in the strongest possible terms for original sin. Your actually the only Theistic evolutionist I've seen plunge this deep into this kind of grievous error.

Not just days and dust, God planting the garden, making Eve from a rib, and walking in the cool of the evening. That is Genesis 1, large parts of Genesis 2 and part of Genesis 3 and that is what I was able to find in a fairly short search. i understand why you would want to downplay the extent of figurative interpretation of the Genesis Creation accounts in the early church, but that sort of denial is not healthy.

I don't know what happened to you, I don't know why you are still doing this. Look around, the theater is empty. The Creationists never listened to you and the evolutionists have left the building. What you have now is a compromised theology and a secular philosophy that is opposed to anything remotely theistic. I'm not trying to read you your pedigree here, I honestly believe you were sold a bag of goods that can't deliver on the hype.

No what I have is a bible based theology that isn't bound up with 19th century literalism.

As I have always said, if your convinced that Darwinism has made it's case and can still hold to you faith, go in peace I have no problem with you. I do want to caution you that you are in serious error doctrinally and I cannot in good conscience continue this. I avoided doctrinal issues with Theistic Evolutionists for that very reason for years for that reason. Creationism as it's argued for and against for the most part is intellectual and philosophical, having no bearing on science or theology. That your doing is dangerous to both but most importantly, profoundly dangerous for you.

My concern if for Creationists who are convinced by all the evidence for evolution, that they will be able to see the modern literalism is reading the bible through modernist glasses and that there are better ways to understand God's word that don't contradict what we have learned about his amazing creation. This is of course a different question to Original Sin. As I mentioned before, I left Original Sin behind along with other Catholic doctrines like the Immaculate conception and Papal infallibility when I left the Catholic Church, long before I became a TE. There is nothing wrong with going back to scripture to see if it really teaches Original Sin. The reformation dropped many unscriptural doctrines, but Luther was an Augustinian and kept Augustine's doctrine, in fact they built much of their understanding of sin and the gospel around it, which it is why it is so difficult for Christians today to question their beliefs about it. But I have always wanted to base my understanding of the gospel of what the bible says about it, not the explanations that try to make scripture fit tradition.

 

[Assyrian]

All miracles contradict science. That's why they are miracles.
Remove the miracles and you have no religion at all.

Miracles don't contradict science, because science cannot study God to say what God can or cannot do.

The Bible doesn't get into cosmology, but it DOES state that God created the universe including man in six days.

But the bible never tells us to take the days in Genesis literally. On the other hand it does have many passages where God speaks in figures and metaphors.

Then he was wrong.
The Fourth Commandment, written by God on a stone tablet, specifically states that the Sabbath is holy because God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

When the fourth commandment is given in Deuteronomy it give the reason for the Sabbath rest as Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. God's 'mighty right hand and outstretched arm' is a metaphor, and anthropomorphism. Which means God has no more problem explaining the commandments with a metpahor than Jesus had explaining his teaching in parables.

Have you read Moses' description of the commandment in Exodus 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. According to Moses God not only rested, he was refreshed after his rest. Now either Moses didn't realise the Almighty doesn't get tired, or he understood the idea of God working six days and then having a rest was an anthropomorphic metaphor, where God is identifying with the weary child labourers and migrant workers, working in the fields all week, and in desperate need of a rest so they can be refreshed. Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

Religious leaders are very often wrong. It was the religious leaders of the day who had Jesus crucified.

Indeed. The most important thing we learn reading how other Christians throughout the ages have interpreted scripture, is seeing the different ways they understood scripture, that things that seem the obvious and clear meaning to us living in our age and culture, were not so obvious or clear to believers in a different age and culture. Because not only can church leaders in the past be wrong, we can be wrong too.

It help us see past our own cultural biases and presumptions that cloud our understanding of scripture. Do not be conformed to the world Rom 12:2, runs deeper than the obvious things you already realise. The literalism that grips much of the church is just as much a modernist assumption, that devalues poetry and metaphor and sees hard data and facts as the only truth worth knowing. If Jesus felt that way, he would not have spent most of his ministry on earth teaching deepest truths through the stories he made up.

Genesis 2 begins with, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." The creation of man was detailed in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 does not contradict that, but merely summarizes it. When people use the summary and pretend that the detailed version doesn't exist, it's called false teaching.

That was in response to Mark trying to claim God creating man (bara) only refers to the creation of man's soul. There is no basis for that in Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2.

 

[KWCrazy]

Miracles don't contradict science, because science cannot study God to say what God can or cannot do.

Science can tell us that water cannot turn into wine; that raising a rod doesn't part a sea; that commanding a squall to stop doesn't make it cease; that the dead do not return to life; or any of the hundreds of violations of natural law that we call miracles. Science tells us that such things cannot happen. Because they happened, they contradict science.

But the bible never tells us to take the days in Genesis literally. On the other hand it does have many passages where God speaks in figures and metaphors.

The days of creation are not only numbered, but designated by the evening and the morning which makes it only possible for them to be solar days. The Fourth Commandment is based on the six day creation.

Jesus "believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)"
source

When the fourth commandment is given in Deuteronomy

Try Exodus 20, 8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

In Deuteronomy 5:14, Moses reminds his people to honor the Sabbath because of all that God had done for them in bringing them out of slavery. However, the commandment written by God on stone had already been given.

Indeed. The most important thing we learn reading how other Christians throughout the ages have interpreted scripture, is seeing the different ways they understood scripture, that things that seem the obvious and clear meaning to us living in our age and culture, were not so obvious or clear to believers in a different age and culture. Because not only can church leaders in the past be wrong, we can be wrong too.

That's why I take everyone's interpretations at face value. If you can't back your statements with actual passages from Scriptures, then it's not based in doctrine.

 

[Calminian]

Science can tell us that water cannot turn into wine; that raising a rod doesn't part a sea; that commanding a squall to stop doesn't make it cease; that the dead do not return to life; or any of the hundreds of violations of natural law that we call miracles. Science tells us that such things cannot happen. Because they happened, they contradict science.

This is a good point. Science at the very least can make us familiar with God's normal upholdings of the world, so we can at least define miracles.

 

[gluadys]

Science can tell us that water cannot turn into wine; that raising a rod doesn't part a sea; that commanding a squall to stop doesn't make it cease; that the dead do not return to life; or any of the hundreds of violations of natural law that we call miracles. Science tells us that such things cannot happen. Because they happened, they contradict science.


Actually that should read as follows:

Science can tell us that water cannot turn into wine, unless it is a miracle; that raising a rod doesn't part a sea, unless it is a miracle; that commanding a squall to stop doesn't make it cease, unless it is a miracle; that the dead do not return to life, unless it is a miracle; or any of the hundreds of violations of natural law that we call miracles. Science tells us that such things cannot happen, unless they are miracles. Because they happened, science says they are miracles and science cannot account for them.

Science does not say that miracles don't occur. Science says "we don't try to explain miracles. They fall outside the ability of science to explain."

 

[Calminian]

...Science can tell us that water cannot turn into wine, ...

Do you really believe water cannot turn into wine unless it is a miracle? Do you not believe natural wines exist today? And do you not believe miraculous wines have been made in the past?

The above statement is obviously false, wine can occur via a miracle or naturally. Showing a natural explanation could never falsify a miraculous one.

 

[Assyrian]

Science can tell us that water cannot turn into wine; that raising a rod doesn't part a sea; that commanding a squall to stop doesn't make it cease; that the dead do not return to life; or any of the hundreds of violations of natural law that we call miracles. Science tells us that such things cannot happen. Because they happened, they contradict science.

Water does not turn into wine by itself, but that does not mean God cannot turn water into wine. Since science cannot examine where God can or cannot turn water into wine, it cannot say it didn't happen. Worth pointing out that science can examine claims of miracles. For example a scientist could say whether the wine was actual wine or say a trick performed with food colouring or pH indicator. Science cannot tell us God didn't create the world, it can tell us that if he did it was 4.54 billion years ago.

The days of creation are not only numbered, but designated by the evening and the morning which makes it only possible for them to be solar days. The Fourth Commandment is based on the six day creation.

Evening and morning can be figurative too, Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." It doesn't mean Benjamin turned into a real wolf. You will find evening and morning, and regular time checks during the day in the parable of The Labourers in the Vineyard Matt 25, but it is still a parable and the day they worked in the vineyard is not talking about a literal day.

Jesus "believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah

We are talking about the creation accounts in Genesis, not the rest of the book. Genesis shows us that it was composed of different books and genealogies Gen 1:5 this is the book of the generations of Adam. Even many creationists think this is the case and claim the editor was Moses. It if it composed of different books there is not reason to think that because the story of Abraham is historical, the creation accounts have to be historical too. Even if Genesis was a single document written by a single author, many books in the OT have figurative as well as literal passages.

You also need to look at the way Jesus used these passages from Genesis, not as a discussion of literal history, but as a source for teaching and warning the people around him, the same way he used his parables.

He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)"
source

Interestingly the only times Jesus tells us 'Moses said' or 'Moses commanded' come from passages from Exodus on, he does not ascribe Genesis to Moses, not that it would make any difference to the discussion if Moses did write Genesis. Of course it is true the whole Pentateuch is referred to as 'the book of Moses' or even simply 'Moses', but that was simply the common term for these books because Moses was the main writer and the main subject is the Law of Moses. It is not a claim that Moses is the author or every word, nor should Jesus using these common titles for the Pentateuch be seen as a claim Moses wrote every word. Jesus not only referred to the OT as Moses and the Prophets, he also referred to it as The Law and the Prophets, but that does not mean Genesis is composed of laws and commandments.

Try Exodus 20, 8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

In Deuteronomy 5:14, Moses reminds his people to honor the Sabbath because of all that God had done for them in bringing them out of slavery. However, the commandment written by God on stone had already been given.

Deuteronomy 5 repeats the commandments God gave in Exodus. If a metaphor can illustrate the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy, you cannot insist the illustration in Exodus has to be literal. But if you want to see a metaphor in the commandments in Exodus, you don't have to look part the first verse. Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. All the Israelites in Egypt lived in a single house? That must have been a pretty big building.

That's why I take everyone's interpretations at face value. If you can't back your statements with actual passages from Scriptures, then it's not based in doctrine.

They do base their interpretations of scripture, they just don't interpret literally like you do.

 

[gluadys]

Do you really believe water cannot turn into wine unless it is a miracle? Do you not believe natural wines exist today? And do you not believe miraculous wines have been made in the past?

The above statement is obviously false, wine can occur via a miracle or naturally. Showing a natural explanation could never falsify a miraculous one.

Tell that to KWCrazy, whom I was quoting.
However, I assume he was referring to the incident at Cana and I assume you agree that was a miracle.

btw, I agree that showing a natural explanation does not falsify a miracle. A miracle can imitate nature. But in some cases, nature cannot imitate a miracle.

When a miracle imitates nature, we cannot distinguish it from a natural process. When nature cannot imitate a miracle, we at least know it is a miracle. Those are the ones we tend to call "miracles".

 

[Calminian]

...When a miracle imitates nature, we cannot distinguish it from a natural process. When nature cannot imitate a miracle, we at least know it is a miracle. Those are the ones we tend to call "miracles".

Then you must believe that we can't know if Christ's miracle at Cana was a true miracle.

By the same logic, you must not believe that Christ's resurrection was a true miracle as there are natural explanations for Him being alive after his crucifixion, namely that he never actually died.

 

[gluadys]

Then you must believe that we can't know if Christ's miracle at Cana was a true miracle.

Indeed, what information do we have about this event other than the testimony of the evangelists, who were not actually there, but relying on the memories of those who were? And what information did they have as most guests at the wedding never even knew there was a shortage of wine in the first place?

No, we can't know it was a true miracle. We can only trust in the testimony we have received and believe it.

By the same logic, you must not believe that Christ's resurrection was a true miracle as there are natural explanations for Him being alive after his crucifixion, namely that he never actually died.

Absolutely correct, with one modification. Since Christ is risen, we can have a personal relationship with the living and risen Christ which would be impossible if he had not truly risen from the dead.

Do you speak to Christ in prayer? Do you know his presence from personal experience? Then you have more than written testimony of his resurrection.

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you really believe water cannot turn into wine unless it is a miracle?

Having made wine, I know it can't.

Water which contains other ingredients which could ferment is not pure water; it's contaminated water. You need some form of juice, sugar (either natural or added), yeast and a protected environment for the fermentation process to occur. The fermentation process takes time. It can't be done instantly, and it can't happen without the required ingredients.

 

[KWCrazy]

Since science cannot examine where God can or cannot turn water into wine, it cannot say it didn't happen.

Water contains two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It can also contain other impurities, such as iodine, iron etc. However, nothing in water can create an instantaneous fermentation into wine. Science can easily demonstrate that the action is impossible. If the event happened, it could not have been a natural event.

Science cannot tell us God didn't create the world, it can tell us that if he did it was 4.54 billion years ago.

No, it can tell us that using available means of testing we can affix a "scientific" age of 4.5 billion years. It can't say for sure how old it is, because it can no more account for the supernatural creation of the earth than it can account for any other supernatural occurrence.

Evening and morning can be figurative too, Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." It doesn't mean Benjamin turned into a real wolf. You will find evening and morning, and regular time checks during the day in the parable of The Labourers in the Vineyard Matt 25, but it is still a parable and the day they worked in the vineyard is not talking about a literal day.

Misleading and irrelevant. When evening and morning are used as they are in Genesis, they mean a literal day 100% of the time in the Scriptures. Also, your example is very clearly a metaphor where the first chapter of Genesis clearly is not.

If I tell you to meet me Thursday at 8:30 AM, I am not talking about a potential time span of a thousand years. If I say "The evening and the morning were the third day," you KNOW that it isn't the same as saying, "in the days of Adam" or "in my day, things were different." What you are doing is deliberately distorting the context by offering a different context and a different meaning. Regardless, it doesn't change the context of Genesis 1. The language could not possibly have been any more clear. Further, you also distorted the Fourth Commandment by referring to Moses' commentary regarding the commandment and not the commandment itself. If your position is based on truth, why the distortions?

It if it composed of different books there is not reason to think that because the story of Abraham is historical, the creation accounts have to be historical too. Even if Genesis was a single document written by a single author, many books in the OT have figurative as well as literal passages.

Again, irrelevant and misleading. The creation account is written to show a very clear six day creation ending with the creation of man on day six. There is nothing allegorical about it. The first three chapters of Genesis are referred to over 200 times in the New Testament. Apparently, these accounts are INTENDED to be taken literally.

You also need to look at the way Jesus used these passages from Genesis, not as a discussion of literal history, but as a source for teaching and warning the people around him, the same way he used his parables.

Not literal history?
He mentioned Noah by name.
He spoke of the first man and woman as real people, and the fall of man as a real event.
I already gave you the list of thing Jesus taught as facts.

 

[Assyrian]

Water contains two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It can also contain other impurities, such as iodine, iron etc. However, nothing in water can create an instantaneous fermentation into wine. Science can easily demonstrate that the action is impossible. If the event happened, it could not have been a natural event.

So science only tells us water does not turn into wine naturally, it cannot tell us what God can do supernaturally.

No, it can tell us that using available means of testing we can affix a "scientific" age of 4.5 billion years. It can't say for sure how old it is, because it can no more account for the supernatural creation of the earth than it can account for any other supernatural occurrence.

Notice what the scientific age is measure in? A scientific age of 4.5 billion years means it is 4.5 billion years old. It would be the same as analysing the wine and showing it was just water with food colouring. You cannot say science cannot analyse for the supernatural wine. The liquid in the jars is real and science can analyse it. The earth is real too, it is not supernatural even if God created it. If science show the earth is 4.5 billion years old then it doesn't mean God didn't create the earth, it means he didn't create it 6,000 years ago as some Christians claim.

Misleading and irrelevant. When evening and morning are used as they are in Genesis, they mean a literal day 100% of the time in the Scriptures. Also, your example is very clearly a metaphor where the first chapter of Genesis clearly is not.

No you are assuming that is why evening and morning are used in Genesis and that using them that way is proof it means literal days. If the clear metaphor shows that words you think show Genesis is literal can be used metaphorically then they don't show Genesis is literal. Of course you are also assuming all metaphor in the bible are clear metaphors. But there is no basis for that either. The fact one of Israel's greatest teachers Nicodemus was able to mistake Jesus' born again metaphor as literal, show the bible gives us no such guarantee.

If I tell you to meet me Thursday at 8:30 AM, I am not talking about a potential time span of a thousand years. If I say "The evening and the morning were the third day," you KNOW that it isn't the same as saying, "in the days of Adam" or "in my day, things were different." What you are doing is deliberately distorting the context by offering a different context and a different meaning. Regardless, it doesn't change the context of Genesis 1. The language could not possibly have been any more clear.

That would be you talking to me about when to meet up, no excatly something we could manage a thousand years from now. Genesis 1 wasn't written by a human being describing what he saw God do over a week, it is very different from the historical narratives throughout the bible that record people's accounts of what happened, however inspired they were in writing their chronicles, instead Genesis is a revelation from God telling us what happened when there were no human witness, and if you look at the revelations and visions from God throughout the rest of scripture, you will find them full of metaphors and figurative symbols. That is the context and genre of Genesis.

Further, you also distorted the Fourth Commandment by referring to Moses' commentary regarding the commandment and not the commandment itself. If your position is based on truth, why the distortions?

We don't have the stone tablets, what we do have are accounts of Moses telling the commandments to the Israelites in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Each time we get the rules the Israelites had to follow along with explanations of the rules. Now if the rules and explanations were written down on the stone tablets, you have to explain why Moses just repeated the rules but changed the explanations in Deuteronomy. The other option is that it was just the rules that were written on the stone tablets, and Moses gave commentaries on the commandments the two times he recited them. But the issue isn't whether Moses gave the explanation or whether they came from God, God is just as happy to use metaphor as Moses.

Again, irrelevant and misleading. The creation account is written to show a very clear six day creation ending with the creation of man on day six. There is nothing allegorical about it.

So you assume.

The first three chapters of Genesis are referred to over 200 times in the New Testament. Apparently, these accounts are INTENDED to be taken literally.

I have pointed out the Jesus used these references for teaching the same way he used his parables. Paul tells us he interpreted Adam figuratively Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. What you need to show is anyone in the bible taking the days of Genesis as literal history. We do have the Sabbath and God's seventh day rest being interpreted figuratively Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Did the writer if Hebrews understand God's rest on the seventh day as just 24 hours and finished long ago? Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest."
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it. If so why did he think we can still enter it?

Not literal history?
He mentioned Noah by name.
He spoke of the first man and woman as real people, and the fall of man as a real event.
I already gave you the list of thing Jesus taught as facts.

Jesus mentioned Lazarus by name, it is still a parable. Jesus used the Genesis account of God creating male and female to teach about divorce, not to teach Genesis as literal history. He used the scripture the same way he used the parable of the Good Samaritan to teach about being a good neighbour. It doesn't mean Adam and Eve were real people, it just means you can't use Jesus as an argument for it.

 

[Papias]

To bring us back on topic with this thread, here is the ongoing data from Gallup:

Today the Pew forum came out with some new data points, which are pretty different. I ascribe this to the different wording and the organizations doing the testing - I think it is too early to see if these changes are real.

At any rate, their numbers put YE creationists at 33%, theistic evolution supporters (or evolutionary creationists) at just 24%, and non-divine evolution supporters at 32%.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

White evangelicals are overwhelmingly YEC
White mainline protestants are half theistic evolution & half non-divine evolution
non-religious are overwhelmingly non-divine evolution

It'll be interesting to see what the next set of Gallup numbers are.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

There was a similar poll taken in 2006 but the questions had a broader range of options:

Pew Research 2006

The contrast is pretty steep, especially in the mainline Protestant and Catholic demographic.

Thanks for the poll Papias, I'll be back when I get some time to take a closer look.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[The Barbarian]

This more recent poll:

Seems to be good news for science. And given that conservative Protestant Christian denominations are now declining in numbers, that trend is likely to continue.

 

[mark kennedy]

Seems to be good news for science. And given that conservative Protestant Christian denominations are now declining in numbers, that trend is likely to continue.

Sure, if you equivocate science with the naturalistic assumptions of atheism. Belief in God is steadily declining as well:

 

[KWCrazy]

Sure, if you equivocate science with the naturalistic assumptions of atheism. Belief in God is steadily declining as well:

The problem is that atheists misrepresent science to promulgate the lie that there is no God.

 

[mark kennedy]

The problem is that atheists misrepresent science to promulgate the lie that there is no God.

Well they could make the point that science, as it has been defined since the Scientific Revolution, is focused on natural phenomenon. That would be a valid point. It's when they imply that because it's not science it's not true that your looking at atheistic materialism or some kind of a naturalistic assumption.

That's why I often tell Creationists to use the terms 'science' and 'evolution' cautiously. There can be more then one meaning attached.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is that atheists misrepresent science to promulgate the lie that there is no God.

Even worse, many Christians have come to believe them and adopted a position that is not only anti-atheist, but anti-science as well, because they have come to equate science with atheism.