evolution? the gap theory? age of the earth???

[seremela06]

could i please get your takes on some of these issues. i have read some good arguments about the age of the earth and i'd never heard of the gap theory until yesterday. i really don't know too much about evolution. i am a christian, and i believe in creation, but perhaps creation followed by evolution in an older earth makes more sense?

 

[Drwhat]

Hi seremela,
Yes the earth is way older than Orthodox teaching accounts for. The creation days were Aions, (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8). That however doesn't prove evolution at all evolution is a false doctrine.
God's awesome blast (Aka the big bag) was set to time. And although some things are hard for God, (Jer 32:27) nothing in the end is impossible for Him(Luke 1:37).

God simply took time to create the universe and all that is in it, are we to believe that God created and finished over 200 Billion known Galaxies each containg within them over 200 trillion stars in one day and then He took 3times as long to just put creatures and man on earth!? Now I'm not saying that God couldn't have done that what I'm saying is that He chose not too, He likes to get His hands dirty after all He's a potter.

God bless you as you ponder going beyond milk & meat into the spirtural realm of the mind of Christ, (1 Cor 2:16).

 

[seremela06]

Hi seremela,
Yes the earth is way older than Orthodox teaching accounts for. The creation days were Aions, (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8). That however doesn't prove evolution at all evolution is a false doctrine.
God's awesome blast (Aka the big bag) was set to time. And although some things are hard for God, (Jer 32:27) nothing in the end is impossible for Him(Luke 1:37).

God simply took time to create the universe and all that is in it, are we to believe that God created and finished over 200 Billion known Galaxies each containg within them over 200 trillion stars in one day and then He took 3times as long to just put creatures and man on earth!? Now I'm not saying that God couldn't have done that what I'm saying is that He chose not too, He likes to get His hands dirty after all He's a potter.

God bless you as you ponder going beyond milk & meat into the spirtural realm of the mind of Christ, (1 Cor 2:16).

now i'm confused. you believe that god's creation of the world and the big bang are the same thing? that's new... and how do you believe in the biblical creation theory but think that god took an enormous amount of time to create everything. because i'm pretty sure that the bible says 7 days. but maybe that's just me...

 

[Mallon]

You might try reading this important essay, seramela06, that deals away with the notion that the Bible must accord with modern science in order for it to speak God's timeless truths about salvation and our relationships with Him and others.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

 

[seremela06]

thank you, mallon. i don't have time at the moment to read the entire essay, but i'm sure it's good information. if you could kind of give me a few key pointers, that would be cool... i have read quite a few of your posts in other threads and i think you know what you're talking about unlike some of the people i've seen that just throw around ideas without doing the correct research.

 

[Mallon]

thank you, mallon. i don't have time at the moment to read the entire essay, but i'm sure it's good information. if you could kind of give me a few key pointers, that would be cool... i have read quite a few of your posts in other threads and i think you know what you're talking about unlike some of the people i've seen that just throw around ideas without doing the correct research.

Thanks for the compliment.
I highly recommend that you take the time to read the essay, as I think it is one of the best defending the evolutionary creationist perspective. To summarize, though, Lamoureux argues that inductive Bible study reveals that the authors of Scripture used an ancient phenomenological perspective to describe the physical processes of the universe, and that the Bible should therefore not be used to dictate scientific interpretation. Rather, phenomenological accounts are "vessels" by which God delivered His timeless messages concerning monotheism, salvation, human relationships, etc., so that the original Hebrew audience could understand them. This hermeneutic is called accomodationism and is fully respectful of the Bible as both inspired by God and inerrant.

 

[seremela06]

Thanks for the compliment.
I highly recommend that you take the time to read the essay, as I think it is one of the best defending the evolutionary creationist perspective. To summarize, though, Lamoureux argues that inductive Bible study reveals that the authors of Scripture used an ancient phenomenological perspective to describe the physical processes of the universe, and that the Bible should therefore not be used to dictate scientific interpretation. Rather, phenomenological accounts are "vessels" by which God delivered His timeless messages concerning monotheism, salvation, human relationships, etc., so that the original Hebrew audience could understand them. This hermeneutic is called accomodationism and is fully respectful of the Bible as both inspired by God and inerrant.

i think i agree with the concept, but i will definitely read the entire article when i have time. so what you're basically saying is that the bible is used to get across the basic points that god wanted us to know but is not to be taken literally in every aspect. of course "thou shall not murder" should probably be taken at face value, but the concept that the earth was created in seven days is a bit hard to believe. especially with the scientific evidence we have at our disposal.

 

[Mallon]

i think i agree with the concept, but i will definitely read the entire article when i have time. so what you're basically saying is that the bible is used to get across the basic points that god wanted us to know but is not to be taken literally in every aspect. of course "thou shall not murder" should probably be taken at face value, but the concept that the earth was created in seven days is a bit hard to believe. especially with the scientific evidence we have at our disposal.

It doesn't deal so much with taking the Bible literally vs. allegorically as it does with being able to separate God's intended message from the incidental story in which it is delivered. The first Hebrews very likely believed the earth was literally created in six 24-hour days, but that incidental storyline/timeframe is only the vessel by which God tells us that He created (a powerful polemic at the time), not how He created.

 

[seremela06]

It doesn't deal so much with taking the Bible literally vs. allegorically as it does with being able to separate God's intended message from the incidental story in which it is delivered. The first Hebrews very likely believed the earth was literally created in six 24-hour days, but that incidental storyline/timeframe is only the vessel by which God tells us that He created (a powerful polemic at the time), not how He created.

that makes sense. i think i was with the hebrews on that one until about, let's say, yesterday.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi seremela,
Yes the earth is way older than Orthodox teaching accounts for. The creation days were Aions, (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8). That however doesn't prove evolution at all evolution is a false doctrine.
God's awesome blast (Aka the big bag) was set to time. And although some things are hard for God, (Jer 32:27) nothing in the end is impossible for Him(Luke 1:37).

God simply took time to create the universe and all that is in it, are we to believe that God created and finished over 200 Billion known Galaxies each containg within them over 200 trillion stars in one day and then He took 3times as long to just put creatures and man on earth!? Now I'm not saying that God couldn't have done that what I'm saying is that He chose not too, He likes to get His hands dirty after all He's a potter.

God bless you as you ponder going beyond milk & meat into the spirtural realm of the mind of Christ, (1 Cor 2:16).

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

God is the potter who made you and me. But if you ask your mum's obstetrician, God did not actually use clay to make you. He used the biological processes he created and have been operating on earth over millions of years. If God as a potter does not exclude genetics and sexual reproduction that made you and me, it does not exclude evolution either. Evolution is simply how the potter made all the different forms of life.

 

[seremela06]

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

God is the potter who made you and me. But if you ask your mum's obstetrician, God did not actually use clay to make you. He used the biological processes he created and have been operating on earth over millions of years. If God as a potter does not exclude genetics and sexual reproduction that made you and me, it does not exclude evolution either. Evolution is simply how the potter made all the different forms of life.

i like this answer. always kind of wondered about the whole dirt thing...

 

[hatsoff]

could i please get your takes on some of these issues. i have read some good arguments about the age of the earth and i'd never heard of the gap theory until yesterday.

The age of the earth is about 4.54 billion years, with multiple lines of evidence agreeing on a broader range of 4.3-4.6 billion years. This evidence is complex, and to be honest I don't have a good enough background in geology to comment much on it. Therefore I will simply refer you to some online resources:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
http://uh.edu/engines/epi144.htm

i really don't know too much about evolution. i am a christian, and i believe in creation, but perhaps creation followed by evolution in an older earth makes more sense?

Just to be clear, evolution is a topic of biology, whereas the age of the earth deals with geology and physics. So, the two issues have barely any useful connection.

That said, it is a proven fact that evolution does occur. Creationists have a problem with something called common descent, which is the idea that all modern life descended from a single population of common ancestors. Creationists also object to abiogenesis, which is a separate component to evolution, but which hypothesizes as to the origin of that very first population from which we all descended.

Because evolution is undeniable, most creationists try to differentiate between what they call microevolution and macroevolution.* Essentially, this is just a debate tactic aimed at making their case seem more plausible. In reality, most or all of the mechanisms by which evolution proceeds have been observed, either in nature or a laboratory.

*- Please note that those are real scientific terms with legitimate definitions, but when a creationist says "macroevolution" or "microevolution," he has something completely different in mind than a scientist does when he uses the same terms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

could i please get your takes on some of these issues. i have read some good arguments about the age of the earth and i'd never heard of the gap theory until yesterday. i really don't know too much about evolution. i am a christian, and i believe in creation, but perhaps creation followed by evolution in an older earth makes more sense?

The gap theory is the belief that there is a great time span between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1.

verse 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This is a stand-alone statement referring to the very moment of the creation of the entire material universe including the earth. But notice that the "earth" is actually distinct from the rest of the universe. God has separated, or made a distinction here. He mentions the universe but then ends by focusing attention directly on the earth. So verse 1 could actually read:

In the beginning God created the universe, and also the earth.

In order to contemplate the meaning of verse 2 one has to decide whether the entire creation of verse 1 was complete and perfectly formed, or was a "work in progress" still at the time referred to by the statement. Verse 2 indicates either destruction, or, incompleteness. The original language allows for either interpretation.

Verse 2 either describes the original formation of the earth as a continuation of verse 1, or as the gappers believe, describes a renewing of the surface of the earth after being destroyed by one or many global cataclysms, as a new habitat specially created for modern man. If so verse 2 could rightly read:

And the earth became an empty wasteland, and was covered in darkness.

At this point you have to ask why this description? Why did God want us to view the creation process, and why did the process include a chaotic condition at any time during the creation? Even the potter's clay has a purposeful shape from beginning to end. It is never in the condition described in verse 2.

Some gapper's believe that a once perfect earth was inhabited by Lucifer and the angels as their first "estate" and "habitation" (Jude 1:6). Destruction(s) of the earth followed their rebellion. Verse 3 finds God beginning to restore the earth, which will culminate in the "restitution of all things".

owg

 

[valuecard]

Hi seremela,
Yes the earth is way older than Orthodox teaching accounts for. The creation days were Aions, (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8).

Concering this aspect of the topic, how there are those who hold that the 7 days in genesis are actually 7 thousand years, the Lord spoke to me about this topic when i was driving about 2 years ago and all He said was "The age of adam", but man it clicked straight away, and what the revelation the Lord set of in me was this - Adam was created on the 6th day. If the days in Genesis are 1000 yrs each, then adams age would WELL exceed 1000 years. However it does not. The bible records adams age at the time of his death as being LESS than 1000 years which is concrete proof that the 7 days in genesis are literal days and not 1000 year periods

Ge 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Bless you guys

Phil