Explain Creation and Evolution

[secretdawn]

Probably. Darwin used "warm little pond", so converting it to "ooze" is probably meant to sound gross. The purpose is to get a negative emotional response and rejection of the idea on emotion. I notice "pond scum" is often used; it seems to serve the same purpose.

again no...i am not an evolutionist or a creationist and i am trying to figure out what i believe...i am a christian, but i am not ruling out evolution...i am not a fundlmentalist...i have never read darwin's work, so i came here with questions, and would prefer no one to get harsh or ignorant...

 

[Larry]

What do you think so far? Which way are you leaning? Are you completely neutral on the subject? Is this the first time you have pondered such things? Is your mind already made up and just testing the waters?

 

[secretdawn]

There are several versions of Old Earth Creationism (OEC for short). The most common is the Day-Age Theory. In this theory the "days" of Genesis 1 are long periods of time -- the necessary billions or millions of years.

The Gap Theory puts gaps of time into Genesis 1. Sometimes the gap is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Sometimes it is between the days. Sometimes it is between day 5 and 6. Some gap theorists say that Genesis had a complete creation up until about 12,000 years ago and then God wiped the slate clean and created all the plant and animal species again, and then created man. JohnR7, who used to be quite frequently here, adhered to that one.

Atheists believe God does not exist. Theistic evolution takes the Christian belief that God not only creates but sustains the universe. Thus, all the material processes found by science are believed to depend directly on God. If God stops willing them, the processes stop. Let me take a simple example. Oxygen and hydrogen burn to form water. Science explains this by the exchange of electrons in a bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms and the release of heat. Theistic evolutionists say that this exchange of electrons happens only if God wills it. If God didn't will it, the exchange wouldn't happen.

Atheists say the the exchange happens without God. That the material explanation is the whole explanation. Understand? If you don't, please ASK.

Science can't tell us which is correct. Because science has never seen hydrogen and oxygen combine where we know God is absent to see if they burn in the absence of God.

So, theistic evolutionists accept everything science says about evolution. They simply look on it as God using this method and keeping the method going.

Atheistic evolutionists accept everything science says about evolution but believe that the process works on its own and doesn't need God.

Is that clear?

...so basically, being that i am a christian, if i went the way of evolution, God created the earth as in the bible, but it was simplified. In the actual scheme of things, God's methods were much more complex and took longer, and a day wasn't a 24 hour period and the biblical description of creation was more of a summary...i mean if it was explained in detail, Genesis...would be like 10000 pages long right?...

 

[secretdawn]

What do you think so far? Which way are you leaning? Are you completely neutral on the subject? Is this the first time you have pondered such things? Is your mind already made up and just testing the waters?

consider me a blank slate on the subject...i will not believe in atheistic evolution, cause i am a new christian, and i am pretty sure they earth isn't only 6000 years old. so i am battling between evolution and old earth creation...it isn't the first time i thought about it, but the first time i have made up my mind to learn both ends of it. i am not leaning anywhere right now...

 

[Larry]

What is "atheistic evolution"?

 

[secretdawn]

What is "atheistic evolution"?

evolution with no place for God, as it was explained to me early...and then the other would be evolution, but God made evolution happen.

 

[Larry]

If I may.... Since you are a new Christian, may I suggest that you get grounded in the essential doctrines of Christianity, the Gospels and the New Testament before delving into extremely controversial topics? It really takes a solid foundation in scripture, and a working faith before taking on these issues. Some get so overwhelmed, they throw in the towel and walk away from Christianity.

....just a thought...

 

[secretdawn]

If I may.... Since you are a new Christian, may I suggest that you get grounded in the essential doctrines of Christianity, the Gospels and the New Testament before delving into extremely controversial topics? It really takes a solid foundation in scripture, and a working faith before taking on these issues. Some get so overwhelmed, they throw in the towel and walk away from Christianity.

....just a thought...

it most cases i would say you were right, but my faith is really strong cause of what God has done for me...here is an example: I got my last $150 stolen, had no money for groceries, and someone got me more than 150 in groceries, christmas was going to be really bad, i couldn't get anything for my daughter, and people i barely know got her something...i still didn't have money for gas or bills, and i got a check in the mail for over 200 bucks, again i ran out of groceries and someone else got me some...and i didn't ask anyone for anything...it just happened...my faith in christ is unwaivering, i study my bible, but i was just interested in learning more about creation/evolution, but either way there is no doubt that however the earth was made, God did it...one way or another...these discussions for me is sort of a break from the too serious i think...

 

[Arikay]

Not only that, it would probably contain explinations so complex we wouldn't understand them, even today.

One thing to remember is that the bible was written by man and inspired by god. That means that the writters wrote in a way that made sense to them. So you have gods message being presented with 2000 year old science, because thats what they understood back then.

...so basically, being that i am a christian, if i went the way of evolution, God created the earth as in the bible, but it was simplified. In the actual scheme of things, God's methods were much more complex and took longer, and a day wasn't a 24 hour period and the biblical description of creation was more of a summary...i mean if it was explained in detail, Genesis...would be like 10000 pages long right?...

 

[secretdawn]

that makes a great deal of sense...i hadn't thought of that...
where did the creationists go? i would like to hear that side of things also.

 

[Nathan Poe]

...so basically, being that i am a christian, if i went the way of evolution, God created the earth as in the bible, but it was simplified. In the actual scheme of things, God's methods were much more complex and took longer, and a day wasn't a 24 hour period and the biblical description of creation was more of a summary...i mean if it was explained in detail, Genesis...would be like 10000 pages long right?...

Pretty much. Remember, Genesis was written thousands of years ago. Were the ancient Hebrews ready to hear about Cosmology, Geology, and evolutionary Biology? Doubtful. So just as a parent tells their child a story about a stork to explain where babies come from, God (the ultimate parent) gave an allegory to explain to humanity a short version of where we all came from....
At least, that's one way to look at it.

 

[Arikay]

Also, considering how people in the past have treated science, there is probably a good chance that if the writters did write about the correct science, they would have been considered quite mad and their writtings ignored or even burned. It took the world long enough to accept that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, just think what they would have thought about someone writting about quantum physics?

 

[napajohn]

Pretty much. Remember, Genesis was written thousands of years ago. Were the ancient Hebrews ready to hear about Cosmology, Geology, and evolutionary Biology? Doubtful. So just as a parent tells their child a story about a stork to explain where babies come from, God (the ultimate parent) gave an allegory to explain to humanity a short version of where we all came from....
At least, that's one way to look at it.

Why would God give it as an allegory?..The Bible claims that God created man and woman..he called them eve and adam and talked to them daily..its only an allegory because people today accept the evolutionary version of time..they throw out billions of years without anyone questioning it..quite a whiles back, the earth was 3 bllion years old..now with radiometric dating as proof its 4.5 billion years yet some are suggesting its older because life is being found earlier (see cambrian explosion) than previously thought....again radiometric dating has certain assumptions that must be satisfied..when it gives dates that do not fit in they are thrown out until its within the range acceptable..all of this is a guess..there are theories and measurements and instruments that seem like educated guesses but in the long run the many ideas of evolution can be traced back to ideas by Aristotle and the socalled Great chain of Being
heres one view of this:

"According to the historian of ideas Arthur Lovejoy, there resulted a
conception of the plan and structure of the world which, through the Middle Ages and down to the late eighteenth century...most educated men were to accept without question - the conception of the universe as a "Great Chain of Being", composed of an immense, or...infinite, number of links ranging in hierarchical order from the meagerest kind of existents...through "every possible" grade up to the ens perfectissumum."

So no, its not an allegory according to those who believe the Bible

 

[Arkanin]

Honestly... my advice to you is read the links people have given you. They may take 30 pages to read, but they do explain evolution in terms anyone can understand if you read the whole paper. If you need another one I can dig mine up.

 

[Arikay]

Napa: are you saying that those who believe its allegory don't really believe the bible?

So no, its not an allegory according to those who believe the Bible

 

[Sinai]

ok, sorry i should have worded that better....could OLD EARTH creationism be explained in as much detail as possible, and then Evolution, with out the concept of God be explained in the same manner?

Several have done a good job explaining evolution, but let me add a bit to the portion regarding old earth creationism. The "old earth" portion means that they accept mainstream scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth and universe. The term "creationism" or "creationist" means they believe it was all created by God. Beyond that point, however, there are a range of differences among the OECs.

There are those who ignore what the Bible says with regard to at least the non-spiritual aspects of creation, or who disbelieve it or discount it, and who support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth. Generally speaking, Christians and Jews in this group hold that the Bible is intended to be a spiritual guide and is not a history or science guide book. They do not feel the need to ignore what the Bible says about spiritual matters or what science says about scientific principles, but rather let each lead to a higher total truth than either could do alone. They choose not to try to shoehorn science to fit the Bible or the Bible to fit science. In other words, they generally consider the Bible to be God's word to us regarding spiritual matters.

There are also many OECs who think the Bible and science do not contradict, and that each of them are valid accounts of God's creative activity. Since they tend to fall into several different groups, it would probably be better if I list them in a separate post.

 

[Sinai]

As I mentioned in my last post, many old earth creationists attempt to reconcile scientific evidence with biblical evidence. Persons who adhere to one of these theories tend to believe that since God is responsible for both the biblical revelation and the natural world, the words of the Bible are true and at the same time are consistent with the facts of nature. In other words, they tend to think that God’s character and attributes are expressed through both channels, and neither negates nor contradicts the other. The theories listed below are the primary explanations I have found thus far that attempt to reconcile science and the Bible:

A. Some OECs favor the Gap theory (also known as the Interval and Restitution theory, the Divine Judgment theory, and the Recreation theory), which was more popular about 50-80 years ago than it is now. The Gap theory is usually largely based upon the fact that Hebrew tends to be more general and less specific than English or Greek. Thus, Hebrew words can often have a wider range of meanings. In the first part of Genesis 1:2 ["and the earth it was formless, void and empty"], the verb hayethah (which is generally translated "it was") can also be translated as "it became." Proponents of the Gap Theory therefore generally claim that Genesis 1:2 should be translated to read "and the earth became formless, void and empty" rather than using the more common translation of the phrase. This theory uses passages (primarily in Isaiah and Ezekiel) regarding the fall of Satan or Lucifer to bolster the theory that the world was created in Gen. 1:1 but became formless and void because of Satan's fall, and then creation continued in verse two. There are, however, some proponents of the Gap theory who go about it slightly differently. Instead of translating hayethah as "it became" they use verse one of Genesis to emphasize that God had created the Earth "in the beginning" of creation, but by verse two, the Earth was formless, void and empty. These persons tend to ignore the fact that Hebrew had no single word for universe and that the Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word universe.


B. Since the Bible does not specifically say that the six days are consecutive, there are those who assert that each “day” is the time God spoke the next period of creation into existence—but there is an undetermined period of time (possibly lasting billions of years) between each day. In other words, adherents of this theory say there were six days of creation (each of which could be 24 hours—or 1,000 years—or some other period of time) separated by other periods of time. Some who follow this theory also point to the staccato pattern revealed in the fossil record, which indicates that there were periods of time when new forms of life suddenly burst onto the scene.

C. A theory that appears to be growing in popularity among OECs is the day-age theory, which primarily rests on the fact that the Hebrew word for “day” is yom, which can mean a 24-hour period of time, a generation, an age, or an indefinite period of time. Thus, those who follow this theory say that each “day” was of an indefinite period of time (even millions or billions of years) and Christians shouldn’t get caught up in insisting that the Bible means something here that it probably does not mean.

D. A relatively recent modification of the day-age theory is one that has been advanced by physicist and Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. He has proposed that instead of the six yoms being indefinite periods of time, they could actually be six consecutive 24-hour periods of time measured at the speed of outward thrust using Einstein's theory (or law) of relativity and a universal time-clock based on cosmic background radiation and the wavelength of light beginning about the time God initiated creation (what science now calls the Big Bang). Because of time dilation, 144 hours measured at a speed calculated by using such a universal time-clock would be equal to about 15.75 billion Earth-years looking back toward the time of creation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why would God give it as an allegory?..

I already explained that. Are a bunch of Iron-age nomads ready to grasp genetics and advanced biology?

Heck, most of the YECs on this board are still stumbling on it...

The Bible claims that God created man and woman..he called them eve and adam and talked to them daily..

God talks to you, doesn't he? Could he have "spoken" to Adam and Eve the same way?

its only an allegory because people today accept the evolutionary version of time..they throw out billions of years without anyone questioning it..

It was questioning that got us the "billions of years" in the first place. Your argument is laughable.

quite a whiles back, the earth was 3 bllion years old..now with radiometric dating as proof its 4.5 billion years yet some are suggesting its older because life is being found earlier (see cambrian explosion) than previously thought....

Wasn't life so much simpler when everybody knew it was 6,000 years? Doncha just want to turn the clocks back to that peaceful time?

again radiometric dating has certain assumptions that must be satisfied..

Such as...?

when it gives dates that do not fit in they are thrown out until its within the range acceptable..

Yes, creationists are a desperate bunch...

Oh, you mean evolutionists? What a blow to the Irony Meter...

all of this is a guess..there are theories and measurements and instruments that seem like educated guesses but in the long run the many ideas of evolution can be traced back to ideas by Aristotle and the socalled Great chain of Being

Aristotle's empiricism was an early argument against evolution. having never seen an ape give birth to a human, Aristotle concluded it was impossible.

Some creationists' arguments haven't changed much since then.

heres one view of this:

"According to the historian of ideas Arthur Lovejoy, there resulted a
conception of the plan and structure of the world which, through the Middle Ages and down to the late eighteenth century...most educated men were to accept without question - the conception of the universe as a "Great Chain of Being", composed of an immense, or...infinite, number of links ranging in hierarchical order from the meagerest kind of existents...through "every possible" grade up to the ens perfectissumum."

This is the basis of alchemy, not evolution.

So no, its not an allegory according to those who believe the Bible

Then how do you explain all the Christians on this site and others who do not take Genesis literally?

 

[michabo]

Secretdawn,

My take on the matter was summed up nicely by someone, I forget who. He said that scripture tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. I think that, if any works have been inspired by a god, they are written for a specific time and a specific people, but the universe is there for everyone, for all time (practically speaking). If you believe in God, then the universe and its laws as revealed by science are the closest we can get to the mind of God. What cannot be expressed by mathematics - morality, life after death, etc. - is in the bible. But remember, that reality is not subject to misinterpretation or change, so the world around us will always trump the bible.

For the moment, untill you learn more about how the world and biological systems function, why not study up on the other aspects of christianity and leave any decisions on science for after you've read more? If you do make any decisions, prepare to keep an open mind - it's amazing what a wealth of knowledge is out there when you're able to understand it.

cheers,
-m.

 

[SanDiegoAtheist]

Secretdawn,

My take on the matter was summed up nicely by someone, I forget who. He said that scripture tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

That would be Galileo Galilei A very smart guy.

As has been explained before, science has little if anything to say on the subject of God - that subject is reserved to theology, ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy.

All science attempts to do is explain how the world works, based on the evidence that we can observe. We can use this information to extrapolate what has happened in the past based on what we observe today. The root cause of it, whether God or not, however, is not within science's purview - and science doesn't address it. How can you differentiate between a Big Bang (for example) caused by a God willing the Big Bang into existance, and a Big Bang caused by an unobservable naturalistic phenomena which exists outside our visible universe? Even if you could prove that naturalistic phenomena, what caused it? and so on. Eventually, there has to be a end to the chain, but no matter how far we go, and no matter how much we know, by it's nature, we can't KNOW that we have reached the end of the chain.

BTW, I highly recommend at least reading Darwin's Origens of Species - it's not a very long book, and it's written in relatively easy to read language, and explains the concepts quite well.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist