"Faith in facts"

[lucaspa]

Whenever I see a Christian say this, I always challenge it.

Please tell me where exactly is the conflict. Don't run away!

I've done it so many times that I've made a FAQ file. BTW, the idea of 2 separate creation stories has been around since at leasts 1715.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1-2 and Genesis 6:1-4. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.
Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" and "heroes" who were the offspring of human females and "sons of God". A and B do not mention such beings or such offspring.

 

[lucaspa]

It'The "TE" has become so immersed in Darwinian constructs that biblical exegesis is supposed to now descend from it.

Long before evolution, Christians recognized that God's Creation causes us to revise our interpretation of scripture. See the first quote in my signature.

It then goes a little further to the point where the inherent materialistic basis of Darwinism (nowhere is there any indication that life originated from matter and all hold the opposite) has compromised the faculties allowing for clear discernment in the midst of theological texts. And everybody holding a Christian title pays for it.

I really don't understand this. Could you please rephrase and explain again? Thank you.

On one hand you have them attempting to convince Creationists that God is responsible for mutations while simultaneously attempting to erase any trace of divine interaction.

I assume by "they" you mean theistic evolutionists.

What is being "erased" is God directly manufacturing species in their prsesent form. God didn't create that way. Instead, evolution is how God created. That is not removing "any trace of divine interaction". It's just changing what the interaction is/was.

Now, could God make some favorable mutations that He wanted? Yes. We would not be able to detect that by science because the background of mutations is so high that a few directed ones cannot be separated from that background.

You have them attempting to uphold select sections of text while at the same time dubbing the authors as sublimely ignorant.

I've never done that and I've never seen other TEs do that. Instead, TEs hold that Genesis 1-3 tells theological truths. Yes, the authors would be ignorant of how God actually created. But that's not an insult. How could they have known? They simply did not have the necessary language for the concepts. God left us His Creation to tell us how He actually created.

They attempt to show that life originated by God and then randomly mutated to men while at the same time saying that attempting to attack abiogenesis is an example of "God of the Gaps".

Abiogenesis is god-of-the-gaps and theologically improper. But evolutoin is not "randomly mutated". Natural selection is a two step process of 1. Variation (which includes mutations) and 2. Selection. Variations are random with respect to the needs of the population and the individual. Selection is not random. It is the opposite of random; it is pure determinism.

Now, is the evolution of humans contingent? Yes. But so is human history, and Christians never have a problem thinking that God can use that contingent process to achieve His purpose. Why would God not be able to achieve His purpose with the contingent process of evolution?

They attempt to show that God created this "machine" which is the earth which then created life while at the same time, in utter shamelessness, attempting to show that occurrences of the verb "create" refer to a natural process.

Have you ever heard of "secondary causes"? It's a Christian term, not a scientific one. How does God keep the planets in orbit? Does He have to push them with His hand? Or does He keep them in orbit with the secondary cause of gravity?

But yes, "create" can refer to a natural process. We do it all the time. We say that a landslide "creates" a dam across a river. Erosion "creates" the fantastic shapes seen in Monument Valley.

Hence "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" does not actually refer to the creation of a "machine" as they try to outline, but that machine coming into existence by chance.

That's not TE. Theists do not believe the universe came into existence by chance. We believe God created the universe. That means that God cause the Big Bang. The BB did not happen by chance.

So, having constructed this huge strawman of what TE is, where do you go now?

Now, having successfully (or so they think) handed the atheists everything in existence, again, the sheer audacity, they attempt to show that Creationism is leading people to atheism.

But creationism is atheism in disguise. You do it here. You put God into the gaps. If a process is "natural", you exclude God from it. That's the basic statement of faith of atheism. God is not absent from the "natural". Of all people, Darwin recognized this. That's why he put this quote in the Fontispiece to Origin of Species:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Read it carefully, please. Think about it. Evolution by natural selection just as much requires God as miraculously speaking people into existence.

 

[Greg1234]

Long before evolution, Christians recognized that God's Creation causes us to revise our interpretation of scripture. See the first quote in my signature.


I really don't understand this. Could you please rephrase and explain again? Thank you.



I assume by "they" you mean theistic evolutionists.

What is being "erased" is God directly manufacturing species in their prsesent form. God didn't create that way. Instead, evolution is how God created. That is not removing "any trace of divine interaction". It's just changing what the interaction is/was.

Now, could God make some favorable mutations that He wanted? Yes. We would not be able to detect that by science because the background of mutations is so high that a few directed ones cannot be separated from that background.



I've never done that and I've never seen other TEs do that. Instead, TEs hold that Genesis 1-3 tells theological truths. Yes, the authors would be ignorant of how God actually created. But that's not an insult. How could they have known? They simply did not have the necessary language for the concepts. God left us His Creation to tell us how He actually created.



Abiogenesis is god-of-the-gaps and theologically improper. But evolutoin is not "randomly mutated". Natural selection is a two step process of 1. Variation (which includes mutations) and 2. Selection. Variations are random with respect to the needs of the population and the individual. Selection is not random. It is the opposite of random; it is pure determinism.

Now, is the evolution of humans contingent? Yes. But so is human history, and Christians never have a problem thinking that God can use that contingent process to achieve His purpose. Why would God not be able to achieve His purpose with the contingent process of evolution?



Have you ever heard of "secondary causes"? It's a Christian term, not a scientific one. How does God keep the planets in orbit? Does He have to push them with His hand? Or does He keep them in orbit with the secondary cause of gravity?

But yes, "create" can refer to a natural process. We do it all the time. We say that a landslide "creates" a dam across a river. Erosion "creates" the fantastic shapes seen in Monument Valley.



That's not TE. Theists do not believe the universe came into existence by chance. We believe God created the universe. That means that God cause the Big Bang. The BB did not happen by chance.

So, having constructed this huge strawman of what TE is, where do you go now?

Now, having successfully (or so they think) handed the atheists everything in existence, again, the sheer audacity, they attempt to show that Creationism is leading people to atheism.

But creationism is atheism in disguise. You do it here. You put God into the gaps. If a process is "natural", you exclude God from it. That's the basic statement of faith of atheism. God is not absent from the "natural". Of all people, Darwin recognized this. That's why he put this quote in the Fontispiece to Origin of Species:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Read it carefully, please. Think about it. Evolution by natural selection just as much requires God as miraculously speaking people into existence.

This isn't a theological argument. Unless of course you concede that we are not discussing this branch of science (material science) and the bible is being pitted against materialistic beliefs.

 

[lucaspa]

That is one of your major problem. If so, faith would worth nothing.

Faith is based on evidence. Christianity is based on the evidence of Jesus' resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15

The correct way to treat it is: reconsider the analysis, something must be missing or must be wrong.

This is what the Jews did when they decided something must be wrong about Jesus' resurrection. They thought that what was missing was the disciples stealing the body. Do you think they did things the "correct way"?

 

[lucaspa]

This isn't a theological argument.

You made it one when you began discussing the theology of "TE".

we are not discussing this branch of science (material science) and the bible is being pitted against materialistic beliefs.

The creationism vs evolution discussion happens on many levels. On one level it is the comparison of 2 scientific theories. Creationism is a falsified theory and evolution is supported.

But on another level it is theology because creationists have tied how God created to whether God created. This is where the idea comes from that science is against the Bible, and it is theology.

Militant atheists are more than willing to let creationists make that logical (and theological) mistake because it gives militant atheists a (false) chance to refute Judeo-Christianity. In fact, militant atheists try to force that mistake on all Judeo-Christians.

 

[Greg1234]

You made it one when you began discussing the theology of "TE".

Referring to another individual's post. I didn't necessarily start though can choose to discontinue on that note.

The creationism vs evolution discussion happens on many levels. On one level it is the comparison of 2 scientific theories. Creationism is a falsified theory and evolution is supported.

But on another level it is theology because creationists have tied how God created to whether God created. This is where the idea comes from that science is against the Bible, and it is theology.

Militant atheists are more than willing to let creationists make that logical (and theological) mistake because it gives militant atheists a (false) chance to refute Judeo-Christianity. In fact, militant atheists try to force that mistake on all Judeo-Christians.

Material science is not the branch to explain the origin of man. How God did it is a science, just not material science (or what you call science). Though anatomy is a completely different branch from electrical science, you can find supporting evidence for electrical phenomena by using your own anatomical structures, though it is not advisable. If you want to measure and determine how electricity is produced and sustained then stretching anatomy to posit that the shock is a giraffe's leg can be dismissed with an experimentation showing that electricity is experienced without anatomical structures and is different from a giraffe"s leg. In organisms like the eel you see how both fields are linked and the limits of one complemented by the other. But electrical phenomena is not the anatomical structure itself.

As far as militant atheism is concerned, atheists do as an atheist does. They will attempt to use the tools and field of astronomy to find evidence for molecules. But life is to God as molecules are to planets. In the field of astronomy the existence of molecules are confirmed every time you peer at a planet. The existence of God is confirmed every time you peer at life. But as long as you say you are looking for astronomical evidence for molecules through a telescope, you will always, always have an excuse. Or according to Rom 1:20, you may not. An astronomer can shift seamlessly between astronomy and mathematics for example, but for atheism, thats not an option. Darwinian speculations ride on the idea that material science has the explanation. But that's a limit. One attempted to be overridden with brute force but we'll meet there.

 

[juvenissun]

2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

This is OK, as long as it does not go the other way. In other words, this is simply "make a long story short ..."

3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.

Seeds ARE plants.
No rain does not mean no water.
The second plants in B means plants from seeds.

Challenge you to compare the whole verses, instead of lists. I don't see any conflicts between A and B.

Other differences on your list are not that significant to be sure of a different creation account. They are simply different ways to say the same thing.

 

[juvenissun]

Faith is based on evidence. Christianity is based on the evidence of Jesus' resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15


This is what the Jews did when they decided something must be wrong about Jesus' resurrection. They thought that what was missing was the disciples stealing the body. Do you think they did things the "correct way"?

No. What they should do is to "reconsider" their "evidence".

And Yes. Since they have their faith first.

If you rely on scientific evidences to strengthen your Christian faith. Hey, brother, you are kidding yourself. You would be better to be an atheist.

 

[Faith.Man]

The following website might prove useful when discussing God and science.

Evidence for God from Science

http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/scifaith.html

 

[lucaspa]

Material science is not the branch to explain the origin of man.

What is "material science"? I've never seen that term.

How God did it is a science, just not material science (or what you call science).

How God created is what science studies, because science studies God's Creation.

The existence of God is confirmed every time you peer at life.

That's the old Argument from Design. It is no longer valid as "proof" of God. That doesn't mean God goes away, but that particular "proof" of the existence of God went away.

The Argument from Design basically said that the designs found in plants and animals meant that they had to be manufactured. However, when Darwin discovered natural selection he discovered an unintelligent process that produces design. We can no longer say that plants and animals were designed by an intelligent being. Instead, they are designed by natural selection.

Science is agnostic.

Darwinian speculations ride on the idea that material science has the explanation.

Science rides on the Christian belief that God created a complete universe. Therefore there are no gaps between members of the universe. Just like God holds the planets in orbit by gravity, so God created the diversity of life by evolution. No gaps. No direct manufacture by God.

Atheism relies on the belief that natural = without God. However, my point is that creationists have the same belief. Creationists are atheists in disguise and are helping atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

If you rely on scientific evidences to strengthen your Christian faith. Hey, brother, you are kidding yourself. You would be better to be an atheist.

That's interesting to say. Greg124 tells us that the scientific evidence of looking at life proves God's existence! "The existence of God is confirmed every time you peer at life." Creationists tell us that the "scientific evidence" proves God. Nice of you to destroy creationism like that.

Of course, I never said I relied on scientific evidence to strengthen my Christian faith. You made a strawman. I am simply countering your claim that Christian faith is not based on evidence. It is, which you acknowledge now.

 

[lucaspa]

[This is OK, as long as it does not go the other way. In other words, this is simply "make a long story short ..."

Unfortunately, that isn't what it is doing. Genesis 1 is very careful to spell out 4 days. Genesis 2:4 uses the Hebrew word "beyom" which is specific to within a 24 hour period. That's saying that the heavens and earth were created in 24 hours, not 4 days.

Seeds ARE plants.
No rain does not mean no water.
The second plants in B means plants from seeds.

Genesis 1 says that plants, not seeds were made. Genesis 2 has the seeds, but no grown plants. There was water "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. " but this was not sufficient to have the seeds grow into plants.

I don't see any conflicts between A and B.

You need to open your eyes. Genesis 1:27: "So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women."

Genesis 2:7 "The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man."

One man vs men and women.

Genesis 2:18 "The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." 19-20So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds."

But Genesis 1:24: God said, "I command the earth to give life to all kinds of tame animals, wild animals, and reptiles." And that's what happened. 25God made every one of them.

Genesis 1:24 happens before God makes people. But in Genesis 2:18 a man is made, then the animals.

You can find the verses. Just look.

Other differences on your list are not that significant to be sure of a different creation account. They are simply different ways to say the same thing.

But they are not saying "the same thing". There are no "heavenly beings" in Genesis 1-3! No account of their creation at all! So we have something entirely new in the 3rd account.

Wriggle as much as you want, the contradictions are there.

 

[lucaspa]

The following website might prove useful when discussing God and science.

Evidence for God from Science

This one has rehashed all the refuted creationists arguments.

Science is agnostic. There is no definitive evidence from science for God. All we can say is that science has not falsified God.

Loren Haarsma --- Christian faith and science

This one is much better. Everyone has seen me argue for the following point of view from the site:
""If science is right, is Genesis wrong?" The original audience for Genesis lived in the Ancient Near East, and surely understood Genesis according to their picture of the cosmos -- a picture which was very different from the modern scientific picture. When we understand the context of Genesis, and the purpose for which it was written, we find that it is teaching truths considerably more important than scientific chronologies."

 

[_DoMiNo_]

First, what happens if the C14 dating and the historical document contradict? (as has happened) Which date do you consider more reliable? And why?

Second, if C14 dating is reliable when checked with historical documents, why isn't it still reliable when applied to samples before historical documents? Why does it lose its reliability.

Third, I did point out a way where we have "two instances" in which "the evidence supports itself". That is correlating C14 dating of air trapped in pocket of glacier ice with the counting of the annual layers of that ice. So if the layers say the pocket of air was formed 20,000 years ago and the C14 in the CO2 in the air in that pocket dates to 20,000 years ago, you have the same type of support that you have when you have a human historical document correlating with C14 dating.

Radiocarbon dating isn't very reliable.

Certain organics, such as bone for example, can create problems. It can be easily contaminated by carbon percolating in from surrounding sediments. Similar problems are encountered when dating plants and even marine life, due to the "reservoir effect", once again caused by organisms obtaining their carbon from sources whose carbon content may be significantly different from that of the atmosphere. There's also the fact that 14C dating techniques are built upon a foundation of questionable assumptions. For example, read the following excerpt from an archaeology website:

Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent.

I happen to be studying archaeology this semester so I thought I'd toss in my two cents.

 

[juvenissun]

Unfortunately, that isn't what it is doing. Genesis 1 is very careful to spell out 4 days. Genesis 2:4 uses the Hebrew word "beyom" which is specific to within a 24 hour period. That's saying that the heavens and earth were created in 24 hours, not 4 days.



Genesis 1 says that plants, not seeds were made. Genesis 2 has the seeds, but no grown plants. There was water "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. " but this was not sufficient to have the seeds grow into plants.



You need to open your eyes. Genesis 1:27: "So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women."

Genesis 2:7 "The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man."

One man vs men and women.

Genesis 2:18 "The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." 19-20So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds."

But Genesis 1:24: God said, "I command the earth to give life to all kinds of tame animals, wild animals, and reptiles." And that's what happened. 25God made every one of them.

Genesis 1:24 happens before God makes people. But in Genesis 2:18 a man is made, then the animals.

You can find the verses. Just look.



But they are not saying "the same thing". There are no "heavenly beings" in Genesis 1-3! No account of their creation at all! So we have something entirely new in the 3rd account.

Wriggle as much as you want, the contradictions are there.

We take it one at a time:

Gen 1 is a summary, an outline of a complete creation account.
Gen 2 describes some details.

God creates man and woman in Gen 1. God explains how does it happen in Gen 2. There is no conflict.

Any problem with that?

(If not, I will argue the seed/plant/water next. )

 

[miamited]

Hi guys,

It would probably be a good idea, especially for those who want to use science to support the creation account, to look up the definition of 'miracle'.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi Juve,

You posted: You need to open your eyes. Genesis 1:27: "So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women."

I'm curious what translation you're using.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Radiocarbon dating isn't very reliable. For example, read the following excerpt from an archaeology website:



Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past.

No we don't have to assume this as the hypothesis has been tested many times. Scientists have tried to change rates of radioactive decay in many ways and have found no force on earth that can change the rate of radioactive decay. So the shoe is really on the other foot. If one posits that the rate of decay did change, one has to say what force existed to change it.

However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

What evidence would that be and does it relate to events on earth within the last 50,000 years?

We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death).

No we don't because we already know that said ratio is not constant. That is why C14 dates have to be calibrated against other types of dating.

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Define "often". Should that perhaps read "sometimes" or even "seldom"? Are there reasons why dates can be inconsistent? Are they inconsistent in the absence of said reasons?

 

[juvenissun]

hi Juve,

You posted: You need to open your eyes. Genesis 1:27: "So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women."

I'm curious what translation you're using.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

How would that matter? What is your point?

 

[Mallon]

Hi guys,

It would probably be a good idea, especially for those who want to use science to support the creation account, to look up the definition of 'miracle'.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

What do you think of "creation science" ministries like AiG or ICR, miamited? These ministries insist on using science to support the creation account and are popular among YECs.