Light created in transit, not from the past, but the future...

[Calminian]

There is no contradiction between the examples you quoted and the scriptures properly interpreted as I tried to explain.

God is the first cause of all things and science describes a how of natural causes that are mostly not relevant to the key points being made in the text. If I accept a scientific viewpoint of the how of things , this acceptance is conditional on a better theory not being available.

Gravity has nothing to do with the fact that God created sun and stars.

If God shakes the earth - why not through plate tectonics (or whatever more closely corresponds to the reality)

A God who created us healthy and without disease and repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to heal in Christ IS responsible for a person being ill or not ill. Germs are the secondary cause - not that knowing about them is not helpful for staying well.

There would be no human life without Gods creative design , presence and sustaining of life - it is a dishonest approach to separate the physical processes of pregnancy from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner. There is a very real sense in which God is knitting together a child. In the case of miscarriage there is case for saying that this was a child that God did not intend to be born.

In the case of the creation text a clear time reference and a statement about the creation of types of creatures is being used indicating a statement is being made on the how of things.

You are right to point this out. All processes are of God, both special and unique as well as repeating processes. I think Norm Geisler did a good job summing this up.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not. Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.​

 

[gluadys]

You are right to point this out. All processes are of God, both special and unique as well as repeating processes. I think Norm Geisler did a good job summing this up.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not. Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.​

You and Norm Geisler are right. It puzzles me that so many creationists don't seem to recognize this.

Darwin thought of natural selection as being an instance of natural law which would fall into this definition of how God works in nature. It puzzles me why many Christians do not agree.

 

[Calminian]

You and Norm Geisler are right. It puzzles me that so many creationists don't seem to recognize this.

Darwin thought of natural selection as being an instance of natural law which would fall into this definition of how God works in nature. It puzzles me why many Christians do not agree.

I've not come across any that disagree in my travels. But maybe I don't get out much. Can you give me some prominent creationists that disagree, along with quotes etc.? Is it possible you misunderstood?

Because it order to deny that God is not at work in natural law is to deny that God does not uphold the universe. But I have a feeling something may be missing in the communication. Because that's a basic point I think all creationists would agree on. I mean if God didn't author natural law, then who did?

 

[gluadys]

I've not come across any that disagree in my travels. But maybe I don't get out much. Can you give me some prominent creationists that disagree, along with quotes etc.? Is it possible you misunderstood?

Because it order to deny that God is not at work in natural law is to deny that God does not uphold the universe. But I have a feeling something may be missing in the communication. Because that's a basic point I think all creationists would agree on. I mean if God didn't author natural law, then who did?

Just look for opposition to uniformitarianism. After all, since God-ordained natural law is "the regular, repeatable way God acts", any time natural law is operative, then the consequences should be regular, repeatable, measurable, predictable--IOW, just the sort of thing made for science to study and be able to come to firm conclusions on.

I don't know of any way to support a young-earth creationist stance without chucking uniformitarianism out the window. All we know of natural law applied to astronomy, physics, geology and evolution tells us the earth and the universe are very old.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

There is no contradiction between the examples you quoted and the scriptures properly interpreted as I tried to explain.

You tried to explain why you think all Christians have to accept your human interpretation of Genesis (because it is literal), while at the same time you yourself accept a number of non-literal interpretations in other places. As before, you are being inconsistent. It looks hypocritical.

God is the first cause of all things and science describes a how of natural causes that are mostly not relevant to the key points being made in the text. If I accept a scientific viewpoint of the how of things , this acceptance is conditional on a better theory not being available.

What better theory are you proposing for evolution?

Gravity has nothing to do with the fact that God created sun and stars.

But gravity has everything to do with how they move, which is the topic where I have pointed that out.

If God shakes the earth - why not through plate tectonics (or whatever more closely corresponds to the reality)

I fully agree. If God creates animals - why not through evolution (or whatever more closely corresponds to the reality)

A God who created us healthy and without disease and repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to heal in Christ IS responsible for a person being ill or not ill. Germs are the secondary cause - not that knowing about them is not helpful for staying well.

So, mindlight, please be clear. Do you agree that germs cause disease, or like some other biblical literalists, reject germ theory because it contradicts a literal interpretation? One example of a creationist rejected germ theory this way is in my .sig, below.

There would be no human life without Gods creative design , presence and sustaining of life - it is a dishonest approach to separate the physical processes of pregnancy from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner. There is a very real sense in which God is knitting together a child. In the case of miscarriage there is case for saying that this was a child that God did not intend to be born.

I agree. There would be no human life without Gods creative design , presence and sustaining of life - it is a dishonest approach to separate the physical processes of evolution from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner. There is a very real sense in which God is creating all life on earth. In the case of extinction there is case for saying that this was a species that God did not intend to exist.

Mindlight, do you consider it at dishonest approach to separate the physical processes (for any phenomenon) from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner?

In the case of the creation text a clear time reference and a statement about the creation of types of creatures is being used indicating a statement is being made on the how of things.

Sure, and many of the disease passages have clear time references (before, after, the next day, etc.), and in the all of them a clear statement being made on the how of things. That "how" being things like "shaking the pillars", "knitting", "demons" and so on.

Do you agree that all the interpretations are human interpretations?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Just look for opposition to uniformitarianism. After all, since God-ordained natural law is "the regular, repeatable way God acts", any time natural law is operative, then the consequences should be regular, repeatable, measurable, predictable--IOW, just the sort of thing made for science to study and be able to come to firm conclusions on.

I don't know of any way to support a young-earth creationist stance without chucking uniformitarianism out the window. All we know of natural law applied to astronomy, physics, geology and evolution tells us the earth and the universe are very old.

I think you've misunderstood what creationists are telling you. You won't find a prominent creationist that would disagree with Geisler's analysis. I don't think you'll find any here either.

What creationists are trying to tell you is, only God's primary normal way of the upholding the universe can be tested by science. You are correct, that it is testable and repeatable. The question is, what category does the creation of the world fall into? Was it the product of God's natural laws or the product of a special act of God? Creationists believe it's the latter. Thus uniformitarianism in that particular case, is not a true premise. Uniformitarianism is only effective in cases where a special non-uniform of act of God has not taken place.

 

[gluadys]

What creationists are trying to tell you is, only God's primary normal way of the upholding the universe can be tested by science. You are correct, that it is testable and repeatable. The question is, what category does the creation of the world fall into? Was it the product of God's natural laws or the product of a special act of God? Creationists believe it's the latter. Thus uniformitarianism in that particular case, is not a true premise. Uniformitarianism is only effective in cases where a special non-uniform of act of God has not taken place.

Believing it is one thing. Holding that there is scientific support for that belief is another. The scientific support goes against that belief.

Yes, uniformitarianism does not include a special non-uniform act of God.
But science still needs evidence that a special non-uniform act of God occurred to justify changing its description of natural history. After all, there is no apparent reason to incorporate so much astronomical and geological and genetic history in a world created only a few thousand years ago even it creation was a supernatural miracle. Why should a recent creation not look recent? (Mature, but recent e.g soils and sedimentary rocks, but no fossils of creatures that never existed. A universal genetic bottleneck in every kind of created animal and plant form. No genetic pattern suggesting common ancestry beyond clear taxonomic limits. These would all be consistent with both scientific uniformitarianism and recent supernatural creation.)


My question to you would be--why adopt a belief that goes counter to the scientific evidence in so many ways? This is not a one-time local event, like changing water into wine or even the resurrection, for which we don't expect any remnant of evidence. It involves the whole of what can be observed and studied and analyzed in nature and all of the natural laws by which God upholds the universe in existence.

Your belief basically says God acted supernaturally approximately 6,000 years ago to create a universe which contains oodles of natural evidence of being over 13 billion years old, and a solar system which contains oodles of natural evidence of being over 4 billions of years old.

Why could God not act supernaturally 13+ billion years ago instead of a few thousand years ago so that there is no discrepancy between the supernatural act and the natural evidence? And since then (as per Geisler) act in and through creation via natural law?

(Except, of course, on special occasions like the parting of the Red Sea for the Exodus and other similar miracles.)


While I can see creation itself as a miracle, I see no reason for invoking the particular timeline of young-earth creationists.

 

[Jazer]

Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

My brain does not work backwards like that. But if you can do that, then we can get you a clock. I saw one once and it was difficult for me to figure out what time it was.

 

[mindlight]

You tried to explain why you think all Christians have to accept your human interpretation of Genesis (because it is literal), while at the same time you yourself accept a number of non-literal interpretations in other places. As before, you are being inconsistent. It looks hypocritical.

My interpretation of these passages has been the traditional one. It is for you to argue why you think it necessary to deviate from it. Your interpretation of the other passages and what they imply is at fault here.

What better theory are you proposing for evolution?

My position on the question of origins ,remote cosmology and our human natures (as argued on this forum for 9 years now) has been and remains that science is of limited usefulness when discussing these things due to the distance in time or space from reliable evidence or because the scientific method cannot by definition investigate non physical phenomena. It is an inappropriate and unverifiable use of the scientific method to suggest the same degree of certainty for such things as for more immediate and verifiable issues where repeatable experimentation can prove results. So no theory , just silence and the view that Old universe macro-evolutionists speak with too much certainty!

I fully agree. If God creates animals - why not through evolution (or whatever more closely corresponds to the reality)

Because it is an unverifiable theory and the biblical timescales accepted for most of the churches history do not allow for this.

So, mindlight, please be clear. Do you agree that germs cause disease, or like some other biblical literalists, reject germ theory because it contradicts a literal interpretation? One example of a creationist rejected germ theory this way is in my .sig, below.

Germs are a secondary cause of disease. The bible refers to primary causes which are not merely naturalistic. So both views can be true but the biblical view is more theologically important

I agree. There would be no human life without Gods creative design , presence and sustaining of life - it is a dishonest approach to separate the physical processes of evolution from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner. There is a very real sense in which God is creating all life on earth. In the case of extinction there is case for saying that this was a species that God did not intend to exist.

Mindlight, do you consider it at dishonest approach to separate the physical processes (for any phenomenon) from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner?

In the case of origins and remote cosmology I believe it is not dishonest cause the scientific approach has only limited validity in these areas.

Sure, and many of the disease passages have clear time references (before, after, the next day, etc.), and in the all of them a clear statement being made on the how of things. That "how" being things like "shaking the pillars", "knitting", "demons" and so on.

Do you agree that all the interpretations are human interpretations?

Papias

My starting point is the traditional interpretation of the church. Where science can demonstrably show these to be false then I would accept the scientific view. Science cannot do this with origins or remote cosmology.

 

[Jig]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.

Yes, the idea that light was created "in-transit" has many problems. I would not subscribe to that idea.

However, everything must be understood in "light" of it's philosophical foundation. It is from this perspective we must examine starlight distance conclusions. As a "young-earth" creationist, I hold to different assumptions and, therefore, do not find any difficulty in starlight and a recent creation point.

"Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions."

Starlight distance is only a "problem" if you subscribe to the same assumptions that the naturalists do.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

You tried to explain why you think all Christians have to accept your human interpretation of Genesis (because it is literal), while at the same time you yourself accept a number of non-literal interpretations in other places. As before, you are being inconsistent. It looks hypocritical.
​

My interpretation of these passages has been the traditional one.

Simply and demonstrably false. As I've pointed out many times, non-literal interpretations of Genesis are present in early Christianity, including Origen and Augustine.

It is for you to argue why you think it necessary to deviate from it. Your interpretation of the other passages and what they imply is at fault here.

In contrast with your incorrect assertion about the early interpretation of Genesis, the passages I've been interpreting has been according to tradition. There are no traditional early church interpretations of them that include anything about germs, plate tectonics, or obstetrics. If you, mindlight, are going to rely on tradition, as you claim here, then you have to first reject germ theory, plate tectonics, and obstetrics, and you have no clear tradition on which to reject evolution and geological time.

What better theory are you proposing for evolution?

My position on the question of origins ,remote cosmology and our human natures (as argued on this forum for 9 years now) has been and remains that science is of limited usefulness when discussing these things due to the distance in time or space from reliable evidence or because the scientific method cannot by definition investigate non physical phenomena. It is an inappropriate and unverifiable use of the scientific method to suggest the same degree of certainty for such things as for more immediate and verifiable issues where repeatable experimentation can prove results. So no theory , just silence and the view that Old universe macro-evolutionists speak with too much certainty!

You are ducking the question. I asked what theory you proposed for evolution, and you responded by refusing to propose anything.


​

I fully agree. If God creates animals - why not through evolution (or whatever more closely corresponds to the reality)

Because it is an unverifiable theory and the biblical timescales accepted for most of the churches history do not allow for this.

and.....
Where science can demonstrably show these to be false then I would accept the scientific view. Science cannot do this with origins or remote cosmology.

Evolution and deep times are quite verifiable - as verifiable as the existence of the Roman empire or the United States Civil War, and more verifiable than plate tectonics. As we saw above, if you are going by tradition, you have to first reject germs, plate tectonics, and obstetrics, and even then you have some space to accept evolution.
​

So, mindlight, please be clear. Do you agree that germs cause disease, or like some other biblical literalists, reject germ theory because it contradicts a literal interpretation? One example of a creationist rejected germ theory this way is in my .sig, below.

Germs are a secondary cause of disease. The bible refers to primary causes which are not merely naturalistic. So both views can be true but the biblical view is more theologically important

​

I didn't ask which was more theologically important. I asked if you, as being consistent with your method of Biblical interpretation requires, reject that germs cause disease.


​

Mindlight, do you consider it at dishonest approach to separate the physical processes (for any phenomenon) from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner?

In the case of origins and remote cosmology I believe it is not dishonest cause the scientific approach has only limited validity in these areas.

As noted above, science is valid there. In fact, there is better evidence for evolution than there is for plate tectonics. Do you reject plate tectonics, and instead insist that earthquakes are caused by God shaking the pillars of the Earth, as the Bible literally says? As you can see, it is your own phrase that suggests that accepting germs, obstetrics, and plate tectonics is dishonest.
​

Do you agree that all the interpretations are human interpretations?

My starting point is the traditional interpretation of the church.

As mentioned above, there is a more clear church tradition against germs, plate tectonics, and obstetrics than there is against a figurative interpretation of Genesis. So if your starting point is the traditional interpretation of the church, you will first reject germs, plate tectonics, and obstetrics, and still be open to non-literal interpretations of Genesis.


Papias

​

 

[shernren]

My position on the question of origins, remote cosmology and our human natures (as argued on this forum for 9 years now) has been and remains that science is of limited usefulness when discussing these things due to the distance in time or space from reliable evidence or because the scientific method cannot by definition investigate non physical phenomena. It is an inappropriate and unverifiable use of the scientific method to suggest the same degree of certainty for such things as for more immediate and verifiable issues where repeatable experimentation can prove results. So no theory, just silence and the view that Old universe macro-evolutionists speak with too much certainty!

Do you think I can reliably know that certain events happened a thousand years ago?