Need a little more help on this topic

[asiyreh]

Why did He take a whole 7 days then?

Confused I know you prefer an evolutionary view on the creation, so you may find this interesting.

Reasons To Believe : The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Segment 2

Watch a young earther take a seven day beating lol.

Hopefully it should also give you some extra dynamics to support your own creation narrative and shed some light on this problem you perceive with the seven day issue.
Enjoy...

 

[Bible2]

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 38:

Why would an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God take millions of years to evolve something from some one celled organism when He can instantly create it?

For the same reason that God has a human start out as a one-celled organism, a zygote, in its mother's womb, and then has it only gradually develop, through natural means, into an embryo, and then into a fetus, and then into a baby, and then into a toddler, and then into an adolescent, and then into an adult. And for the same reason that God has other animals develop gradually in a similar way. And for the same reason that God has plants start out as seeds. It must give God pleasure to see plants and animals develop naturally over time, just as it must give him pleasure to also sometimes create plants and animals instantaneously, miraculously, already fully-formed, like he did in Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:20-27, during three of the seven literal days of Genesis 1:3 to 2:4.

An old earth and evolution can be true without contradicting Biblical creationism. For evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can coexist with creationism, just as an automated process created by a human (for example, a computer program which makes random, colorful pictures which can be seen as art) can coexist with that human performing a task himself, directly (painting some pictures by hand). That is, evolution per se can simply be a process created by God to allow new, adaptive species to arise naturally over time, and this process can coexist with God creating species himself, directly, that is, miraculously, instantaneously, already fully-formed, whenever he wants to (compare punctuated equilibria).

Creationism includes what could be called the double-gap theory, meaning that there could have been two different gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the first gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the second gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the first heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, some 4.5 billion years could have occurred, in which God could have allowed his own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously, instantaneously, already fully-formed, whenever he wanted to (again, compare punctuated equilibria).

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about twelve thousand years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm, such as a comet strike, had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so that the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate that rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of six, literal, twenty-four-hour days (some twelve thousand years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land, and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth.

Then, only about six thousand years ago, God miraculously created on the earth an individual male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam in an uninhabited desert land (Genesis 2:5-7; there, the original Hebrew word translated as "earth" can simply refer to a certain "land": for example, Genesis 2:11). After that, God planted the plants of the local, Garden of Eden in that desert land (Genesis 2:8-9) and God placed Adam in that garden (Genesis 2:15). Then God miraculously created the animals of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:19). Then God miraculously created in the Garden of Eden an individual female homo sapiens sapiens (Genesis 2:22) whom Adam named Eve (Genesis 3:20).

Because Adam was created only about six thousand years ago (based on Biblical chronology), yet there are homo sapiens sapiens fossils said to be as old as about two hundred thousand years, God could have first created homo sapiens sapiens (or it could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) as far back as about two hundred thousand years. Also, all the different hominid forms the fossils of which long predate or are as old as the earliest fossils of homo sapiens sapiens, and which preceding or coexisting hominid forms we do not consider to have been fully human like us (such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis), could have all been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) over millions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth.

And this does not even get into the possibly trillion other inhabited planets in the universe on which homo sapiens sapiens (or similar or far more advanced life-forms) could have been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) billions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. For the universe could be about fourteen billion years old, and there are something like a hundred billion different galaxies, each containing something like a hundred billion different stars. So even if only one star out of every ten billion stars has an inhabited planet, there would still be a trillion inhabited planets. And on most of these, God could have begun his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) billions of years before beginning his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) on the earth.

 

[KrazyCanadian1962]

Respectfully:

Yes, a human starts as two single cells, a sperm and an egg. However, these are both already human. They contain all the genetic information of both parents. It would be kind of ridiculous for God to have each human spontaneously formed as a baby or teen or adult. This is not a parallel to creating a universe full of minerals, plants, elements and living creatures. There is a purpose in having the gradual growth of a fetus to child to adult. And, may I add, it is, throughout the process, always a human. It doesn't change from zygote, to fetus to child. It is a human, a tiny human zygote, then a human embryo, then a human baby is born. Really, it is always, from conception, a human baby, a human soul is created at the moment of conception. A two celled human soul, living being.

A random mutation from one organism to another has never been shown with our vast fossil collection. You can have a couple of dogs and keep breeding them and cross breeding to get all the different dog types but they are all still dogs. You cannot take a bunch of dogs and keep breeding until you get a cat.

In order to have this constant mutation over millions of years, there would have to be a wide assortment of intermediate beings. Not to mention, any system, left uncontrolled will always move from order to disorder. It never moves from random disorder to an ordered system.

As for the double gap theory. If you read Genesis, you will see that all creatures where created to live indefinitely. The bodies that all animals and humans have were originally meant to continually repair and regenerate all its cells. Until, the fall. Sin entered the earth and now,"we will surely die". Death did not exist before this point. So, up until this time there could be no death to any being. The whole evolution depends on a creature living, procreating and dieing. Other wise, with no death, there would be all the organisms from billions of years of "evolving". The parent beings up to the so called mutant, new and improved beings.

As for the "age" of many items. Carbon dating is not accurate. I know many people lean on it but, due to atmospheric conditions before the flood, carbon did not decay. This leaves a state of suspended animation so to speak where scientists assume time was moving but decay was infact not present.

When scientists studied the Mt. St. Helen's incident, they discovered canyons like the grand canyon formed in days, not millions of years. In some parts of the world there have been items petrified in mineral deposits in years not millions of years.

I know this will not change your mind. But, a God that can create and maintain total control of all the universe would have no reason to do it through a process of evolution. He would certainly not do such a thing and then not write about it in his Book. God doesn't do things that are not necessary. Using millions of years is totally unnecessary when creating the universe as He did.

 

[KrazyCanadian1962]

I don't see any misconceptions about evolution here.

Either God created the heavens and the earth and all the oceans, seas, land, trees, plants animals and humans. Planets, galaxies, moons, suns. Laws of physics, nuclear dynamics, gases, liquids, temperatures.

Or, the myth that this all happened by chance and slowly evolved to what we have today.

Any semi acceptance of anything in between any combination, adaptation or whatever to try to blend the two is an insult to the all mighty Creator.... God.

 

[asiyreh]

Lol why is it every evolution story begins, A long time ago in a galaxy far far away? I'm already thinking fairytale before they even have a chance to present any evidence.

I really do wish certain people that claim to support their ideas with evidence, would simply learn some basic mathematics. I pray for them I really do.

Anyways in response to an earlier post by Bible2, I'm interested in finding out more about this model you're proposing. Please keep it simple and try to address the question directly if possible, without widely skirting around the issue and/or proselytising on it's various virtues.

Here's the question... Where is it God features exactly in your proposition? Is he there at the start? Maybe he creates some type of mechanism for positive mutation, within the genome then removes it somewhere along the line? Perhaps he metaphysically intervenes at every punctuation point in history or something?
Having read over you post again I think I've mistaken something, are you actually proposing there was biological evolution first, something destroyed everything that evolved, and the second time round God created specie groups instantly?

Yes so please, enlighten us my friend and keep it simple and to the point if possible. Where is God in all of this ...?

Also you may find this audio upload very interesting the juicy stuff is about 13 mins in, and continues till about 27 mins, if I remember correctly but the whole thing is well worth the listen.

Randall Younker : The Scholarly Myths of the Double Creation and the Vaulted Heaven - YouTube

 

[Bible2]

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

Yes, a human starts as two single cells, a sperm and an egg.

A sperm is not a human; neither is an egg. Only when they become united into one cell, a zygote, does a human begin.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

They contain all the genetic information of both parents.

They don't, only half of each parent's.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

It would be kind of ridiculous for God to have each human spontaneously formed as a baby or teen or adult.

Why, when you had earlier asked why would God employ a gradual process like evolution instead of instantly creating things?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

This is not a parallel to creating a universe full of minerals, plants, elements and living creatures.

Why isn't the gradual process of human, animal, and plant development today as ridiculous to you as the gradual process of evolution?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

There is a purpose in having the gradual growth of a fetus to child to adult.

What is that purpose, and why can't evolution exist for the same purpose?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

And, may I add, it is, throughout the process, always a human. It doesn't change from zygote, to fetus to child.

It does change from one stage of development to the next.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

A random mutation from one organism to another has never been shown with our vast fossil collection.

You will have to take that up with an evolutionary scientist, who could disagree with you. The point of what has been presented here is that no matter how many random mutations from one organism to another can be shown from science's vast fossil collection, this does not in any way contradict Biblical creationism, because evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can be a God-created process that coexists with the miraculous, instantaneous, creation of fully-formed organisms by God. So Christians do not need to waste their precious time trying to disprove evolution per se.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

You can have a couple of dogs and keep breeding them and cross breeding to get all the different dog types but they are all still dogs.

What does that have to do with the evolution of new species?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

You cannot take a bunch of dogs and keep breeding until you get a cat.

Theoretically you could, gradually, over millions of years, if enough, different mutations occurred in the DNA of two separated populations of dogs living in different environments, to the point where natural selection began to gradually move one population of dogs toward being more like cats, because that made them better adapted to their environment. And if this process continued to the point where the cat-like population of dogs could no longer procreate with the other population of dogs, then the cat-like population would be declared a new species.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

Not to mention, any system, left uncontrolled will always move from order to disorder.

Are you referring to entropy? If so, that applies not to "control", but to energy, and only to a closed system as a whole, not to a subsystem that is taking in energy from another subsystem. For example, life on earth remains orderly not because it is "controlled" by the sun, but because it has the sun as its ultimate, external, source of energy.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

If you read Genesis, you will see that all creatures where created to live indefinitely.

Nothing requires that any creatures created on the earth before Genesis 1:3-31 were created to live indefinitely.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

Until, the fall. Sin entered the earth and now,"we will surely die". Death did not exist before this point.

Before the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, death did not exist for Adam and Eve. But nothing requires that death did not exist for anything that God could have created on the earth before that.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

Carbon dating is not accurate.

You will have to take that up with a carbon-dating scientist, who could disagree with you. The point of what has been presented here is that no matter how accurate carbon dating is, just as no matter how accurate other, much longer-term, radioactive-decay dating methods are, even a 4.5 billion year old earth does not in any way contradict Biblical creationism, because there could have been a 4.5 billion-year gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3-31. So Christians do not need to waste their precious time trying to disprove an old earth.

The Bible does not require that the earth is only six thousand years old. All it requires is that Adam was created about six thousand years ago. For various scriptures make it possible to estimate the year BC that Adam (as opposed to the earth) was created, by working back from the year BC that Solomon's temple began to be built. Historians say that it began to be built about 966 BC. And the scriptures show that it began to be built 480 years after Israel's Exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). And Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt before the Exodus (Exodus 12:40-41). And Israel entered Egypt when Jacob was 130 (Genesis 47:9). And Jacob was born when his father Isaac was 60 (Genesis 25:26). And Isaac was born when his father Abraham was 100 (Genesis 21:5). And Abraham was born when his father Terah was about 70 (Genesis 11:26). And Terah was born when his father Nahor was 29 (Genesis 11:24). And Nahor was born when his father Serug was 30 (Genesis 11:22). And Serug was born when his father Reu was 32 (Genesis 11:20). And Reu was born when his father Peleg was 30 (Genesis 11:18).

And Peleg was born when his father Eber was 34 (Genesis 11:16). And Eber was born when his father Salah was 30 (Genesis 11:14). And Salah was born when his father Arphaxad was 35 (Genesis 11:12). And Arphaxad was born when his father Shem was 100 (Genesis 11:10). And Shem was born when his father Noah was 502 (Genesis 11:10 and Genesis 7:6). And Noah was born when his father Lamech was 182 (Genesis 5:28-29). And Lamech was born when his father Methuselah was 187 (Genesis 5:25). And Methuselah was born when his father Enoch was 65 (Genesis 5:21). And Enoch was born when his father Jared was 162 (Genesis 5:18). And Jared was born when his father Mahalaleel was 65 (Genesis 5:15). And Mahalaleel was born when his father Cainan was 70 (Genesis 5:12). And Cainan was born when his father Enos was 90 (Genesis 5:9). And Enos was born when his father Seth was 105 (Genesis 5:6). And Seth was born when his father Adam was 130 (Genesis 5:3).

Adding up the numbers of years above, we see that Adam was created about 4114 BC. This lines up with the fact that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC. If Adam was created about 4114 BC, this means that six thousand years since Adam's creation were completed back at the end of about 1886 AD, and that the seventh millennium began about 1887 AD. (But this does not require that the millennium of Revelation 20:4-6 has begun yet.) Also, it is curious that the next year (1888 AD) Blavatsky published her book (The Secret Doctrine) referring to the "New Age". Also, it is curious that the Mayan calendar begins in 3114 BC, exactly a thousand years after 4114 BC. Also, the numbers of years in the scriptures referenced above show that Abraham (who was first promised the land of Israel by God: Exodus 32:13) was born about 1948 years after Adam's creation, just as the modern state of Israel was established in 1948 AD.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

I know many people lean on it but, due to atmospheric conditions before the flood, carbon did not decay.

Based on what?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

When scientists studied the Mt. St. Helen's incident, they discovered canyons like the grand canyon formed in days, not millions of years.

How would that prove that the Grand Canyon could not have formed over millions of years?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

In some parts of the world there have been items petrified in mineral deposits in years not millions of years.

How would that prove that items can't be petrified in mineral deposits over millions of years?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

But, a God that can create and maintain total control of all the universe would have no reason to do it through a process of evolution.

The reason could be his pleasure in seeing things develop naturally over time, just as he no doubt takes pleasure in humans, animals, and plants today developing naturally over time.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

He would certainly not do such a thing and then not write about it in his Book.

Why not? The Bible doesn't contain a lot of things that God did (John 21:25).

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

God doesn't do things that are not necessary.

Really? So creation itself was necessary, and not just for God's pleasure (Revelation 4:11)?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 43:

Using millions of years is totally unnecessary when creating the universe as He did.

But humans, animals, and plants today developing naturally over years isn't unnecessary, when God could instantaneously create them all fully-formed?

*******

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 46:

Either God created the heavens and the earth and all the oceans, seas, land, trees, plants animals and humans. Planets, galaxies, moons, suns. Laws of physics, nuclear dynamics, gases, liquids, temperatures.

Or, the myth that this all happened by chance and slowly evolved to what we have today.

Any semi acceptance of anything in between any combination, adaptation or whatever to try to blend the two is an insult to the all mighty Creator.... God.

Evolution per se does not require that everything happened by chance. And how has the coexistence of the instantaneous creation of species with the evolution of species been shown to be an insult to God? Why can't evolution be a God-created process? And if it is, why wouldn't denying its existence be an insult to him as its Creator?

 

[Bible2]

asiyreh said in post 50:

Lol why is it every evolution story begins, A long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

How has it been proven that evolution could not have begun in another galaxy?

asiyreh said in post 50:

I'm already thinking fairytale before they even have a chance to present any evidence.

What do you feel has been proven to be a fairy tale?

asiyreh said in post 50:

I really do wish certain people that claim to support their ideas with evidence, would simply learn some basic mathematics.

What do you feel has been disproven by basic mathematics?

asiyreh said in post 50:

Where is it God features exactly in your proposition?

He features as the Creator, both by instantaneous means and by means of his created process of evolution.

asiyreh said in post 50:

Is he there at the start?

Yes.

asiyreh said in post 50:

Maybe he creates some type of mechanism for positive mutation, within the genome then removes it somewhere along the line?

With regard to any one, particular mutation, he could either miraculously remove it, instantaneously, or he could let it remain to work within his created process of evolution. If the latter, the mutation could either become extinct naturally over time, because it provided no benefit, or it could work to improve the chances of survival of an organism within a particular environment, and so be perpetuated naturally into the next generation.

asiyreh said in post 50:

Perhaps he metaphysically intervenes at every punctuation point in history or something?

He could if he wanted to, but nothing requires that he doesn't often just let natural processes do what he created them to do.

asiyreh said in post 50:

Having read over you post again I think I've mistaken something, are you actually proposing there was biological evolution first, something destroyed everything that evolved, and the second time round God created specie groups instantly?

Yes. Except that some instantaneous creation could have coexisted with some evolution from the very beginning.

asiyreh said in post 50:

Where is God in all of this ...?

He is the Creator, both by instantaneous means and by means of his created process of evolution.

asiyreh said in post 50:

Also you may find this audio upload very interesting the juicy stuff is about 13 mins in, and continues till about 27 mins, if I remember correctly but the whole thing is well worth the listen.

Can you summarize the arguments in the video that you feel disprove what has been presented?

 

[KrazyCanadian1962]

Dear Bible2,

I can see that, by the extent of your post and the time and effort that you have put into it that you are not in any way going to change your mind.

However, for the record, my sperm is 100% human and contains all of my DNA. If it was not so it would be useless for crime investigators to use it as DNA evidence.

As for your comment on the gradual growth of a human from conception to adult and your use of this in an argument for evolution of the universe. This is simply preposterous. How is the forming of planets, oceans, trees, millions of species even close to the conception, weaving of two humans, in an act of love in order to procreate a single human containing physical qualities of each parent, in God's image?
You are comparing a single spontaneous formation of a single cell, with life mind you, that over millions of years becomes everything we have today, to the replication of an excising species.

As for the Bible not containing everything that God did. You are correct, however it does contain everything we need to understand the creation of the universe. He has left enough information in this one book and it is one of the things He will use when people say "well, ah, I didn't know that". To which He will reply," but. it was written".
Those words, "IT IS WRITTEN" are so powerful they make Satan's arguments invalid and he will flee.

Evolution DOES require that everything happened by chance. That is the whole purpose of this lie. If everything has happened by chance..... then... there is no God, and thus , no justice, no time to answer for my sins, no consequence, no need to repent, when I die... that's it, I am no more...

The purpose of evolution is to remove God from existence so I am not accountable for my wrong doings, sins. ANY intervention of a superior being, force, power would mean that I have to eventually answer to someone or something.

You have indicated that you are a Christian. Many people claim this but have never got down on there knees and whole heatedly admitted that they are unworthy of eternal life, they have sinned and are lost, that they are remorseful and totally repent, that they ask Jesus Christ into their heart and life and will walk in the ways he walked. That they admit that there is nothing they can ever do on their own to repay the debt they would have to pay to enter into eternal life and accept the gift of salvation through Christs blood.

If you are a Christian, then you do not have the excuse that one poster here has. They are fully claiming to have the atheistic view and thus their eyes are closed and they are blind. I can then, understand their ignorance.

One final note, every atom has a nucleus, it contains protons (positive charge) and neutrons (no charge, no mass). Around the nucleus, there are orbiting electons (negative charge). If these electrons stopped orbiting, they would collapse into the nucleus as the opposite charge of the electron and proton attract each other the way satellites fall back to earth when the lose orbit. Now, the neutrons have absolutely no reason to remain attached to the protons. None whatsoever. They have no charge and no mass, yet they stay. Some force keeps them there. Even atheistic scientists call this unknown, invisible, immeasurable, undetectable force... the GOD force. If it was not there, this world , universe would not exist.

Belief in God and salvation has always been by faith and faith alone. However, if anyone ever wanted something as a shred, dot, crumb of truth of the existence of God. That invisible force one. The Bible is either true and true to the letter or it is fiction and we are all lost.

 

[KrazyCanadian1962]

I stand corrected. However, It is still 100% human.

 

[asiyreh]

Sorry to keep bringi9ng you back to this bible2, I'm particularly interested in this model, you seem to have in your mind. And I want to understand it correctly.

Give us a brief outline maybe 10 to 20 lines on your version of creation and how God would act in this model.
I'm not asking you to provide evidence for your theory but if you could just give us a brief summary of how you see this picture fitting together.

I start you off - In the beginning

 

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat On

This thread has undergone a cleaning due to the violation of the Christian Only Forums rule: Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.​

If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember the board rules when posting. Thank you and may you have a nice day.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Bible2]

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

I can see that, by the extent of your post and the time and effort that you have put into it that you are not in any way going to change your mind.

Don't be so sure. We should all keep an open mind about things which the Bible doesn't require are either true or false.

For example, can you quote the details from the scientific, peer-reviewed, paper that claimed that canyons at Mount Saint Helens were equivalent to the Grand Canyon? For example, were the walls of the former solid rock like the latter, or only soft ash? And were the walls of the former a mile high? Also, what caused the former canyons? Simply water-flow like with the latter, or huge earthquakes, landslides, and lava flows connected with the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens?

Also, can you quote the details from the scientific, peer-reviewed, paper that claimed that fossils formed in a few years which were equivalent to fossils that science says formed over millions of years?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

However, for the record, my sperm is 100% human and contains all of my DNA.

Regarding "my sperm is 100% human", how has that been denied?

Regarding "my sperm ... contains all of my DNA", your sperm do as a group. But each, individual sperm contains only half of your DNA.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

If it was not so it would be useless for crime investigators to use it as DNA evidence.

Why? DNA evidence is not taken from an individual sperm, but from millions of them, which together contain all of a person's DNA.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

As for your comment on the gradual growth of a human from conception to adult and your use of this in an argument for evolution of the universe. This is simply preposterous. How is the forming of planets, oceans, trees, millions of species even close to the conception, weaving of two humans, in an act of love in order to procreate a single human containing physical qualities of each parent, in God's image?

Regarding the "evolution of the universe", no reference has been made to that. What has been referred to is the evolution of species, the gradual process of which is similar to the gradual growth of a human from conception to adult.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

You are comparing a single spontaneous formation of a single cell, with life mind you, that over millions of years becomes everything we have today, to the replication of an excising species.

Regarding "everything we have today", if you mean every species we have today, that could be right. But how would that be preposterous, when both the evolution of species and the replication of species involves a gradual process?

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

As for the Bible not containing everything that God did. You are correct, however it does contain everything we need to understand the creation of the universe.

Actually, it doesn't, except at the general level that God is the Creator of everything that exists (John 1:3). For in Genesis 1:1, the original Hebrew word (shamayim, H8064) translated as "heaven" or "heavens" can be translated simply as the "air" in which the birds fly (for example, Genesis 1:30; 1 Samuel 17:44, Proverbs 30:19). So Genesis 1:1 does not have to be referring to when God created the universe (which could be some fourteen billion years old), or to when God created any of the other, trillion inhabited planets which could exist in the universe, but can simply be referring to when God created the earth (which could be some 4.5 billion years old) and its atmosphere.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

He has left enough information in this one book and it is one of the things He will use when people say "well, ah, I didn't know that". To which He will reply," but. it was written".
Those words, "IT IS WRITTEN" are so powerful they make Satan's arguments invalid and he will flee.

That's right, but nothing written in the Bible requires that evolution or an old earth is false.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

Evolution DOES require that everything happened by chance.

Actually, evolution per se doesn't require that everything happened by chance, for it can coexist with instantaneous creation by God. And evolution itself can be a process created by God.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

That is the whole purpose of this lie.

Evolution per se has never been proven to be a lie.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

The purpose of evolution is to remove God from existence so I am not accountable for my wrong doings, sins.

The purpose of evolution is not to remove God from existence, but to naturally bring new, adaptive species into existence gradually over time.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

ANY intervention of a superior being, force, power would mean that I have to eventually answer to someone or something.

That's right, and evolution per se does not forbid miraculous interventions by God.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

You have indicated that you are a Christian. Many people claim this but have never got down on there knees and whole heatedly admitted that they are unworthy of eternal life, they have sinned and are lost, that they are remorseful and totally repent, that they ask Jesus Christ into their heart and life and will walk in the ways he walked. That they admit that there is nothing they can ever do on their own to repay the debt they would have to pay to enter into eternal life and accept the gift of salvation through Christs blood.

All those things have been done and admitted. And none of them are incompatible with the existence of evolution or an old earth.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

If you are a Christian, then you do not have the excuse that one poster here has. They are fully claiming to have the atheistic view and thus their eyes are closed and they are blind. I can then, understand their ignorance.

Nothing requires that evolution is ignorance.

 

[Bible2]

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

One final note, every atom has a nucleus, it contains protons (positive charge) and neutrons (no charge, no mass).

That's right, except that neutrons do have mass.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

Around the nucleus, there are orbiting electons (negative charge).

That's right, except that electrons don't so much "orbit" the nucleus, like a planet orbiting the sun, but are more like a spherical force field that exists at the same time all around the nucleus.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

If these electrons stopped orbiting, they would collapse into the nucleus as the opposite charge of the electron and proton attract each other the way satellites fall back to earth when the lose orbit.

If that happened, a proton would simply become a neutron.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

Now, the neutrons have absolutely no reason to remain attached to the protons. None whatsoever. They have no charge and no mass, yet they stay. Some force keeps them there.

That force is called the strong nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces created by God, the others being electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and gravity.

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

Even atheistic scientists call this unknown, invisible, immeasurable, undetectable force... the GOD force. If it was not there, this world , universe would not exist.

It is true that if the strong nuclear force did not exist, matter in the universe as we know it would not exist. But it is not called the God force by scientists. You may be thinking of what scientists call the God particle, also called the Higgs boson, which is what gives mass to matter. But science does indeed still need God (who is a Spirit: John 4:24), ultimately, in order to explain things scientifically at their most fundamental level. For what science is missing in its search for what it calls a "Theory of Everything" that can unify all the physical forces in the universe, is spirit. So that by continuing to exclude the whole idea of spirit, science can never hope to understand the universe at its most fundamental level or what its ultimate origin was: "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit . . . even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all" (Ecclesiastes 11:5).

Even though spirit is not physical, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical may be analogous to the relationship between energy and matter. Just as the relationship of energy to matter is summarized by the equation e=mc^2, which means that immense amounts of energy are congealed and compacted, as it were, in order to form each tiny particle of matter, so the relationship between spirit and energy could theoretically be summarized by the equation s=ec^2, meaning that immense amounts of spirit may be congealed and compacted, as it were, in order to form each tiny photon of energy. All energy being based on spirit would make sense, for God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and in him everything consists (Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:28).

When science's equations regarding such things as the Big Bang singularity, black holes, and quantum entanglement require the inclusion of infinities, these infinities should not be seen as "failures" ultimately, but as pointers to something which goes beyond the boundaries of the physical, that is, spirit. If science ever becomes able to describe spirit mathematically using proportional numbers rather than infinities, this could lead to new technologies (for example, spiritual power plants, spiritual bombs), just as when science became able to describe atomic nuclei mathematically, this led to new technologies (for example, nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs).

Just as energy consists of both particles (photons) and waves (electromagnetic waves) at the same time, so the basis for all energy, spirit, could consist of both particles (spiritons) and waves at the same time. If spirit is equivalent to consciousness, and consciousness consists of logic, emotion, and memory, then spiritual waves could consist of three different sine waves (logic waves, emotion waves, and memory waves) which could be interlocked at 60-degree angles, just as electromagnetism consists of two different sine waves (electric waves and magnetic waves) interlocked at a 90-degree angle. But by our current, strictly-physical-based mathematics, a spiritual wave or spiriton would show up in a calculation as an infinity, and so it could be mistakenly rejected by our current science as a "failure". It is possible that by creating a mathematics which involves five dimensions of space-time, the apparently infinite value of a spiritual wave or spiriton could be reduced to a proportional value.

String Theory has shown that it is mathematically possible that space-time has more than three spatial dimensions. Because of observations such as Daniel 5:5, John 20:26b, and Luke 24:31b, the spiritual realm could be a fourth spatial dimension in which spiritual entities are able to move about without being seen by physical entities in our three spatial dimensions. The spiritual dimension would be higher than our three dimensions in the same sense that a third dimension is higher than two dimensions. And so from the spiritual realm, our physical realm would appear flat, just as from three dimensions, something in two dimensions would appear flat. An entity with access to the spiritual dimension could do such things as enter only part of himself into our physical realm (Daniel 5:5), or suddenly appear in a locked room (John 20:26b), or suddenly disappear (Luke 24:31b). This ability would apply not only to spiritual beings (1 Corinthians 15:44, Luke 24:39), but also to any spiritual wave or particle.

If spiritual particles exist, they could turn out to be "the God Particle" of science. While the Large Hadron Collider has reached a high-enough energy level so that a "God Particle" (that is, a Higgs boson) has probably manifested itself, its observed qualities might ultimately to be able to be described only by equations involving infinite values, so that its qualities and actions could ultimately be seen as "impossible" and "spooky", instead of science finally admitting to the existence of a substance which is spiritual. And spirit would not have to be seen by scientists as some weird, foreign substance, but rather as the most fundamental substance of even their own selves (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

The really sad and dangerous thing is that even if science does eventually determine that "the God Particle" is a spiritual particle, which science could come to call the "spiriton", some scientists could still refuse to believe in and submit themselves to YHWH God, saying that the existence of spirit does not require that there is one infinite, conscious spirit-being called YHWH God (John 4:24, Mark 12:30, Deuteronomy 6:5). And in its subsequent experiments with spirit, science could come into contact with the evil spirit-being called Lucifer (Satan), who could manifest himself in some future, ultra-high-energy experiment and claim that he is the true, beneficent God of mankind and must be worshipped as God instead of YHWH. In this way, a nascent spiritual science could be hijacked and employed by Lucifer and his worshippers as one part of their future deception by which the world will eventually be deceived into worshipping Lucifer (the dragon) and his human son the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) as God (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36) instead of YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36).

The unity of mankind that will occur at that future time could be like the unity of mankind that occurred at the time of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6). And there could even be a future equivalent to the Tower of Babel, which could be built in the literal, rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq). For Lucifer could show mankind how to build there a huge tower device, a spiritual machine the size of the Empire State Building which will be able to send into the sky an incredibly powerful spiritual beam analogous to a laser. Near the end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24, Lucifer could tell mankind that it will need to employ this huge weapon during an impending battle against YHWH (Revelation 16:14b, Revelation 19:19). Mixing some science fiction with some ancient lies of Gnosticism, Lucifer could tell mankind something like:

"YHWH is now heading toward the earth in his gigantic spaceship which is shaped like a Borg Cube [compare Revelation 21:16]. He is coming to enslave you and turn you all into Borg-like automatons. But this mighty Tower Device will be able to blow his Borg Cube and him to bits with its spiritual ray. Then we can focus the Tower Device on any point of empty space until it burns in space-time a hole, a portal through which I will lead your spirits out of this vile material universe which YHWH made to be our prison. And I will lead you back up into the purely-spiritual realm of the Pleroma [that is, Heaven], where you can live as gods in bliss forever, doing as you please, just as you had done with me for all ages past, before we by mistake fell into YHWH's trap of this material universe".

Before Jesus' second coming, Lucifer could prove the power of the Tower Device to mankind by letting the Antichrist and his False Prophet use it to blow up some large asteroids and even some moons of other planets, so that mankind will go into its battle against YHWH in full confidence that it will be able to destroy him. But when the battle comes, the device will not work against YHWH (compare Psalms 21:11, KJV). Instead, Jesus Christ (who is YHWH: John 10:30, Zechariah 14:3-4) will take total victory in the battle (Revelation 19:11 to 20:6).

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

Belief in God and salvation has always been by faith and faith alone.

Initial salvation is by grace through faith without any works at all on our part (Rom. 4:1-5, Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). But other passages show that initially saved people must have both faith & continued works of faith (1 Thes. 1:3, Gal. 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law) if they're to obtain ultimate salvation (Rom. 2:6-8, Jas. 2:24, Mt. 7:21, 25:26,30, Philip. 2:12b, 3:11-14, 2 Cor. 5:9, Heb. 5:9, 6:10-12, 2 Pet. 1:10-11, Jn. 15:2a). For believers must actually continue to do righteous deeds if they're to continue to be righteous (1 Jn. 3:7, Jas. 2:24,26). And there's no assurance believers will choose to do that, instead of wrongly employing their free will to become utterly lazy without repentance, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Mt. 25:26,30, Jn. 15:2a).

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

However, if anyone ever wanted something as a shred, dot, crumb of truth of the existence of God. That invisible force one.

All four fundamental forces are invisible. But they are not the only evidence for God's existence. For people can know that God exists simply by seeing everything that exists (Rom. 1:20, Ps. 19:1-4). The universe couldn't have created itself from nothing by physics, because of the first law of thermodynamics. So something outside of physics had to have created the universe. The term spirit is used to refer to that which exists but is outside of physics. So what created the universe was a spirit (Jn. 4:24, 1:3). And there has to be an uncreated spirit, because nothing, not even a spirit, can create itself from nothing, for in order to create itself, it would have to already exist. The term divine can be used to refer to a conscious entity which exists but is uncreated. So the uncreated spirit who created the universe would be divine. So just by being able to see the universe, people have no excuse for denying the existence of a divine uncreated spirit (Rom. 1:20, Jn. 4:24, Ps. 19:1-4). And this spirit must have eternal power (Rom. 1:20), because the first law of thermodynamics requires the energy in the universe is eternal.

Because knowing God exists is the only reasonable response to seeing the existence of the universe (Rom. 1:20), when educated & intelligent people refuse to admit God exists, this is only because they're intentionally choosing to be unreasonable, choosing to be foolish, regarding God's existence, because of their human pride, their unthankfulness to God, & their desire to continue in sinful actions (Rom. 1:21-22, Ps. 14:1). But there's no salvation in simply believing God exists (Jas. 2:19). Believing in Jesus Christ, the human/divine Son of God, & his sacrifice on the Cross for our sins & his rising from the dead on the 3rd day, is the only way for people to have their sins forgiven so they can avoid having to go to hell when they die (Jn. 3:16,36, Rom. 3:25, 1 Cor. 15:1-4).

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 48:

The Bible is either true and true to the letter or it is fiction and we are all lost.

The Bible is true to the letter, and nothing in it requires that evolution or an old earth is false.

 

[Bible2]

asiyreh said in post 50:

Give us a brief outline maybe 10 to 20 lines on your version of creation and how God would act in this model.

He would act sometimes through instantaneous creation and sometimes through his created process of evolution. See post 42 for details.

 

[KrazyCanadian1962]

Ya know, I am of firm belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Truth and time tells all.

 

[asiyreh]

Glad you saw the error of your ways Krazy; there's very little point trying to argue with the theistic evolutionist. At least with a natural evolutionist, you can argue them into the corner. You can make the probability of their argument seem so impossible it cannot be reasonably faced.

I'm talking staggering odds, mind blowing, impossible for our most powerful computers to even calculate. Or for our most intelligent scientists to begin to imagine the variables and parameters needed for such a calculation. We couldn't even view the results in any sort of rational translation, much less believe that this infinitely unlikely series of propositions could be true.

Richard Dawkins calls this - the argument from incredulity and whao I can't even begin to tell you how incredulous it is! I find it extremely disturbing that apparently rational people can even believe in such a series of premises. If we only had but a half of the faith these people have, what a force the family of Christ would be.

Now as I say with a reasonable evolutionist you can load their arguments up with so much baggage it just collapses under the weight of itself. You could pick almost any point in the whole collection of models and theories that make up evolution and just show how it's at the very least extremely implausible.

But the theistic evolutionist will just unload and say yes well obviously God did that part...

It's soooo exhausting!

Can the creator create? Yes

Ok well then what's the problem? That's perfectly in line with all the evidence we find. An initial code that's on it's way downhill.

And by the way that's how spiritual energy manifests, that "S" you're seeking in your equation, always translates as "information," in this universe. I'm not sure it can be harnessed like energy, only learned. It is the code behind the matrix and the signature of "The Creator"

 

[KrazyCanadian1962]

Thank you Asiyreh for having my back. You are correct. The faith needed to be an evolutionist is staggering.

When Darwin fabricated his theory he was unaware of the staggering amount of information that is found in DNA and the components and systems necessary for every single cell to function.

He viewed them as a cell, just a cell.

Thanks again and God Bless

 

[Bible2]

KrazyCanadian1962 said in post 57:

The faith needed to be an evolutionist is staggering.

Once someone has the faith that God is the Creator of everything (John 1:3), it takes no more faith to believe that God is the Creator of evolution and the old earth.

 

[ConfuseddotCom]

Glad you saw the error of your ways Krazy; there's very little point trying to argue with the theistic evolutionist. At least with a natural evolutionist, you can argue them into the corner. You can make the probability of their argument seem so impossible it cannot be reasonably faced.

I'm talking staggering odds, mind blowing, impossible for our most powerful computers to even calculate. Or for our most intelligent scientists to begin to imagine the variables and parameters needed for such a calculation. We couldn't even view the results in any sort of rational translation, much less believe that this infinitely unlikely series of propositions could be true.

Richard Dawkins calls this - the argument from incredulity and whao I can't even begin to tell you how incredulous it is! I find it extremely disturbing that apparently rational people can even believe in such a series of premises. If we only had but a half of the faith these people have, what a force the family of Christ would be.

Now as I say with a reasonable evolutionist you can load their arguments up with so much baggage it just collapses under the weight of itself. You could pick almost any point in the whole collection of models and theories that make up evolution and just show how it's at the very least extremely implausible.

But the theistic evolutionist will just unload and say yes well obviously God did that part...

It's soooo exhausting!

Can the creator create? Yes

Ok well then what's the problem? That's perfectly in line with all the evidence we find. An initial code that's on it's way downhill.

And by the way that's how spiritual energy manifests, that "S" you're seeking in your equation, always translates as "information," in this universe. I'm not sure it can be harnessed like energy, only learned. It is the code behind the matrix and the signature of "The Creator"

Why would you want to argue with a fellow Christian?

And for that matter a non Christian, do you think arguing with someone is going to entice them to enquire further about Christianity?

 

[asiyreh]

Why would you want to argue with a fellow Christian?

And for that matter a non Christian, do you think arguing with someone is going to entice them to enquire further about Christianity?

More and more I realise this, and I'm not saying we shouldn't challenge falsehoods or those that would attempt to distort the truth of Christ.

But...

I once heard this story that increasing so towards the end of his life; the apostle John would say to his students in disputes about theological issues.

"Guys just love each other."