Suppose a Time Machine...

[TwinCrier]

Twincrier, it is not your lack of faith in science that disturbs me, since we should not have "faith" in science, only conditionally accept those conclusions of science which are well-supported and convincing (which you do in almost every other area, I would bet). What disturbs me is that you (and others, I see), actually seem to found your entire faith in Christ in a very particular interpretation of Genesis leading to a particular view of origins. Or, at least, I should say that this interpretation is one of the cornerstones of your faith in Christ (since it is likely only one of a group of beliefs the loss of which would cause the edifice to crumble). It is my sincere belief that the interpretation of Genesis and a viewpoint on origins should only be a single brick in that edifice, one that could be removed and replaced with another without any damage whatsoever to the whole.

It is this making of YEC'ism a cornerstone of faith which some of us believe is so dangerous, not the belief itself.

It really is as if someone in 1600 saying that if they could fly into space and see firsthand that the earth revolves around the sun, they would have to abandon Christianity.

Actually my cornerstone is the bible. If there is no Genesis, there is no Adam and therefore no Jesus. It's a chain reaction.

 

[gluadys]

Actually my cornerstone is the bible. If there is no Genesis, there is no Adam and therefore no Jesus. It's a chain reaction.

And that is what bothers me. Is it not Christ who was made head cornerstone? To place the bible in the place of Christ just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Vance]

And even if you did, why would you talk about their being "no Genesis"? You act as if a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is a conclusion that Genesis does not exist. Very odd.

 

[Remus]

I find this disturbing, but I appreciate your honesty. Do you realise that this decision would be based on one assumption - The creation periods mentioned in Genesis 1 can only refer to "days". If you are prepared to consider a different literal reading on this point, then I can explain evolution as a reasonable literal interpretation of Genesis. If you don't agree, please explain why not - I am happy to be proven wrong! It just worries me that you are betting too much on that one assumption.

Greetings United,

I don't have a lot of time to address everyone, but I wanted to pursue this a bit more. I would like to point out that the "day" problem is a gross simplification. Even if we took "day" to mean millions of years, we are still a long way from common decent by natural selection.

Either way, I'm prepared to consider anything, so feel free. However, for it to be convincing, your “interpretation” will have to have to have the following: a real Adam and Eve as the first humans, a flood of some sort that at least kills off all mankind except the eight, some sort of “creation” that is broken up into six stages in the order as they are listed in Genesis, and a way to trace Jesus’ lineage back to Adam. Of course, this would have to fit into ToE as it is commonly used. I could think of more, but I think you get the jest.

 

[Vance]

Wow, you seem to constrict to a very narrow scope the ways in which God can speak His messages to you.

 

[Remus]

If there is no Genesis, there is no Adam and therefore no Jesus. It's a chain reaction.

That pretty much sums it up. If the Genesis account were confined to only one portion of the Bible that’d be one thing. But we have references to it throughout the Bible that can’t be easily dismissed.

 

[Remus]

Wow, you seem to constrict to a very narrow scope the ways in which God can speak His messages to you.

How so?

 

[xsynerinc]

my thought is.. on this time machine.. if the atheist goes back to what he thinks is the begining of everything in the primordial soup of time..

but it actually takes him to pre-creation, somewhere in the mind of God, to witness as God is making all of His "before the foundation of the world" provisions for mankind.

then hes whoooshed back to the time, moments after he "just left".

would he believe?
or
would he figure that he must of fallen asleep and dreamt the whole thing.. then utter some profanity and add.. "nothing i ever do turns out right". and proceeds to get a heavy object and spew further profanities as he beats the machine to shambles.

in other words.. he'd still not believe.

---

but if i had gotten into the time machine and found myself in some open countryside with some dinosaurs in the background.. i'd figure that i was in that time between Gen.1:1 and 1:2.. or whatever time before the flood that they were killed.

and i'd start looking for Noah.

in other words.. i'd still believe in God.

 

[Vance]

How so?

You seem to be saying that if God does not convey what He wants to tell us about His creative process in the form of literal history, then you can not accept it as having any value. I can see only two possible scenarios for your position:

1. "if I found out that God was speaking to me in Genesis 1 and 2 using non-literal, allegorical or symbolic language and structures, I would not accept that and would instead abandon Christianity."

or

2. "God can ONLY have written Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history, so if I found out that it was NOT literal history, I would know it was not of God and would abandon Christianity."

Either way, you are restricting how God can speak to you. You are either saying that God CAN'T have written it any other way, or that if He did, you are not going to accept it. Either way, it seems a bit presumptuous.

 

[Remus]

I see. Let's try this a different way. I listed four things that were required. Do you know why I choose those four?

 

[Vance]

I would assume because these aspects of Genesis 1 and 2 are referred to elsewhere in Scripture. But this doesn't have any impact on the literalness at all since there is no problem, culturally or in literary style, for Biblical writers to make such references to non-literal events. With our modern mindsets, our drawing bright-line distinctions between literal historicity and legendary events, we have a hard time getting our minds around such easy ability to reference a non-literal past in that way. But for the ancient mind, it was not a problem at all.

 

[Remus]

And for some reason I remain unconvinced.

 

[TheBear]

Hypothetically and ridiculously speaking... suppose one day we created a one use time machine. And since we all know all atheistic scientists are in cahoots (sp?) w/ each other , they immediately decide they're gonna use the machine's one use policy to determine whether the theory of common descent is really true or not. Whammo bammo, they travel through time a while and find out that it was.

Now knowing, beyond a doubt, that evolution and the theory of common descent are true, would you guys alter your all's interpretations of Christianity and the Bible or abandon it all together?

This is a question for creationists by the way.

Or, for the sake of equality, the same time travel produces evidence of God's creation.

We can use these [time-travel machines] for any position on anything. These [time-travel machines] are nothing more than our own personal views and prejudices.

 

[Singing Bush]

Or, for the sake of equality, the same time travel produces evidence of God's creation.

We can use these [time-travel machines] for any position on anything. These [time-travel machines] are nothing more than our own personal views and prejudices.

No offense man, but I think you seriously missed the point. It was a hypothetical question. A "what if" question. If, as you say, the same time travel produces evidence of God's creation I'd drop common descent in a heart beat.

The purpose was to see how creationists would react if reality turned out to be different than they had believed. Not to use it as some sort of cockamamy evidence for common descent.

 

[TheBear]

No offense man, but I think you seriously missed the point. It was a hypothetical question. A "what if" question. If, as you say, the same time travel produces evidence of God's creation I'd drop common descent in a heart beat.

The purpose was to see how creationists would react if reality turned out to be different than they had believed. Not to use it as some sort of cockamamy evidence for common descent.

Oh, I got the gist of it.

And, you're right. It does boil down to a 'what if' scenareos. I was just posing other 'what if' alternatives. 'What if' = make-believe. Make-believe is fun and creative, but it's not reality.

 

[Dracil]

Or, for the sake of equality, the same time travel produces evidence of God's creation.

I don't see the difference.

 

[TheBear]

I don't see the difference.

There isn't any.

 

[Singing Bush]

Oh, I got the gist of it.

And, you're right. It does boil down to a 'what if' scenareos. I was just posing other 'what if' alternatives. 'What if' = make-believe. Make-believe is fun and creative, but it's not reality.

True, but now I am confused as to what exactly the point of your post was. Was it simply to make that point? Sorry if that sounds rude, but I am just confused.

 

[United]

Greetings United,

I don't have a lot of time to address everyone, but I wanted to pursue this a bit more. I would like to point out that the "day" problem is a gross simplification. Even if we took "day" to mean millions of years, we are still a long way from common decent by natural selection.

Either way, I'm prepared to consider anything, so feel free. However, for it to be convincing, your “interpretation” will have to have to have the following: a real Adam and Eve as the first humans, a flood of some sort that at least kills off all mankind except the eight, some sort of “creation” that is broken up into six stages in the order as they are listed in Genesis, and a way to trace Jesus’ lineage back to Adam. Of course, this would have to fit into ToE as it is commonly used. I could think of more, but I think you get the jest.

Hi Remus,

I am happy to go through your items - but I can't go through all of them just now (just finished a 14hr work day & I am feeling pretty stuffed!). So for starters:

1. Evolution/Creation of Plants and Animals
Genesis 1 does not specify whether plants or animals were created or evolved. There are references to God making them "according to their kind", but it does not say that they shall "reproduce according to their kind". This is certainly not the "plainest reading" of the text for those who take this approach. Where the bible uses the terms "created" or "made" I see no reason why the method could not be evolution. I personally have major doubts about the ability of natural selection as the mechanism (for scientific reasons not theological), but in any case God could have directed it as he sees fit with the method he chooses. Therefore, I believe the evolution of plants and animals fits within the Genesis framework.

2. Evolution/Creation of Man
Parallel to the evolution of the animals, God may have chosen one species to develop into prehistoric man. At some point in time (likely to be within 10,000 - 60,000) years ago God decided to create man as we know him (with a soul and an eternal being - separate & distinct from the animals) and let prehistoric man die out. Now Genesis clearly refers to God creating man from dust. This could be understood in the evolutionary context in one of three ways:

a) God used the dead body of prehistoric man to create Adam (complete with an eternal soul). God clearly says to Adam that "... to dust he will return" after Adam sinned. If God considers a dead body to be dust, then I personally have no problems with him creating man in this way.
b) God made man (with the traditional literal meaning) based on a previous design of prehistoric man which he had perfected over the ages (perhaps using the DNA of prehistoric man).
c) The text refers in general terms to the evolution of man over the ages culminating in Adam. Obviously this is the furthest away from the "plain literal" reading, but I still consider it to be a (some would say loose) literal interpretation.

There is much more I could add, but it is time for bed. Just one point though - I certainly don't know everything & I am not trying to force any view upon anyone. I am not here to debate for the sake of it, but am keen to have a fruitful discussion if you want to talk more.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Actually, I don't see how the experiment would prove evolution correct, anyway. What could you do with a one-time use time machine that would do that? You would just be going back and looking at a single moment in time- roughly the same thing as observing the fossil record, only with more material. While a photo of O. Tugenensis would be the coolest thing ever, I imagine YECs would respond to it much the same way they do to the evidence that is already found.