Theistic Evolution vs. creationism

[TwinCrier]

Are you saying that Tim, by being respectful and refusing to hurl insults and attack people's faith is just being "politically correct"? Or could it be that he is simply being more respectful?

Nice spin. Has not a thing to do with anything I said of course. You be a journalist by trade instead of a PC commando.

 

[Vance]

Well, it sure sounded like exactly what you said. I point out that Tim does a very good job of being respectful even in disagreement, unlike other YEC's, and you respond that you don't feel the need to be politically correct. But, regardless, I guess the question is why you are not more like Tim?

 

[Non-ape Jase]

Yes, Jase, perhaps a better word could have been used here. But by your own argument, you seem to think that every scientist who accepts evolution (and this includes thousands of Christians) is misled,

Yes I am.

and trying to deceive you.

They're all out to get me

All these Christian evolutionists believe in the Bible as much as any other Christian.

Most of it. Just not about the 6 days of creation/The Flood.

Not two paragraphs after this comment, you accuse artybloke of letting 'secular' influences 'cloud' his faith.

No, I did not. Please quote me correctly. Swap 'faith' for 'understanding of God's Word'.

Is this not an attack on his faith?

No, I rebuked a brother.

Indeed, he probably would quote Genesis. But none of us here denies Genesis. We just have different understanding of it. Adam and Eve, the serpent and the Tree of Life, the Flood and the Garden of Eden mean as much to me as they do to any other Christian, even though I have a different opinion of what they mean than others.

It not only clearly says 'days', but it describes days passing (evenings and mornings).

If you want a certain understanding of the Bible, thats fine . But don't get upset if people don't have the same understanding as you,

Who's getting upset? There are no clenched fists and fits of rage of my end of the screen.

and don't imply that people who don't follow your understanding are in some way less Christian than you.

Where did I say that? You can read in implications till the cows come home. I can't do anything about that. But I am quite aware of how a soul is saved, thank you.

No; he is telling you not to be so judgmental. You are raising your interpretation of the Bible above everyone elses, and saying that by denying your interpretation we are opposing God! This is a blatant attack on fellow Christians; is it a sin to stand up against this?

How does one rebuke another brother and sister then?

But what makes you so sure that your 'teaching' is not false? Because the Bible says so? Well actually, your interpretation of the Bible says so. They are not the same Jase.

Oh, I am very sure. I just checked it again to make sure. I read the creation and flood accounts with the same assurance as the accounts of Jesus.

You seem to be suggesting that the 'plain' reading is the best. But the Bible is not plain. It is God's word. It is holy. It is to be studied, contemplated. You seem to be led to believe that literalism is the only way to read the Bible.

Even the humblest peasant should be able to understand God's Word, and not have to rely on some pseudo-science mumbo jumbo to defend it! That is the way God worked throughout the Bible, by raising up humble people or outcasts to demonstrate to us.

But one must ask why there are over a billion Christians who don't accept young-earth creationism if theistic evolution was anti-Biblical.

Where did you get that figure from? I'd like to look at that myself. Your figures increased dramitically from the beginning of your post.

Now I'm not a Catholic, but I think that if the Pope is an evolutionist, then surely it can't contradict the Bible!

Come off it! I thought only the Catholic Church thought its Popes were infalliable.

Because AiG's very existance is not based around upholding Biblical authority.

Yes it is. If it wasn't, I certainly wouldn't be a subscriber. Read their mission statement.

It is about upholding extremely poor science, based on lies and misinformation about evolution.

Have you actually read what the qualifications of its staff and contributors are?

If AiG understood evolution, they would not make the claims they do. If AiG was about the Bible, then they would not need scientists to try and prove that the Earth is young, they would simply make their point, show some Bible verses, and Christians who had faith would believe them.

I'm beginning to wonder if you have actually read any of its publications. What's wrong with putting forward some alternate theories that are not only scientifically sound but fit within a Biblical framework? And yes, they do quote Bible verses.

The fact is secular means it has room for God! Secular is not the same as atheistic...

'Secular' can mean 'worldy rather than spiritual', so it fits in my context.

Yes, some do. But does that make it wrong? Many use the Bible's conservative stance onf homosexuality as an excuse for not believing in God. Does this make this stance wrong? I would say no. Many use the Bible's stance on woman teachers as an excuse for not believing in God. Does this make this stance wrong?

I agree.

There are many excuses for not believing in God. But it has nothing to do with actually evolutionary teaching.

It can and does, as I have witnessed it.

People only believe that evolution contradicts the Bible (their only excuse) because people tell them it does. Are not your accusations about the un-Biblical nature of evolution doing exactly this?

I am sorry, but I don't understand your point, and I did not want it seem that I avoided it.

...God is an unproven theory.

I'm sorry, but that statement is obsolute rubbish.

If the Bible told you that the Earth was created last Tuesday, would you believe it?

I reject this question. It is impossible for me or anybody else to answer.

The whole point is, God cannot be proven.

That is just not true. God himself said that his creation is proof of himself. (Sorry, can't think of the verse). What about Moses, Noah, Abraham, the disciples and Paul (to name a few) and their encounters with Him?

The Bible cannot be proven. We believe in God because we have faith.

Yes, and faith is a gift from God.

Is it really faith if you rely on scientific evidence to back up your interpretation?

God can can, and has, used it to help lead the way to him.

Can you not just accept that God made the Earth 6000 years ago without relying on 'scientific' arguments put forward by AiG,

I can and do. I am passionate about Bible authority, and Genesis is one of the most attacked areas. I support AiG because we believe the same thing. But I certainly don't rely on them.

not one of which has not been thoroughly (and repeatedly) disproven by mainstream scientists?

Secular/mainstream scientists are as biased as you and I. Not to mention falliable human beings. And yours is a pretty broad statement.

Jase, if you think the Earth is young because the Bible says so, BELIEVE IT!

It's too late, I already do.

science does not accept your theory. Most Christians don't accept your theory.

Science is an endevour to understand a fallen world by falliable beings. It is not perfect. A theory held by most is not always the correct one.

Nothing you, your pastor, or AiG - any other creation research institute for that matter - say or do will change that, whether you like it or not. We believe by faith, or proof.

I do like it.

This may sound heinous to you, but we shouldn't accept or reject the world around us because of the Bible. We should accept or reject the Bible because of the world around us, because if the world in anyway contradicts what is written in the Bible, then it cannot be the truth.

Yes it does sound heinous to me. I am going to rebuke you. The Bible should be your foundation, not the world. What you have stated here is a complete contradiction to Biblical teaching.

Yes, it is possible that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. But science cannot prove this.

There is evidence for a young earth. But I don't need science.

Are you going to accept that God created 6000 years ago, and trust God by faith?

My word I am.

Or are you going to try and prove your beliefs by spreading misinformation about other peoples faith

I could say the same thing to you, but I won't. When one camp is preaching exactly what the Bible says, perhaps it is the other camp who is spreading misinformation. You have a lot of strange ideas about what the Bible says, and not just on creation issues.

just so you can feel justified in yours?

God supplies all the justification I need. I'm just standing up for Biblical authority. I am not trying to convince people for my own glory.

Jase, God is about faith. Faith is not faith, if to defend it, you need to defend AiG:

What does my faith have to do with AiG???? I subscribe to their magazines and read some of their other publications and believe in their stance on Biblical authority. Supporting them does nothing for my faith. They are separate.

why is AiG right,

Because their teachings are Biblically sound.

not someone else?

Who?

Believe, because you trust God - if you really trust God, then you would have no use for creation science.

I have commended my life into God's arms, but I can still have an interest in creation science. Who do you think gave me that interest? God has taught me so much through it.

Bless you.

 

[Vance]

But, Jase, we are ALL standing up for Biblical authority. Some of us just happen to think it says something different than you or AiG do, and something which happens to match up with what God's Creation itself is telling us. I, personally, came to the conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be read figuratively before I knew anything about the science and was still a YEC. Then, when I reviewed the science, it was pretty obvious.

The problem with AiG is that they are not doing science, they are doing apologetics. They are not reviewing all the evidence from God's Creation and then coming to a conclusion based on what the totality of that evidence says. No, they admit right up front that they started with the conclusions, based on their reading of Scripture, what must have happened, and they are just looking for evidence and arguments to support that conclusion.

That is not sound science in the least.

 

[The thinker]

wow.. this debate has really heated up from its humble beginnings

I didn't know people felt so strongly about origins of life.

 

[Vance]

wow.. this debate has really heated up from its humble beginnings

I didn't know people felt so strongly about origins of life.

You are right, we shouldn't feel so strongly about this issue, and I can assure you that most TE's would NOT be as "invested" in this debate if it was not made such a major issue by the various YEC ministries, and what they have wrought. You can get a better feel for why this has become an important issue in the last 30 years or so here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1159227-why-i-post-or-yes-you-can-be-a-christian-and-accept-evolution.html

 

[herev]

But, Jase, we are ALL standing up for Biblical authority.

amen, we TEs do not in any way shape or form deny biblical authority, I don't know why that is so hard to understand and why it is so hard to understand why this is why we are so touchy--people make these accusations against us all the time-and then say that they are merely defending the Bible (as if we were attcking it or denying it or somehow not taking it seriously)

 

[gluadys]

All these Christian evolutionists believe in the Bible as much as any other Christian.

Most of it. Just not about the 6 days of creation/The Flood.

Actually Christian evolutionists do believe the 6 days of creation/The Flood. We just believe it differently than you do.

How does one rebuke another brother and sister then?

With love to begin with. And you might start by asking questions to ascertain what they really believe before getting accusatory. You could express your concern instead of just saying "You're wrong!"

I'm beginning to wonder if you have actually read any of its publications. What's wrong with putting forward some alternate theories that are not only scientifically sound but fit within a Biblical framework?

Nothing. However, that is not what AiG does.

...God is an unproven theory.

I'm sorry, but that statement is obsolute rubbish.

It is a fact. Furthermore, according to the bible, God considers it very important that we come to him by faith, not because we think we have any proven knowledge of his existence.

The whole point is, God cannot be proven.

That is just not true. God himself said that his creation is proof of himself. (Sorry, can't think of the verse). What about Moses, Noah, Abraham, the disciples and Paul (to name a few) and their encounters with Him?

No, God did not say that, nor did any authors of the bible. There are several verses you could be referring to. One is Psalm 19:1-3. Another is Romans 1:19-20. The latter is stronger.

But neither speaks of proving God's existence. Both speak of creation testifying to or presenting evidence of God and God's glory. Testimony is not proof. It is a person (or in this case, nature) saying "Here is what I know or believe." It takes faith in the person presenting the testimony in order to believe it. So a testimony is not proof.

In Romans, Paul uses a stronger word "evidence". Evidence comes much closer to proof than testimony. The implications of evidence may be so clear only a dunderhead would not accept it. Though some still say "I don't find it convincing." (We see plenty of that from creationists presented with clear evidence of evolution.) Nevertheless, scientists will still tell you that evidence, even very strong evidence, is not 100% proof. Because there is always a possibility that new evidence will change the picture.

Paul calls those who reject God in spite of the evidence of creation "fools" who have allowed their understanding to be darkened. I think we would all agree with him on this point. But it is still the case that the existence of God must be inferred from the evidence. The evidence is not absolute proof.

Yes it does sound heinous to me. I am going to rebuke you. The Bible should be your foundation, not the world. What you have stated here is a complete contradiction to Biblical teaching.

The bible is a gift from God--but it comes from human authors. The world of nature comes from God's own hand. There is no reason it should take second place to the bible as we seek to know God.

And the only foundation for our faith is neither the bible nor the world, but Jesus Christ.

Yes, it is possible that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. But science cannot prove this.

There is evidence for a young earth. But I don't need science.

No, there is not evidence for a young earth. So it is a good thing you don't need science.

God supplies all the justification I need. I'm just standing up for Biblical authority. I am not trying to convince people for my own glory.

But why do you feel called to stand up for biblical authority among brothers and sisters in Christ who already uphold biblical authority?

Just because we interpret scripture differently, does not mean we reject its authority.

 

[Alchemist]

Hi Jase,

This will be my last post on this thread, but please feel free to PM if you wish.

Yes, Jase, perhaps a better word could have been used here. But by your own argument, you seem to think that every scientist who accepts evolution (and this includes thousands of Christians) is misled,

Yes I am.

and trying to deceive you.

They're all out to get me [/QUOTE=Non-ape Jase]

I cannot accept that if the truth was so obvious, many people would not know the truth. I also cannot accept that if a young-earth is the truth, there would be any contradictory evidence (i.e the overwhelming evidence for an old Earth and biological evolution).

All these Christian evolutionists believe in the Bible as much as any other Christian.

Most of it. Just not about the 6 days of creation/The Flood.

As gluadys points out, we believe in the Bible. However, we do not think that God intended the creation account as literal history, but as a story to demonstrate key principles about creation, i.e. God did it (it wasn't a fluke), He did it all (not with the help other gods), He gave humans a spirit and gave us guardianship of it (we have a purpose).

As for the Flood, there is enough evidence by the Bible alone to suggest that the Flood was local, not global. You might not agree, but take a look here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Not two paragraphs after this comment, you accuse artybloke of letting 'secular' influences 'cloud' his faith.

No, I did not. Please quote me correctly. Swap 'faith' for 'understanding of God's Word'.

Is this not an attack on his faith?

No, I rebuked a brother.

If you want a certain understanding of the Bible, thats fine . But don't get upset if people don't have the same understanding as you,

Who's getting upset? There are no clenched fists and fits of rage of my end of the screen.

and don't imply that people who don't follow your understanding are in some way less Christian than you.

Where did I say that? You can read in implications till the cows come home. I can't do anything about that. But I am quite aware of how a soul is saved, thank you.

No; he is telling you not to be so judgmental. You are raising your interpretation of the Bible above everyone elses, and saying that by denying your interpretation we are opposing God! This is a blatant attack on fellow Christians; is it a sin to stand up against this?

How does one rebuke another brother and sister then?

But what makes you so sure that your 'teaching' is not false? Because the Bible says so? Well actually, your interpretation of the Bible says so. They are not the same Jase.

Oh, I am very sure. I just checked it again to make sure. I read the creation and flood accounts with the same assurance as the accounts of Jesus.

You seem to be suggesting that the 'plain' reading is the best. But the Bible is not plain. It is God's word. It is holy. It is to be studied, contemplated. You seem to be led to believe that literalism is the only way to read the Bible.

Even the humblest peasant should be able to understand God's Word, and not have to rely on some pseudo-science mumbo jumbo to defend it! That is the way God worked throughout the Bible, by raising up humble people or outcasts to demonstrate to us.

Jase, I apologise if I have seemed heated in this discussion. I just cannot accept, when considering theological, historical, and scientific evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is right. But this isn't the point; I don't want you to stop believing what you do. The point is that you are unwilling to accept that the theistic evolutionist's perspective could be right, and this is what me and every other evolutionist on this board wants. I know very well that I could be wrong; maybe evolution is a scam and the Christian world has been misled. Perhaps the flood was global and God just did it all. I can accept this. My question to you is, are you willing to accept that just maybe God did create the world via evolution, and that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect?

But one must ask why there are over a billion Christians who don't accept young-earth creationism if theistic evolution was anti-Biblical.

Where did you get that figure from? I'd like to look at that myself. Your figures increased dramitically from the beginning of your post.

Now I'm not a Catholic, but I think that if the Pope is an evolutionist, then surely it can't contradict the Bible!

Come off it! I thought only the Catholic Church thought its Popes were infalliable.

When I mentioned 'thousands of Christians' at the start of my post, I was referring to the number of Christian scientists in America (~45% of American scientists are Christian). 'over a billion Christians' refers to the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and Anglican Church (including Episcopalians) who make up well over a billion believers worldwide, and as a whole accept - at least, do not reject - scientific dates for the age of the universe, and as a consequence, do not subscribe to YEC teachings.

Whether you belong to one of these churches (I suspect you don't), I cannot accept that over one billion people (and well over 50% of the world's Christian population) would accept evolution, if it was so anti-Biblical. I personally don't think that the Pope is infallible; I was raised a Protestant, and currently I'm an inquirer in the Orthodox Church - both reject papal infallibility. But this aside, I still think he is right on this one.

Why? Because You don't seem to think evolution is a complex doctrinal issue. Denominations don't form because of flatly obvious things (such as 'God exists'). Denominations form due to disagreements over complicated matters of doctrine, with opinions on both sides formed from in-depth Biblical studies and philosophical thinking. This is different to your opinion on evolution; you seem to think that evolution flatly contradicts the Bible, and there is no room for interpretation, and not one piece of contradictory Biblical evidence.

This is why I use the Pope, as a well-known, and obviously Christian man. I do not think he is infallible, or and I am not sure if his doctrine is right - in fact, I posit it is not. But I suspect he of all people - a devout man, raised by Christian teachers in Biblical studies, devoting his life to celibacy for God as a priest, bishop and then Pope - would realise if evolution was so glaringly anti-Biblical as you make out!

Because AiG's very existance is not based around upholding Biblical authority.

Yes it is. If it wasn't, I certainly wouldn't be a subscriber. Read their mission statement.

Ok, here is their statement:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.
We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible.
We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a ‘millions of years old’ earth (and even older universe).
​

This is fine, except for several problems:

• Evolutionists do not attack Genesis, or any book of the Bible.
• Evolution is not scientifically bankrupt, creation science is.
• The concept of an old Earth was around long before evolution; most early Christians held to day-age creationism (that is, that the days of Genesis were 1000 years).
• As an old earth would be true without evolution, evolution is true without an old earth; the two are not reliant.

This leads to more problems:

• AiG does not defend Christian faith - it leads non-Christians to think that Christians are liars, not to mention intellectually bankrupt, it leads YEC Christians to place their faith in false scientific arguments, and it does nothing to defend the faith of the majority of Christians (and Jews for that matter) who do not think science poses a threat to their holy Book.
• It hinders evangelism, by spreading misinformation that could easily be exposed by any skeptic in less than a minute on Google.
• It spreads misconceptions about evolution (e.g. it is atheistic, it states God did nothing, it disproves the Bible) that lead to a dangerous them-or-us theology, which leads many to atheism when they do the aforementioned search on Google and discover the truth about what science actually says.

Jase, AiG doesn't uphold the Bible. It exclusively upholds one interpretation of the Bible, preaching that other interpretations are wrong (who made them infallible?!) and causing sometimes irrepairable damage to other's faith. This might be hard for you to understand, but it has happened numerous times. Of course, I suspect you hold to the Calvinist doctrine that salvation can never be lost, and those Christians who lose faith never really were saved anyway. I don't want to go there, but keep in mind that you might be wrong about that one too...

It is about upholding extremely poor science, based on lies and misinformation about evolution.

Have you actually read what the qualifications of its staff and contributors are?

Jase, you have already implied on this thread that qualifications are not important; if you thought they were you'd listen to the qualifications of the >99.9% of scientists who accept evolution.

If AiG understood evolution, they would not make the claims they do. If AiG was about the Bible, then they would not need scientists to try and prove that the Earth is young, they would simply make their point, show some Bible verses, and Christians who had faith would believe them.

I'm beginning to wonder if you have actually read any of its publications. What's wrong with putting forward some alternate theories that are not only scientifically sound but fit within a Biblical framework? And yes, they do quote Bible verses.

I have read publications from AiG, and similar creation 'science' institutes. The problem is, a) they are not scientifically sound; b) they don't fit within a thoughtful and educated Biblical framework; c) they quote Bible verses out of context.

 

[Alchemist]

The fact is secular means it has room for God! Secular is not the same as atheistic...

'Secular' can mean 'worldy rather than spiritual', so it fits in my context.

But didn't God created the world?

Yes, some do. But does that make it wrong? Many use the Bible's conservative stance onf homosexuality as an excuse for not believing in God. Does this make this stance wrong? I would say no. Many use the Bible's stance on woman teachers as an excuse for not believing in God. Does this make this stance wrong?

I agree.

Then why is this an excuse for evolution being incorrect?

There are many excuses for not believing in God. But it has nothing to do with actually evolutionary teaching.

It can and does, as I have witnessed it.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough; this is what my next post referred to:

People only believe that evolution contradicts the Bible (their only excuse) because people tell them it does. Are not your accusations about the un-Biblical nature of evolution doing exactly this?

You blame people's crises of faith on evolution. I blame it on YEC organisations like AiG, for telling young Christians that evolution is contradictory to the Bible. If AiG stopped doing this (I believe the fact that over half of all Christians don't have any problems with evolution gives testimony to the nature of this claim) then less Christians would think evolution contradicted God, so less Christians would, when hearing about evolution, find their faith in an absolute mess and become atheists. I know that if people had been honest to me about evolution and how one could be an evolutionist and a Christian at the same time, then I would not have almost abandoned my faith over something as trivial as biology, and I know for a fact that most others wouldn't have either.

...God is an unproven theory.

I'm sorry, but that statement is obsolute rubbish.

No it is not. You can't prove God exists; if you could, God would be an established fact. You have had experiences that make you believe that God exists, as I have. But this in no way proves God. That is faith is, a belief in things unseen.

If the Bible told you that the Earth was created last Tuesday, would you believe it?

I reject this question. It is impossible for me or anybody else to answer.

And it is impossible for you to prove God created the world 6000 years ago, as it is impossible for you to prove God exists. For all you know, God created the world last Tuesday, and put everything you remember about your past in your memory on creation, so that you thought the world had been around for years. Whether you like it or not, there is no way to prove this. You believe this is false because of your observations of the world, and common sense: if the world looks like its older than last Tuesday, it must be. This is exactly what evolutionists believe: the world looks older than 6000 years, hence it must be. To accuse evolutionists of being 'worldly', because they use observations of the world, along with a helping of good old common sense, is hypocritical in my eyes.

God himself said that his creation is proof of himself. (Sorry, can't think of the verse). What about Moses, Noah, Abraham, the disciples and Paul (to name a few) and their encounters with Him?

Yes, creation is proof of God. So why does creation look like something completely different than what you think it is? Either God created the world in a way that has deceived billions of people (something rather unbecoming of a loving deity, I would think) or we aren't deceived and God created the world the way we think He did. Problem is, you, AiG, and every other anti-evolutionist are telling everyone that the 2nd one isn't an option, so I guess that opens up a third option for those who can't accept the first...

Is it really faith if you rely on scientific evidence to back up your interpretation?

God can can, and has, used it to help lead the way to him.

So why can't theistic evolutionists use scientific evidence to back up our interpretation?

Can you not just accept that God made the Earth 6000 years ago without relying on 'scientific' arguments put forward by AiG,

I can and do. I am passionate about Bible authority, and Genesis is one of the most attacked areas. I support AiG because we believe the same thing. But I certainly don't rely on them.

You just said that God used AiG's findings to strengthen your faith...

not one of which has not been thoroughly (and repeatedly) disproven by mainstream scientists?

Secular/mainstream scientists are as biased as you and I. Not to mention falliable human beings. And yours is a pretty broad statement.

Perhaps some are. Are you saying that AiG are not fallible human beings? If so, why are their findings somehow better than every other scientist's? And for your information, Darwin was a Christian, and thought that God created the world via evolutionary processes. Lemaitre, who came up with Big Bang theory, was a devout Christian, and Belgian priest. I don't think they were attempting to disprove God...

Jase, if you think the Earth is young because the Bible says so, BELIEVE IT!

It's too late, I already do.

Then stop supporting organisations that tell people that the Earth is young because science 'proves' it (like AiG), and start telling people that the Earth is young because you have faith in an Almighty Creator who is much more powerful and knowledgable than any scientist can ever be. If the people at AiG truly had faith, they wouldn't need science.

science does not accept your theory. Most Christians don't accept your theory.

Science is an endevour to understand a fallen world by falliable beings. It is not perfect. A theory held by most is not always the correct one.

Yes, it is a fallen world, by fallible beings. It is not perfect. But the popular theories are not held because their followers are more fallible than those who do not; evolution is not accepted because it is the most fallible interpretation, so the world likes it because they are blind with sin. The world accepts evolution because it is the best interpretation that any group of fallible people can have, with the most evidence, and no contradictory evidence.

Nothing you, your pastor, or AiG - any other creation research institute for that matter - say or do will change that, whether you like it or not. We believe by faith, or proof.

I do like it.

Thanks .

This may sound heinous to you, but we shouldn't accept or reject the world around us because of the Bible. We should accept or reject the Bible because of the world around us, because if the world in anyway contradicts what is written in the Bible, then it cannot be the truth.

Yes it does sound heinous to me. I am going to rebuke you. The Bible should be your foundation, not the world. What you have stated here is a complete contradiction to Biblical teaching.

I'm sorry Jase, but I stand by my statement. To answer my own question above, if the Bible said the world was created last Tuesday, no, I probably would not accept it. This is because it would contradict science, history, and common sense. I cannot place my faith in a book that uses absurd logic, has no historical backing, and makes ill-informed statements about the world. That the Bible has no contradictory evidence is the reason I believe in the Bible, and through the Bible, God. I do not think this is unreasonable. How can a book be from God if it contradicts the world that God created? Would He deceive us in such a way?

Why am I not a Muslim? Because the Bible contradicts Islam? No. I'm not a Muslim because the Qu'ran makes what I see as misinformed and inaccurate statements about Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the role of Mary. As such, I believe the Qu'ran is not divinely inspired.

Why am I not a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints? Because the Bible contradicts their teachings? Well, orthodox Christian doctrine does, but the LDS do not reject the Bible, and have alternate interpretations to justify their doctrine. No, I'm not LDS because the so-called archaeological 'evidence' that this movement have to 'prove' the Book of Mormon is unreliable, and proved by secular historians to be nonsense. As such, I don't think J. Smith was inspired by God, and hence, I'm am not LDS.

So, why am I a Christian? Because the Bible says so? Of course not; it is ridiculous to accept a book based on the religion which teaches its authority. Why isn't the Qu'ran true because a Muslim says so? Why isn't the Book of Mormon true because a follower of the Church of LDS says so? For that matter, why isn't the New Testament false because the Jews say so, why aren't the ancient Vedic scriptures authoritative because Hindus say so? This line of reasoning makes no sense.

I am Christian, because the Bible is not contradicted by anything that secular history, science or any other investigation into the way the world is says. It is for this reason I think the Bible is authoritative. I cannot accept the fact that the Bible is true because the Bible says so; this is, in my opinion, no better than any other religious person saying their respective religion is the truth. I am a Christian, because nothing contradicts my faith, and so my faith is justified. I do not have to throw my brain out the window. I do not have to believe preposturous statements about alternate world histories, trail-of-blood stories, or Church conspiracies. I don't have to believe in a god that abandoned the world for thousands of years before giving them the 'true' holy book. Likewise, I don't have to believe in a god that created the world to look billions of years older than it actually is, deceiving billions of people.

I can have an intellectual, rational, and spiritual faith, upon a rock which will not be swept away; and love the God will all of my heart, soul, strength and mind, as Christ Himself told us to do.

Yes, it is possible that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. But science cannot prove this.

There is evidence for a young earth. But I don't need science.

Well, where is your evidence? The Bible? I've already told you most people don't think that Bible teaches a young earth, why should I believe you over them?

Are you going to accept that God created 6000 years ago, and trust God by faith?

My word I am.

Or are you going to try and prove your beliefs by spreading misinformation about other peoples faith

I could say the same thing to you, but I won't. When one camp is preaching exactly what the Bible says, perhaps it is the other camp who is spreading misinformation. You have a lot of strange ideas about what the Bible says, and not just on creation issues.

As I point out above, it is only through observations of the world that we even know the Bible is true anyway. If the Bible cannot contradict the world; either the earth is old and the Bible says it is, or the earth is old and the Bible lied. The only other option is that the Bible says the earth is young, it is, and there is no evidence for it. I'm sorry, but if 'your camp' thinks that evolution is atheistic, then that is misinformation. If 'your camp' thinks that there is scientific evidence for a young-earth, then that is misinformation. If 'your camp' thinks that there is no evidence for evolution or an ancient universe, then that is misinformation. Everytime this misinformation is spread, you damage the Bible's authority and you damage Christianity, whether you realise it or not. "What fellowship has light with darkness?" Paul writes, and I agree. What fellowship has Christianity with a group of people who spread lies about what evolution says, and what theistic evolutionists believe?

Why is AiG right,

Because their teachings are Biblically sound.

Most Christian and Jewish theologians would disagree with you.

Believe, because you trust God - if you really trust God, then you would have no use for creation science.

I have commended my life into God's arms, but I can still have an interest in creation science. Who do you think gave me that interest? God has taught me so much through it.

I think that God has taught me much through my experiences as well.

Bless you.

Thank you Jase, may you also be blessed. I'm sorry if I have seemed violent on this board, it was not my intention. I just want to let my perspective be known, and defend my Christian brethren who accept, as I do, evolution as a means for Creation. Accept my apologies if I have accused you of spite; we all fall short of the glory of God.

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[California Tim]

I, personally, came to the conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be read figuratively before I knew anything about the science and was still a YEC.

Here we go. Finally we can center a discussion on the intended interpretation within the confines of the Bible itself. What led you to the conclusion that Genesis 1 & 2 should be read figuratively prior to even considering the "scientific" evidence?

 

[California Tim]

No, there is not evidence for a young earth. So it is a good thing you don't need science.

I'll post a few regarding coal that to my knowledge are not "PRATTS" or are at best very poorly rebutted by our famed experts at talkorigins.org

Polystrate Fossils (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, we know this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate.

talkorigins answer summarized: 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. (notice the tree "trunk" issue is not addressed) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html​

Decay Ratios When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years. (Science , October 15, 1996)

talkorigins answer: (None found) - but reasearch continues as summarized in the following quote: "So, it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis; but research is ongoing, and I look forward to seeing the results of the Old Carbon Project and new research on the deep subterranean bacteria" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html​

Unsullied Coal Deposits coal seams such as those found in the Powder River Basin of Gillette, Wyoming, ranging from 150 to 200 feet in depth, point to a rapid coalification process. "These coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material. Usually, unwanted sediments, such as clay, washes over a deposit before coal seams can get very thick.(Earth Magazine, May 1993) http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html

talkorigins answer: none found​

 

[artybloke]

Here we go. Finally we can center a discussion on the intended interpretation within the confines of the Bible itself. What led you to the conclusion that Genesis 1 & 2 should be read figuratively prior to even considering the "scientific" evidence?

I can't speak for Vance, so I won't; but I can speak for myself.

I'm not a scientist; I'm a writer and a teacher of creative writing. My field of expertise, if you like, is literature; therefore, when I look at the Bible, I don't see just a bunch of words to be taken literally, I see a work of literature, and, like all works of literature, it uses different modes of writing, different genres and a whole host of rhetorical devices to get its point across.

The parables are an example: nobody takes them as literal historical fact because they are constructed as little moral homilies with fictional stories in them. The Psalms are another: they are written in poetic forms, using poetic imagery; nobody would go to the Psalms for literal factual information, even when the Psalms might be based on historical events.

Now Genesis 1 & 2, it seems to me, are two different genres (probably from two different sources - but that's another issue.) Genesis 1 has a poetic quality, using refrains, anaphora and other literary devices, and is almost hymn-like in form (I suspect it myself of originally being written for liturgical reasons.)

Genesis 2 is more of a fable in its form and construction. It has an anthropomorphic God who walks around a garden - not unlike a satrap of the ancient near East - a talking snake, and characters with symbolic names. Adam, for instance, is closely related to the word adamah, earth; and is, I've just found out, a near-homonym with the words adom, red, and dom, blood. This suggests to me that the writer was seeing the story, not as a literal historical occurance, but as a symbolic tale to show the rootedness, in both God and place, of the Jewish people. I don't personally believe that the early Hebrew writers were so unsophisticated as to believe that gods really did have two feet and walked around gardens.

I think I'll leave it there; though it's not my only objection. My objection is also philosophical: I think creationism is rooted in a 19th century postivist view of truth, and can't see past the "True=Fact" equation. But that's for another day.

 

[The thinker]

I can't speak for Vance, so I won't; but I can speak for myself.

I'm not a scientist; I'm a writer and a teacher of creative writing. My field of expertise, if you like, is literature; therefore, when I look at the Bible, I don't see just a bunch of words to be taken literally, I see a work of literature, and, like all works of literature, it uses different modes of writing, different genres and a whole host of rhetorical devices to get its point across.

The parables are an example: nobody takes them as literal historical fact because they are constructed as little moral homilies with fictional stories in them. The Psalms are another: they are written in poetic forms, using poetic imagery; nobody would go to the Psalms for literal factual information, even when the Psalms might be based on historical events.

Now Genesis 1 & 2, it seems to me, are two different genres (probably from two different sources - but that's another issue.) Genesis 1 has a poetic quality, using refrains, anaphora and other literary devices, and is almost hymn-like in form (I suspect it myself of originally being written for liturgical reasons.)

Genesis 2 is more of a fable in its form and construction. It has an anthropomorphic God who walks around a garden - not unlike a satrap of the ancient near East - a talking snake, and characters with symbolic names. Adam, for instance, is closely related to the word adamah, earth; and is, I've just found out, a near-homonym with the words adom, red, and dom, blood. This suggests to me that the writer was seeing the story, not as a literal historical occurance, but as a symbolic tale to show the rootedness, in both God and place, of the Jewish people. I don't personally believe that the early Hebrew writers were so unsophisticated as to believe that gods really did have two feet and walked around gardens.

I think I'll leave it there; though it's not my only objection. My objection is also philosophical: I think creationism is rooted in a 19th century postivist view of truth, and can't see past the "True=Fact" equation. But that's for another day.

What you're saying makes sense to me but what about the 7 days part? The bible makes it quite clear that it actually means 7 days well it looks that way to me how does that fit with evolution(I am curious)

 

[Vance]

The author may have intended the word "yom" to be used in the "24 -hour period" sense (as opposed to an "period of time" sense), but that still does not mean the author intended it to be read literally. The example I have used is the writer who wants to talk about a family, and used the figurative image of a "tree" to describe it. He is not meaning some "other" form of the word tree, like a "tree" computer filing system, but he is using the term "tree" in its, actual, literal leaf and branch sense. But, still, he does not want the reader to think he is actually talking about a literal tree, even though he is using tree in the literal sense. He is STILL talking about a family. Does that make sense?

Why seven days? Here is a bit about Augustine on this subject:

In the words of Louis Berkhof, Augustine "was evidently inclined to think God created all things in a moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid the finite intelligence." Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read, "In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."

So, Augustine did not think the six days of Creation were historically literal, but they were still TRUE. And, again, this is what TE's say. We do not say that the six day narrative is false. It is true in the sense that it truly conveys what God intended it to convey, a method for us to grasp and hold on to the great truths of God's Creative work. If it is not MEANT to be literal history, then it is still TRUE even if it is not literal history.

I think the seven days is meant as a framework within which God can explain His process in a comprehensible and powerful manner. I think it works.

 

[California Tim]

So, Augustine did not think the six days of Creation were historically literal, but they were still TRUE. And, again, this is what TE's say. We do not say that the six day narrative is false. It is true in the sense that it truly conveys what God intended it to convey, a method for us to grasp and hold on to the great truths of God's Creative work. If it is not MEANT to be literal history, then it is still TRUE even if it is not literal history.

Drop your guard. It has been well established that you do not question the authority of the Bible, but arrive at a different interpretation of the creeation account. I am not questioning you on that issue - PERIOD.

I know you did not arrive at this "figurative interpretation" conclusion because of Augustine, the prevailing sentiment of 1639 a.d. or any other outside influence. According to you, before you even considered the scienctific explanations, you concluded the first two books were to be read figuratively. My question is how YOU personally concluded that. I would be further interested in the Biblical support for that position that lead you to the conclusion at the time.

 

[The thinker]

hmm... thinking about it the TE view does make alot of sense. I always like the analogy from the film mothman: God trying to explain the universe,creation and death to humans is like one of us trying to explain how the world works to a cockroach. So you must resort to simple and understandable descriptions(well simple by Gods standards) so that we humans can understand.

 

[grmorton]

I'll post a few regarding coal that to my knowledge are not "PRATTS" or are at best very poorly rebutted by our famed experts at talkorigins.org



Polystrate Fossils (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, we know this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate.

First off, your assumption that all sedimentary layers require hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate is silly. Some do; others don't. In 1993, the Mississippi River flooded. It spread up to 6 feet of sediment throughout parts of the valley in about a 2 month time frame. This covered trees and created 'polystrate' trees in the making. In 10,000 years, YECs like you will be able to point to those trees as evidence of the global flood. Now, there hasn't been a major flood since so that 6 feet of new sediment is now being eroded away. If some remains before the next flood or if you have a period where there are several sequences of river flooding (a very unusual weather period), you can get tree trunks going through several strata. It neither requires hundreds of thousands of years nor does it requre a global flood. The first picture below is of a tree partly buried by a riverine flood. It is proof for those living 10,000 years from now that we experienced a global flood in the 20th century.

Decay Ratios

When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years. (Science , October 15, 1996)

talkorigins answer: (None found) - but reasearch continues as summarized in the following quote: "So, it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis; but research is ongoing, and I look forward to seeing the results of the Old Carbon Project and new research on the deep subterranean bacteria" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html​

​

This is all confused. You talk about uranium and then cite an article on C14 as your source. That won't work.

Unsullied Coal Deposits

coal seams such as those found in the Powder River Basin of Gillette, Wyoming, ranging from 150 to 200 feet in depth, point to a rapid coalification process. "These coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material. Usually, unwanted sediments, such as clay, washes over a deposit before coal seams can get very thick.(Earth Magazine, May 1993) http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html

talkorigins answer: none found​

First off, your assumption that this is 'unsullied coal' is flat false.

[cite=McLellan et al, "Coal Stratigraphy of Northern and Central Power River Basin," AAPG Bulletin Aug. 1986, p. 1048] "Large coal swamps existed in Fort Union time, first in northern Powder River basin and successively farther southward. Basin margins were tectonically active during the Paleocene. Clastic sedimentation resulting from this tectonism may have created conditions controlling peat deposition. Intermittently peat deposition was interrupted across large areas by a great influx of clastic sediments. At other times, peat deposits were cut by narrow channels as dranage systems changed course." [/cite]

I happen to have in my library the book which addresses this. The ash content of this coal (which means anything that doesn't burn) is from 5 to 10 percent (Mapel, "Coal in the Powder River Basin," Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Guidebook, 1958), p. 222.) That same article says:

[cite=William J. Mapel,"Coal in the Powder River Basin," Wyoming Geological Assoc. Guidebook, 1958, p. 221] The Healy bed is 52 to a reported 112 feet thick, including partings, in drill holes on the eastern shore of the lake but the coal thins rapidly to about 25 feet in outcrops amile or two farther eastward."[/quote]

Do you know what a parting is? It is a shale bed in the middle of the coal. Clearly not an unsullied coal bed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

hmm... thinking about it the TE view does make alot of sense. I always like the analogy from the film mothman: God trying to explain the universe,creation and death to humans is like one of us trying to explain how the world works to a cockroach. So you must resort to simple and understandable descriptions(well simple by Gods standards) so that we humans can understand.

i think Calvin's definition of accommodation words it best

The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.

Institutes I.13.1

 

[gluadys]

I'll post a few regarding coal that to my knowledge are not "PRATTS" or are at best very poorly rebutted by our famed experts at talkorigins.org

Polystrate Fossils (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia.

Well, Glenn pre-empted me and I will defer to his expertise, especially on coal beds.

I will add two items on polystrate trees. Another very famous example are the polystrate forests at Joggins, Nova Scotia. What makes these particularly interesting is that one polystrate forest is found above another. Both are rooted, and as the talkorigins response indicates, this means the trees were not carried to their current postions by a flood but grew in situ.

To have one forest on top of another, we must consider that first a forest grew, then it was buried in sediments (indicating it was underwater), then dry land appeared again, and soil formed, in which another forest grew, and was subsequently indundated and fossilized.

I just don't see that all happening in one year.

As to decay, it is not a fact that inundated trees will decompose quickly. In fact several future polystrate forests are currently in the making in Northern Quebec thanks to the damming of rivers flowing into Hudson's Bay in the 1970s. The lakes forming behind the dams drowned several hundred thousand acres of forest land.

Now I am not a student of chemistry, so I don't understand exactly what happens here. I do know that one consequence was an overproduction of methane as the foliage decayed, and that in turn killed of a lot of aquatic animal and bacterial life. Something the same sort of consequence as acid rain in a lake.

In any case, these lakes are now effectively denuded of oxygen and aquatic life---so with no active decay organisms around, the tree trunks are not decaying. They will stay there for hundreds of years as sediments build up around them, thus producing future fossilized polystrate trees by the thousands.

btw, the vast majority of polystrate trees are not whole trees but 2-4 feet of trunk only. This is consistent with a partially buried/drowned tree protected from decay.

Decay Ratios When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years. (Science , October 15, 1996)

As Glenn said, the talkorigins quote was about a different matter. I don't understand this either without seeing the whole article. I am confused as to why a high lead-to-uranium ratio would point to a recent event. I would think it would be the other way around as lead is the decay product of uranium.

Unsullied Coal Deposits

Definitely out of my depth here. See Glenn's reply.