What do YEC's think of this . . .

[SBG]

And there is another very important point (setting aside SBG's incredibly offensive insinuation that those who feel led to a different conclusion than his is led by an evil spirit), and that is considering whether the Spirit is not necessarily leading people to different conclusions, but allowing them to hold differing positions with complete comfort and peace because . . . they don't make any real difference to the essential points that the Spirit guides us on.

I am fully open to leading of the Holy Spirit and spend time in prayer and in Scripture every day. And I do, indeed, have that deep abiding peace about my reading of Scripture and my position on origins. Most Christians will know what I mean by this type of deep, abiding peace which I know only comes from the Spirit. Now, why would the Spirit allow me to this level of peace and comfort over my reading of Scripture and allow another believer similar peace and comfort over a different reading (as has happened millions of times over throughout the history of Christianity)?

The only answer I can see is that the two approaches to Scripture and origins, whether figurative or literal, whether special creation or evolution, make no difference to the what is important in our Christian lives, in Christian doctrine, etc. He can allow Bible-believing, Spirit-filled and led Christians to believe differently on baptism, communion, predestination, and dozens of other issues. To say that the one who believes differently than us on these issues is being led to that conclusion by an evil spirit is not the type of pride and hubris I would care to engage in.

Mind you I never said who is correct or who is lead by the Holy Spirit in understanding on this issue. I can accept that I might be wrong. But I will err on the side of reading Genesis 1-11 literally and looking for what Jesus has to say to me about what is written.

 

[shernren]

If person A says the universe is held together by God and person B says the universe is held together by gravity, is person B speaking from a lying spirit? (since the trait of the Holy Spirit that is in question here, I believe, is how can a true Spirit contradict Himself in revelations to different people) I don't think so: person A talks of the source and cause of the universe's order, person B of the agency and means by which the source and cause upholds the universe's order.

If Genesis inspired by the Holy Spirit says God created life, and I say life evolved, am I being inspired by a lying spirit?

 

[invisible trousers]

Mind you I never said who is correct or who is lead by the Holy Spirit in understanding on this issue.

I dunno dude I think it's fairly obvious that you implied one group (YEC) is correct and the other (us degenerate TEs) is influenced by evil spirits.

I can accept that I might be wrong. But I will err on the side of reading Genesis 1-11 literally and looking for what Jesus has to say to me about what is written.

This is the same Jesus who under your literal reading is a liar and deceives His followers by making the physical evidence of creation conflict with the scriptural evidence, no?

 

[SBG]

I dunno dude I think it's fairly obvious that you implied one group (YEC) is correct and the other (us degenerate TEs) is influenced by evil spirits.



This is the same Jesus who under your literal reading is a liar and deceives His followers by making the physical evidence of creation conflict with the scriptural evidence, no?

Well one side of this issue is wrong, and both sides claim God lead them. God doesn't lead people wrongly, He is without sin.

I think that is a rather unfair statement to make about me, putting words in my mouth to suggest I claim Jesus is a liar.

In Jesus, there is no sin. To even give a faint consideration to the fact that Jesus or God could be a sinner - one who lies - is blasphemous.

I have never once even hinted to say Jesus or God could be liar. God can create in six days and still not be liar. I hope that you can at least accomadate God with enough decency to realize He can do whatever He wishes, even if we see things otherwise, and still be the Almighty God who is perfect in everyway.

With that said, if you feel you need to repeat that I claim Jesus is a liar, when I have not, then it is your choice to do so.

I have made my statement clear about who I believe Jesus is.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well one side of this issue is wrong, and both sides claim God lead them.
God doesn't lead people wrongly, He is without sin.

this is the problem of denominationalism.

to move from a statement concerning the character of God, ie God will not lead people astray makes a whole lot of assumptions.

look at it as a message from God to people:
1-you assume people are listening and can hear God correctly.
2-you assume God is transmitting some sort of propositional knowledge, not just a general feeling, say of comfort
3-you assume that even if people are listening and able to hear correctly that they are able to articulate and transmit the message from God properly.

all of these things and more are embedded in your statement that God does not lie and therefore one side of the YECist/TE chasm is wrong.

btw, if you have a solution to this, then you have a solution to the problem of denominationalism, which imho is second only to theodicy as a cogent criticism of Christianity.

 

[SBG]

this is the problem of denominationalism.

to move from a statement concerning the character of God, ie God will not lead people astray makes a whole lot of assumptions.

look at it as a message from God to people:
1-you assume people are listening and can hear God correctly.

Yes, I am assuming that when TEs say they are guided by the Spirit, like Vance says, that he isn't lying by saying he feels he is guided to believe what he does.

2-you assume God is transmitting some sort of propositional knowledge, not just a general feeling, say of comfort

Well both sides are claiming knowledge, unless you saying you don't claim that you feel God has lead you to believe evolution is His tool?

I wouldn't agree with anyone that looking to the state of what they feel will give them absolute truth. Atheists have told me they feel very comfortable with their position on their belief that God does not exist. Feelings are not always right.

We can faith though that we are right in our understanding. Faith is given solely by God, when it comes to understanding Him and His will. So concerning the Bible, if everyone claims they have faith about a different opinion of the teaching therein, and they are in contrast to each other, only one is a faith given by God.

Let's use an example. The Jesus seminary people claim they have faith that Jesus did not raise from the dead. I have faith that Jesus did. Them and I have a contrasting view, only one of these two views is correct. Only one view God has lead one to believe.

Is it your belief that God would lead them to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, and me as well to believe He did? Or do you think that maybe, even though they can be wonderful people, have every other doctrine correct according to God, but this one doctrine they have not been lead by God, but by Satan?

3-you assume that even if people are listening and able to hear correctly that they are able to articulate and transmit the message from God properly.

I assume that God does lead people to the belief in absolute truth of doctrine of His Book. And He does raise people to teach this absolute truth. I do think God can do this and has proven so countless times in history.

Sometimes people are given words by the Spirit to speak to those who will listen. It isn't a matter of one understanding on their own and then leaning on their own words to speak of their understanding. It is a matter of leaning on God's understanding and God's given words to speak of the understanding God has given.

I know there some who do not like this response of lean on God, but that is how I feel about this. No truth of understanding of the Bible or God comes about apart from God. You have to rely on God. Many might not like it, but that is the way.

all of these things and more are embedded in your statement that God does not lie and therefore one side of the YECist/TE chasm is wrong.

btw, if you have a solution to this, then you have a solution to the problem of denominationalism, which imho is second only to theodicy as a cogent criticism of Christianity.

The three you listed were not embedded in my statement, but came about through your understanding of what I said. Note that your understanding of what I said does not equal what I said or what I meant to be understood from what I said.

It is my humble and simple belief that God does not lie. Furthermore, sciences teaching on evolution and the Bible's teaching on creation are, in my opinion, contrasting teachings. They do not agree. Only one can be truth, not both. One is a lie and both camps claim God has lead them to believe their opinion. It is my opinion that God doesn't speak lies nor does He lead people to believe lies concerning Him.

Lastly, if you follow along with Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 15, you will see toward the end of the chapter Paul talks about over coming death in victory. Earlier in that chapter Paul called this death an enemy to God. The word he used here encompasses both physical and spiritual. He doesn't use either of the specific words in Greek to refer to one or the other, but to refer to both.

Paul's teaching in Romans 5 says through the offense of one many are dead. Same word is used here that was used in 1 Corinthians 15. And Paul teaches in Romans 8 that the body is dead because of sin. Paul also teaches in Romans 8 that he was still awaiting the redemption of his body, that it groans for this redemption, even though he has the Spirit within him.(verse 23 specifically) You will notice that he also speaks of creation before he speaks about his own body.

These teachings do not agree with evolution, unless the TEs can up with a solution that there was no death before the fall of man.

 

[invisible trousers]

I think that is a rather unfair statement to make about me, putting words in my mouth to suggest I claim Jesus is a liar.

In Jesus, there is no sin. To even give a faint consideration to the fact that Jesus or God could be a sinner - one who lies - is blasphemous.

Notice I what I wrote. I never wrote that you said Jesus is a liar. You haven't, and I totally believe that you don't think Jesus is a liar.

God being a liar comes directly from your interpretation of scripture. There is no way around it. God cannot have His truth in the Bible contradict His truth in nature. So, that creates a dilemma. We both agree God isn't a liar and isn't deceitful. God doesn't lie in the bible, and God doesn't lie in nature. But, your interpretation make him a liar. You are claiming as a result of your interpretation of Genesis that the mounds of physical evidence in nature purposefully put there by God are in direct conflict with the creation stories He has in Genesis.

Therefore, the only thing I can conclude is that your interpretation of scripture is incorrect. A correct interpretation would have God be consistent with both nature and scripture.

 

[SBG]

Notice I what I wrote. I never wrote that you said Jesus is a liar. You haven't, and I totally believe that you don't think Jesus is a liar.

Ok. It was my misunderstanding then.

God being a liar comes directly from your interpretation of scripture. There is no way around it. God cannot have His truth in the Bible contradict His truth in nature. So, that creates a dilemma. We both agree God isn't a liar and isn't deceitful. God doesn't lie in the bible, and God doesn't lie in nature. But, your interpretation make him a liar. You are claiming as a result of your interpretation of Genesis that the mounds of physical evidence in nature purposefully put there by God are in direct conflict with the creation stories He has in Genesis.

My interpretation doesn't make God a liar. My interpretation suggests that scientists have misinterpreted nature.

I believe you understand that scientists do interpret nature and one of these interpretations say common descent happened. Nature alone, does not say this, someone must interpret it.

John 1:1-14 declares what the actual creation is for, declaring God's Glory. Genesis states how God created, by His Word. Psalms says when God speaks it is done.

Paul teaches what we see wasn't created from what is seen. This is clear, but we can work around this teaching if we choose. Paul teaches death is an enemy of God, this death is both spiritual and physical by definition of the word used. There are specific words that can be used that would specifically refer to one or the other. Paul instead uses the word that encompasses both, instead of only one. Evolution needs death, calling it a natural process, not an enemy.

I truly desire sound doctrine. I do not have choice but to believe what is written in the Bible, every word. The Bible teaches counter to what the principles of evolution teach. I am not held to following scientists. I am held captive to God and to following Him.

Therefore, the only thing I can conclude is that your interpretation of scripture is incorrect. A correct interpretation would have God be consistent with both nature and scripture.

The only thing I can conclude from this statement of yours is that scientists cannot possibly be wrong about their interpretation. There are more Christians who hold to a literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11, than there are scientists who interpret the evidence as evolution happened. I only say this if you wish to appeal to popularity as many have done here.

I can only ask you, do you desire sound doctrine or to follow scientists and their teachings of common descent? They are conflicting teachings.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

My interpretation doesn't make God a liar. My interpretation suggests that scientists have misinterpreted nature.

I believe you understand that scientists do interpret nature and one of these interpretations say common descent happened. Nature alone, does not say this, someone must interpret it.

But do we find nature saying that the universe is young and animals poofed into existence in more or less their current form? No. If it doesn’t say that then we must look for what it does say, so far current science is giving us the best answers it can.

John 1:1-14 declares what the actual creation is for, declaring God's Glory. Genesis states how God created, by His Word. Psalms says when God speaks it is done.

Good thing that TEs like myself are not arguing against the ideas that the universe is for God’s Glory and that God spoke the universe into being and that what ever God wills is done then.

Paul teaches what we see wasn't created from what is seen. This is clear, but we can work around this teaching if we choose.

Good thing that the Big Bang says this too then.

Paul teaches death is an enemy of God, this death is both spiritual and physical by definition of the word used. There are specific words that can be used that would specifically refer to one or the other. Paul instead uses the word that encompasses both, instead of only one. Evolution needs death, calling it a natural process, not an enemy.

You are assuming that Greek had set and unwavering rules on how words were meant to be used. Linguists would beg to differ.

I truly desire sound doctrine. I do not have choice but to believe what is written in the Bible, every word. The Bible teaches counter to what the principles of evolution teach. I am not held to following scientists. I am held captive to God and to following Him.

Are you saying that TEs do not believe the Bible to be true and good? Is the only truth you accept literal truth? Does the moral side of the story have no importance to you?

The only thing I can conclude from this statement of yours is that scientists cannot possibly be wrong about their interpretation.

Then you would be wrong, there is no faster way to move ahead for a scientist then to prove another scientist wrong. The Nobel Prize gives an award of over a million dollars U.S. for doing such not to mention the job offers and grants one can get to further ones studies after proving another scientist wrong.

There are more Christians who hold to a literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11, than there are scientists who interpret the evidence as evolution happened. I only say this if you wish to appeal to popularity as many have done here.

It was once a popular understanding among Christians that slavery was just peachy and meant to be, Paul is often sighted with encouraging slaves to remain slaves and the institution of Levitical slavery to continue.

I can only ask you, do you desire sound doctrine or to follow scientists and their teachings of common descent? They are conflicting teachings.

But they are not conflicting, that is the point. Science only conflicts with those that say literal truth is of more importance in the Biblical text than spiritual truth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The only thing I can conclude from this statement of yours is that scientists cannot possibly be wrong about their interpretation. There are more Christians who hold to a literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11, than there are scientists who interpret the evidence as evolution happened. I only say this if you wish to appeal to popularity as many have done here.

and the original geological work on the age of the earth was done by orthodox Christians who were trying to scientifically prove that Gen 1-11 were history. but the facts convinced them that the earth was in fact very old, much older than 10K years and that their interpretation of Genesis was wrong.

 

[SBG]

and the original geological work on the age of the earth was done by orthodox Christians who were trying to scientifically prove that Gen 1-11 were history. but the facts convinced them that the earth was in fact very old, much older than 10K years and that their interpretation of Genesis was wrong.

So how does the age of the earth disprove all of Genesis 1-11? I admit that I am having a hard time understanding how the age of the earth can disprove the fall of man, six day creation, the flood, God's covenant with Noah, and the tower of babel. Maybe you can help me understand this?

You do know that Genesis 1-11 does not state the age of the earth, right? I haven't seen any YEC say that it does either. Genelogies are gone off to speculate the age of the earth, but those geneologies are largely gathered in 1 Chronicles, not Genesis 1-11.

If you could also help me understand how the age of the earth proves evolution, I would be grateful as well. I have seen this implied many times here, maybe I misunderstood.

 

[SBG]

But do we find nature saying that the universe is young and animals poofed into existence in more or less their current form? No. If it doesn’t say that then we must look for what it does say, so far current science is giving us the best answers it can.

Hi there! We don't really find nature saying anything, atleast I haven't heard it speak yet. We do have interpretations of what has been found. I don't think evolution is the best answer giving. I think it is a knee jerk reaction to what the Bible says about creation.

Evolution cannot be traced completely back to its starting point. This is why we now have the shift to abiogenesis, because evolution was falsified here. There was no evidence to show how evolution began or ever had a starting point. Just a whole lot of speculation has been given. I believe the shift to adding in abiogenesis and saying evolution has nothing to do with non-life to life is to save the theory of evolution.

Evolution simply is defined as a change over time. Non-life to life is a change that is asserted to have happened over time, by scientists. It does fit with the basic definition of evolution. Yet, we are told it is not evolution. If so, then the defintion of evolution is wrong.

To prove common descent, you need a starting point. So where is the evidence for this starting point?

Good thing that TEs like myself are not arguing against the ideas that the universe is for God’s Glory and that God spoke the universe into being and that what ever God wills is done then.

You must be a punctuated evolutionist.

Good thing that the Big Bang says this too then.

Genesis states that the universe was created out of nothing. I don't think the Big Bang agrees with that. I suppose though you don't agree with the Genesis account, since you are a TE. (you don't take it literally, only mythically)

You are assuming that Greek had set and unwavering rules on how words were meant to be used. Linguists would beg to differ.

No, not necessarily. I am assuming that Paul was under the inspiration of God and God wanted to teach this point emphatically.

Are you saying that TEs do not believe the Bible to be true and good? Is the only truth you accept literal truth? Does the moral side of the story have no importance to you?

That wasn't really what I said. I wasn't speaking of TEs, I was speaking of myself and how I view it and only myself.

No, I don't only accept literal truth. I have explained this numerous times before, but I am assuming you haven't read them. YECs see Genesis as not just a teaching of a greater message, but also as literal history. We see it as both, not just one as TEs do. We look to see what Jesus is saying and as literal history. Hence, the literal truth and the figurative truth. We do not limit the text to just one to fit our world view.

And of course the moral side has importance to me. As I explained, we look at Genesis as a teaching of literal historical accounts and moral teachings. TEs only see it as one and disbelieve it to be the other.

Then you would be wrong, there is no faster way to move ahead for a scientist then to prove another scientist wrong. The Nobel Prize gives an award of over a million dollars U.S. for doing such not to mention the job offers and grants one can get to further ones studies after proving another scientist wrong.

Do you think that all the other scientists would just let one scientist put them all out of their way of making money? They get grants because of the work they do that includes evolution. I believe it was Dawkins who said that nothing makes sense in biology if it is not in the light of evolution. Dawkings also said that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot and/or insane.

It seems the pressure to keep evolution going is rather great because if evolution was disproven, there would be no choice but to believe that there is some sort of creator. There are many scientists who uphold evolution that have said that God is no way a possible idea for the reason everything exists. I think Christians tend to forget that there are many who will not allow the teaching of God. Look at what some atheists have done with the separation of Church and State. I haven't met one TE yet that doesn't agree with the atheist side of stopping pray in public schools, removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings and land, and the removable of over large Crosses on private property. There is a current law suit in progress to have the name God removes off all airwaves, including TV and radio.

There are many who will stop at nothing to completely remove God from society. Why would science be any different? It is already claimed that God shouldn't be in science because He cannot be studied. It makes me wonder how God must feel when people say He cannot be mentioned in a particular area because of who He is.

It was once a popular understanding among Christians that slavery was just peachy and meant to be, Paul is often sighted with encouraging slaves to remain slaves and the institution of Levitical slavery to continue.

Can you cite a passage that clearly teaches to make people slaves, like that found in early America?

Paul taught to submit to authority. If you are slave submit to your master. Paul didn't teach men to take slaves for themselves because it is God's Will. Also, Paul taught that we are no longer under the law but under God's Grace found in Jesus Christ.

The Bible specifically says God created in six days. The New Testament writers upheld this by refering to it.

But they are not conflicting, that is the point. Science only conflicts with those that say literal truth is of more importance in the Biblical text than spiritual truth.

Your last statement is not really a statement but rather a judgment. YECs never have said that literal truth is more important than spiritual truth. That is just untruthful to say. We recognize both. We do not make the judgment that the Bible cannot be literally true in Genesis, but it is spiritually true. We rather say it is both, thus not limiting the text. We feel we are right to do so because there are many references back to Genesis 1-11 throughout the Bible treating those passages as literal history.

So, from this view point, when you don't say Genesis can only be true if it is mythical, but rather it is true literally and historically as well as teaching spiritual truth that it conflicts with the common descent teaching of evolution.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So how does the age of the earth disprove all of Genesis 1-11? I admit that I am having a hard time understanding how the age of the earth can disprove the fall of man, six day creation, the flood, God's covenant with Noah, and the tower of babel. Maybe you can help me understand this?

You do know that Genesis 1-11 does not state the age of the earth, right? I haven't seen any YEC say that it does either. Genelogies are gone off to speculate the age of the earth, but those geneologies are largely gathered in 1 Chronicles, not Genesis 1-11.



If you could also help me understand how the age of the earth proves evolution, I would be grateful as well. I have seen this implied many times here, maybe I misunderstood.

It does not disprove anything theological about the Bible what so ever, it just helps us to understand that the literal reading may not be the correct reading of the creation stories. All moral and theological points are untouched whether the stories are literal or not.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Do you think that all the other scientists would just let one scientist put them all out of their way of making money?

For the money, the satisfaction of figuring out some problem no one has before, for getting a small glimpse into how God works and many more reasons, yes, that is what I am saying. It happens all the time in science and even the best of the minds can fall. Einstein for example, probably one of the greatest minds of the last century spent the last thirty years of his career on the outside of science looking in because he was proven wrong when he tried to remove quantum physics from his earlier works because he was theologically apposed to the idea.

They get grants because of the work they do that includes evolution. I believe it was Dawkins who said that nothing makes sense in biology if it is not in the light of evolution. Dawkings also said that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot and/or insane.

While it is true that without inheritance, mutation and evolution in general we could not explain how vaccines and most new medicines work and how viruses and bacteria get around them, Dawkins theology has nothing to do with it. Dawkins may be a great scientist but as a theologian I disagree with him. What Dawkins personally believes about God has nothing to do with his scientific work just as what I personally believe about God has nothing to do with how my car runs.

It seems the pressure to keep evolution going is rather great because if evolution was disproven, there would be no choice but to believe that there is some sort of creator.

Hogwash, now you are putting a false either/or situation where none exists, you forget the option that maybe God uses natural processes to create. Why do you hold the same theological position as Dawkins and the other atheists that you seem to hate so much? That to say natural is the same as saying with out God?

There are many scientists who uphold evolution that have said that God is no way a possible idea for the reason everything exists.

And there are many scientists that are Christians and see no problem with a creator and modern science. Are you saying that all the Christians that work in the scientific fields are not Christians or are being deceived by Satan?

I think Christians tend to forget that there are many who will not allow the teaching of God. Look at what some atheists have done with the separation of Church and State.

Then fight the atheists not scientists or TEs. To accept science as a good tool to look at creation is not to be an atheist.

I haven't met one TE yet that doesn't agree with the atheist side of stopping pray in public schools, removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings and land, and the removable of over large Crosses on private property. There is a current law suit in progress to have the name God removes off all airwaves, including TV and radio.

Then you have not met many TEs have you? Well now you have met one so don't let me catch you saying that you have never met one again.

There are many who will stop at nothing to completely remove God from society. Why would science be any different?

Because science is not atheism.

It is already claimed that God shouldn't be in science because He cannot be studied. It makes me wonder how God must feel when people say He cannot be mentioned in a particular area because of who He is.

Science can only work with ideas that can be falsified and tested to find out if they are false or not, can you think of a way to test God? People have been trying for thousands of years and have yet to come up with one, but if you’ve come up with one publish and claim your Nobel Prize.



Why can’t science work on things that can’t be tested? Because then there is no way to tell what is true or not. I cannot prove that it is a cold virus making you sick instead of invisible, untestable gnomes, but if we ignore the untestable we can see that it seems to be the virus. Don’t feel bad because the Christian God is untestable and not mentioned, neither is Zeus or Odin or Allah or Buddha or any other untestable being. But seeing as my computer works and so does the medicine I take when I get sick and my car still runs even though God is not mentioned in the manual, it does not seem that God is as offended by this as you seem to be.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Genesis states that the universe was created out of nothing.

Actually you would be wrong again, science has no problem with something being created out of nothing, it happens all the time at the quantum level and the universe can be looked as just a large quantum flux thus emerging from nothing.

I don't think the Big Bang agrees with that. I suppose though you don't agree with the Genesis account, since you are a TE. (you don't take it literally, only mythically)

It is not that I disagree with Genesis, it is that I disagree with the way you are reading it. I am not disagreeing with God, but with men who choose a particular way to read God’s word.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hi there! We don't really find nature saying anything, atleast I haven't heard it speak yet. We do have interpretations of what has been found. I don't think evolution is the best answer giving. I think it is a knee jerk reaction to what the Bible says about creation.

An I think that YECism is a knee jerk reaction to the thought that YECists could possibly be wrong about how they choose to read the Bible, but to each his or her own.

Evolution cannot be traced completely back to its starting point. This is why we now have the shift to abiogenesis, because evolution was falsified here. There was no evidence to show how evolution began or ever had a starting point. Just a whole lot of speculation has been given. I believe the shift to adding in abiogenesis and saying evolution has nothing to do with non-life to life is to save the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution never said anything about how life started, evolution does not care how life started, just that it reproduces, that the inheritable material does not replicate perfectly, and that there is natural or sexual pressure to change. It would not matter if God poofed the first cells into existence 4 billion years ago, 6 thousand years ago or yesterday, as long as that life reproduced, had coding errors and was under selective pressure evolution would work. That is why we can breed dogs and cows and other things and why if given long enough you could see massive changes in an animal under continual selective pressure. So evolution was in no way falsified by not explaining something it was never meant to explain. That is like saying my car manual is falsified by not explaining why aspirin helps with headaches.

Evolution simply is defined as a change over time. Non-life to life is a change that is asserted to have happened over time, by scientists. It does fit with the basic definition of evolution. Yet, we are told it is not evolution. If so, then the defintion of evolution is wrong.

Okay so evolution states that it is not about how life started, just about how it changes, and because it states this and does not cover how life started it is somehow false? I do not follow… That is like me stating “My name is Lewis, not Fred.” And then you saying “Your name cannot be Lewis because you said your name was not Fred!”



I just don’t see any logic in that statement…

To prove common descent, you need a starting point. So where is the evidence for this starting point?

Science is not about proof, proof is for math and alcohol. Science is about trying to explain how things work, a theory, to be valid needs to explain a large process, model that process and make testable predictions so that we can see if the explanation is wrong or not. A theory is only provisionally accepted after at least some of the predictions are tested and shown to be accurate, then it is held until another theory explains the process better with better predictions or it fails to meet its later predictions. Once a theory fails it is either scrapped or reworked until it no longer makes false predictions.

You might just want to take a class in how science works so you will not make this mistake again

 

[shernren]

So how does the age of the earth disprove all of Genesis 1-11? I admit that I am having a hard time understanding how the age of the earth can disprove the fall of man, six day creation, the flood, God's covenant with Noah, and the tower of babel. Maybe you can help me understand this?

Well, the entire universe is a lot older than the earth, right? Right in Genesis 1 it says that on Day 1 God created the heavens (universe, I assume, unless He didn't create the universe - oops! Freudian slip? ) and the earth. Now, the maximum distance of time possible is if God created the universe right at the start, and the earth right at the end. In other words, a literal reading gives a maximum difference between the age of the universe and the age of the earth of 24 hours.Science says a few billion years. Uhmm....

Hi there! We don't really find nature saying anything, at least I haven't heard it speak yet. We do have interpretations of what has been found. I don't think evolution is the best answer giving. I think it is a knee jerk reaction to what the Bible says about creation.

Interpretations? I've been throwing out questions to creationists here asking if there is any consistent way to reinterpret an isochron to give 6000 instead of a few billion years. No takers so far. It looks like only one interpretation so far, so don't suggest alternatives unless you can come up with them.

Do you think that all the other scientists would just let one scientist put them all out of their way of making money? They get grants because of the work they do that includes evolution.

And the reason they get money to work with evolution is because evolution works. If evolution is bad science, how can anything based on evolution (population genetics, taxonomy, conservation ecology, etc.) be good science? If evolution is all that screwed up why isn't it obvious yet? If I start by saying 1+1=3 every little bit of math that I do is going to be wrong. If evolution is wrong then all biology as we know it is wrong. And can you give better explanatory theories than the ones we have?

If there was a cover-up, there wouldn't be results. If Lab A came up with results that disprove evolution, they wouldn't publish false results that do support evolution - because Lab B and C and D would try to reproduce these results, and find them irreproducible, and thus shoot up Lab A. Instead Lab A would just not produce results and hope nobody finds out about the experiment that failed. Now, taking this to its logical conclusion, if evolution is wrong then there should not be a single paper in genetics ever published. And we see?

It seems the pressure to keep evolution going is rather great because if evolution was disproven, there would be no choice but to believe that there is some sort of creator.

But science does assume no God! Even creation science assumes no God! I've said this over and over again. If God interfered in my results I couldn't possibly say that what my results are telling me can be reproduced in the outside world, and therefore it isn't science. By corollary, whoever is producing scientific results from data must assume that their data hasn't been touched by anything inexplicable. So what does that say about "creation science"?

"God, I'm going to prove that You created it all - so please, step aside and make sure You don't screw the universe while I'm studying it!" Hmmmm....

 

[gluadys]

So how does the age of the earth disprove all of Genesis 1-11? I admit that I am having a hard time understanding how the age of the earth can disprove the fall of man, six day creation, the flood, God's covenant with Noah, and the tower of babel. Maybe you can help me understand this?

It doesn't disprove all of these things. That is why there are Old Earth Creationists. The age of the earth disproves six day creation only.

However, the geology which shows the age of the earth also shows the flood could not be global (although there could still be a literal non-global flood.) The rest could all be literal within the framework of the age of the earth. Those of us who do not consider them literal make that judgment based on considerations other than the age of the earth.

Nor are we out to "disprove" any of Gen. 1-11. We still consider all of it to be true, even if we do not consider all of it to be history.

If you could also help me understand how the age of the earth proves evolution, I would be grateful as well. I have seen this implied many times here, maybe I misunderstood.

The age of the earth doesn't prove evolution. The OECs are right in saying you can have an old earth without evolution. The support for evolution comes primarily from other lines of evodence. If we had no fossils at all, the evidence would still say evolution. However, all the fossil evidence unearthed so far does support evolution as evolution provides the best explanation for the geographic and stratigrafic distribution of the fossils we have. Until we turn up a fossil that defies evolutionary theory (e.g. the skeleton of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata) then geology/paleontology supports evolution. It also contradicts a global flood.

 

[Knowledge3]

It doesn't disprove all of these things. That is why there are Old Earth Creationists. The age of the earth disproves six day creation only.

However, the geology which shows the age of the earth also shows the flood could not be global (although there could still be a literal non-global flood.) The rest could all be literal within the framework of the age of the earth. Those of us who do not consider them literal make that judgment based on considerations other than the age of the earth.

Nor are we out to "disprove" any of Gen. 1-11. We still consider all of it to be true, even if we do not consider all of it to be history.



The age of the earth doesn't prove evolution. The OECs are right in saying you can have an old earth without evolution. The support for evolution comes primarily from other lines of evodence. If we had no fossils at all, the evidence would still say evolution. However, all the fossil evidence unearthed so far does support evolution as evolution provides the best explanation for the geographic and stratigrafic distribution of the fossils we have. Until we turn up a fossil that defies evolutionary theory (e.g. the skeleton of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata) then geology/paleontology supports evolution. It also contradicts a global flood.

I am OEC, but I still believe the Flood of Noah happened by intuiton and faith.

YEC's are my brothers, they are given a special challenge given to them from sits above and not below. You, know it's been quite a long time since I have seen that beautiful and perfectly-arched rainbow.

 

[gluadys]

[/color] Hi there! We don't really find nature saying anything, atleast I haven't heard it speak yet. We do have interpretations of what has been found.

Not all interpretations of nature are good interpretations any more than all interpretations of scripture are good interpretations. You have to evaluate which interpretations best fit with the evidence. Just as the church rejected an Arian interpretation of scripture, it is proper to reject a creationist interpretation of nature if it does not match the evidence nature provides.

I don't think evolution is the best answer giving. I think it is a knee jerk reaction to what the Bible says about creation.

I will say to you the same as I have been saying to Remus. If there really are scientific objections to evolution, point out what they are, and we can discuss them. Otherwise be honest enough to admit that your objections to evolution are not grounded in the scientific evidence or lack thereof, but in your understanding of scripture.

Evolution cannot be traced completely back to its starting point. This is why we now have the shift to abiogenesis, because evolution was falsified here.

No, it was not falsified at this point. Evolution has never attempted to show how life originated. It has always been about the origin of species not the origin of life. Darwin included only one speculative sentence about the origin of life in Origin of Species and that sentence attributed the creation of the earliest forms of life to the creator. Nothing else in his work or any subsequent work on evolution deals with the origin of life

There was no evidence to show how evolution began or ever had a starting point. Just a whole lot of speculation has been given. I believe the shift to adding in abiogenesis and saying evolution has nothing to do with non-life to life is to save the theory of evolution.

Naming abiogenesis as a field of study recognizes that we now do have the capacity to investigate the origins of life itself. This was not possible in the 19th century, nor in much of the early 20th century. It was made possible by the discovery of pre-Cambrian fossils, especially micro-fossils over 3 billion years old, and by the discovery of the structure of DNA so that genetic sequencing and genetic engineering became possible. Also the work on the origin of amino acids that began with the Urey-Millar experiment and is ongoing. Abiogenesis really is a different field than evolution and does nothing to "save" the ToE. Not that ToE needs saving. But while abiogenesis and evolution are linked, in that life must originate before it can evolve, they are not the same thing. The theory of evolution does not depend on any one scenario of abiogenesis. Any possible scenario of the origin of life, including special creation, is compatible with evolution once life exists.

Evolution simply is defined as a change over time. Non-life to life is a change that is asserted to have happened over time, by scientists. It does fit with the basic definition of evolution. Yet, we are told it is not evolution. If so, then the defintion of evolution is wrong.

You are giving a general definition. But biologically evolution refers specifically to changes in species over time through changing the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. The biological definition is not wrong, just more specific.

To prove common descent, you need a starting point. So where is the evidence for this starting point?

The point is not to prove common descent, as science does not deal in proof;it deals in evidence. Common descent has always been inferred from the evidence and still is. After all, even creationists infer a common ancestor for various species group in the ancestral "kind". If you understand why they do so, you understand what the evidence is for common descent. Science just takes the same reasoning back farther, noting that some "kinds" have closer relationships to each other than to other "kinds" and therefore may have a common ancestor.

For example, all mammalian "kinds" are more like each other than any is to an insect "kind". So one can infer that all mammals may have a common ancestor, and all insects may have a common ancestor. Similarly one can see that mammals have more in common with other vertebrates than with invertebrates, and insects have more in common with other arthropods than with other invertebrates. So we can infer a common vertebrate and a common arthropod ancestor. And so on.

Now, from there, the next step is to see if the evidence supports this inference.

Genesis states that the universe was created out of nothing. I don't think the Big Bang agrees with that.

It neither agrees nor disagrees since science neither observe nor calculate the actual state of the universe at T=0.

That wasn't really what I said. I wasn't speaking of TEs, I was speaking of myself and how I view it and only myself.

Do you think that all the other scientists would just let one scientist put them all out of their way of making money? They get grants because of the work they do that includes evolution. I believe it was Dawkins who said that nothing makes sense in biology if it is not in the light of evolution. Dawkings also said that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot and/or insane.

Good heavens! Don't you realize that disproving evolution would open up whole new fields of research and generate even more research grants? Just in the same way that new technology makes some occupations redundant, but opens up lots of new occupations.

It was Theodosius Dobzhansky (who btw was a Christian) who said nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

It seems the pressure to keep evolution going is rather great because if evolution was disproven, there would be no choice but to believe that there is some sort of creator.

But evolution is not atheism and does not disprove a creator.

There are many who will stop at nothing to completely remove God from society.

Which makes it all the more important for all Christians to unite in combatting those who are taking this position. That is why it is important not to tie Christianity to one interpretation of scripture as if those who do not accept it cannot be allies in a struggle against atheism.

The Bible specifically says God created in six days. The New Testament writers upheld this by refering to it.

YECs see Genesis as not just a teaching of a greater message, but also as literal history. We see it as both, not just one as TEs do. We look to see what Jesus is saying and as literal history. Hence, the literal truth and the figurative truth. We do not limit the text to just one to fit our world view.

Your last statement is not really a statement but rather a judgment. YECs never have said that literal truth is more important than spiritual truth. That is just untruthful to say. We recognize both. We do not make the judgment that the Bible cannot be literally true in Genesis, but it is spiritually true. We rather say it is both, thus not limiting the text. We feel we are right to do so because there are many references back to Genesis 1-11 throughout the Bible treating those passages as literal history.

So, from this view point, when you don't say Genesis can only be true if it is mythical, but rather it is true literally and historically as well as teaching spiritual truth that it conflicts with the common descent teaching of evolution.

TEs don't say that Genesis can only be true if it is mythical rather than literal. Scripture per se can be true either way. But we also have the testimony of nature which is just as much from God as the scripture is. It is when nature and a literal intepretation of scripture conflict that one must consider that a literal interpretation is not valid. Internal biblical evidence can be interpreted either way. But both ways can't be valid once one cross-references with God's other word.