What's the point?

[Edouard]

Shernren:

Thank you for the info... as far as insults, I have seen people insult each other for disagreeing..I think this is ashame... God wants us to learn and grow, even if we disagree. Studying Old Testament Theology in college, I came alot of interesting concept on the idea of time.. as far as the days are concerned.. (just never really remembered the "groups" persay.).

Q #1: If animals, and plants were developed or "created" through evolution, then what about God?? Is it not plausible to think If God is, why can't he creat the World the same way?

Q #2: If we all are descendants of Adam, and Cain married and had children as well as Seth, how do describe the city of angels or the idea of the phrase "sons of God" ?
Is there not indication that angels and men cohabitated?


Q #3: Could it be possible that the earth appears older than what it is?

example: Blue Jeans... In stores Blue Jeans used to be blue...and when worn alot, they would get what, worn and turn white... Now stores sell worn and torn blue jeans...does this make them older than regular blue jeans? Could it not be that God created the earth to be "aged" in a sense..?

Q #4: Time is a strange thing. Science can prove by the astronomy that the Sun did stop for a day as recorded in the book of Joshua. So who can say how time elapsed in the Old Testament.. The question here would anyone know at what point ancient tribes or peoples used a sun dial? and how time was recorded? No one knows how old the earth is.. it cannot be proven.. II thessalonians God tells us a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day! Thoughts?

Q #5: The idea behind evolution is the concept that life in general has evolved.. if this was so..wouldn't "life" be evolving still? would we not be able to record the in-between species persay? or do we believe at one point evolution stoppped? If so, how? To say God stopped it, would be to say God could also create life anyway he wanted!

Q #6: Dionasaurs?? Job mentions the Leviathon in his writings.. and we do not know when specifically Job lived. How does this scenario fit into the viewpoint?

Edouard.
wanting to learn.

 

[shernren]

I'll treat these quite lightly here, search through both this and the open forum and a lot of your questions will be answered.

1. Firstly, since God created evolution, God still very much holds the creation rights. Analogy: God doesn't create anyone these days. When you see a baby, you know that there was a man and a woman somewhere who had sex, and you don't consider it a miracle. Yet the Bible says "children are a blessing from the Lord". But God wasn't directly responsible: He didn't take a lump of clay, and form it into the baby! But God brought together the circumstances that resulted in that birth.

Also, many theistic evolutionists do believe that at many points God intervened. The major example is that many believe that God directly gave Adam and Eve their humanity (whether they evolved or were shaped directly from clay) that we all trace our descendance from them and that the Garden Fall event really happened. That's why it's called theistic evolution, you see.

2. Angels and men could also have cohabitated in TE theory. Not too sure though.

3. Well, that's a huge debate. Most TEs actually believe what they believe because they think this would make God a liar and don't see what reason God would have had to make a young universe that looks old. Look around and you'll see most of the arguments hinging on whether this act would make God a liar. But, if you admit that the universe looks old, you would be majorly disagreeing with most YECs who say that the universe looks young.

4. Isochron radiodating. And about 50 other methods of physical dating. The earth looks old. Whether or not it actually is old, refer q3.

5. Yes, life is still evolving. That even YECs would agree, although not on how far that evolution can actually take creatures. But there are clear speciation boundaries i.e. whether or not two populations would naturally intermingle sexually to produce viable offspring.

6. We should have seen geological evidence of human-dino cohabitation if there was any. Anyway the description of the Leviathan and the Behemoth are greatly exaggerated and mythicised: no creature I know of biologically manipulates fire. Right?

 

[gluadys]

Q #4: Time is a strange thing. Science can prove by the astronomy that the Sun did stop for a day as recorded in the book of Joshua.

Not much to add to shernren's answers. I just wanted to note that this is an urban legend. There has been no scientific validation of an extra-long day. Someone invented the idea that it turned up in nasa's computers, and the idea has been roaming around the web ever since.

 

[Smidlee]

6. We should have seen geological evidence of human-dino cohabitation if there was any. Anyway the description of the Leviathan and the Behemoth are greatly exaggerated and mythicised: no creature I know of biologically manipulates fire. Right?

I would disagree here. In Job it made plain to me these creatures was well-known and huge. God throught nature has demonstrate some amazing stuff: The bombardier beetle's spray , bat's complex sonar, rat's teeth that stay sharp, the bumblebee flight, snake poison, etc. So why does a creature that manipulates fire seem so strange? With the right chemicals mix it shouldn't be too hard to do naturally.
There are also other writings beside the scriptures that hint of dinosaurs but are dismissed as myth only because of modern day prejudices that they didn't co-exist with humans. Even if they are some exaggeration they still referres to real creatures. Even though the movie "Cats and Dogs" was many exaggerations yet still represent many of the same characterisic of the real animals. This is what made it humorus.

 

[ChristianDude777]

If YECs will not allow themselves to be convinced by TEs, and TEs will not allow themselves to be convinced by YECs, then what on earth is the point of a forum allowing "dialogue"?

Grace and peace to you,

Actually, if you throw in the teaching of the pre-adamic flood, you can have both.

An old earth that "In the beginning the earth WAS..." and the present earth age that was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago.

Tim L.

 

[shernren]

So why does a creature that manipulates fire seem so strange? With the right chemicals mix it shouldn't be too hard to do naturally.

Because high temperatures rip enzymes apart ... though I wouldn't be surprised, considering especially the resilience of the sea-bed vent ecosystem. Still I'm going to be rather skeptical until somebody can show some solid evidence. Especially since the behemoth is often identified with the bronto, which wouldn't exactly have the energy and the brains to coordinate fire usage. Still...

Well, you can either believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs despite an almost-complete lack of geological substantiation. Or you can believe that humans extrapolated from known reptiles - crocs, Komodo dragons, turtles - and added on fire, and then marvel at their imagination.

 

[Smidlee]

nm

 

[shernren]

Grace and peace to you,

Actually, if you throw in the teaching of the pre-adamic flood, you can have both.

An old earth that "In the beginning the earth WAS..." and the present earth age that was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago.

But to the YECs, it is "obvious" that even to have both is nothing but "worldly compromise", to paraphrase some of the harsher words i've seen online. Witness when AiG blasted Chuck Colson. For what? Not even for supporting an alternative theory...but simply because Chuck Colson allowed his magazine to contemplate the possibility that they might be wrong.

This to me is very indicative of the spirit in which this YEC phenomenon is taking place. If one soldier in a war shoots at another simply for using a different brand of rifle, who should be court-martialed - the one shot at or the one who shot?

 

[SBG]

But to the YECs, it is "obvious" that even to have both is nothing but "worldly compromise", to paraphrase some of the harsher words i've seen online. Witness when AiG blasted Chuck Colson. For what? Not even for supporting an alternative theory...but simply because Chuck Colson allowed his magazine to contemplate the possibility that they might be wrong.

This to me is very indicative of the spirit in which this YEC phenomenon is taking place. If one soldier in a war shoots at another simply for using a different brand of rifle, who should be court-martialed - the one shot at or the one who shot?

And by this action you shall judge us all?

 

[CPman2004]

It is hard to defeat presuppostions such as evolutionism and creationism. Plus people hold on to by faith most of their beliefs. I could sincerly believe that CF ment Communist Faction, not Christian Forums, and if I am shown all the evidence that clearly shows that CF does not mean Communist Faction, I would still believe that it is Communist Faction, because that is my presuppostion and I hold onto that belief by faith. Even with all the evidence in the world, some will not accept the other's findings. Evolutionists would claim that there will be more evidence out there just waiting to be found when confronted with conflicting evidence. Creationists will claim that evolution couldn't stand on it's two hind legs for the evidence clearly shows God created without the aid or process of evolution.

It is all about a persons presuppostions, and those are very hard to uproot. I often wonder why athists claim to be the resonable ones, when their worldviews and presuppostion only leads to foolishness, and contradiction.

Also attacking the people who believe in YEC or TE isn't defateing the theory, it is just attacking each other.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is hard to defeat presuppostions such as evolutionism and creationism.

they are NOT presuppositions but rather very high order metaphysical systems.
(note the "ism" is a give away point to this)
presuppositions are simple ideas like:
the universe is really out there, part of critical realism.
it is a good thing to investigate the world, part of science.
that are radically NOT provable but analogously to axioms in geometry are necessary to frame or shape an argument.

....

 

[shernren]

SBG: It just raises questions about the motivations behind the creation science movement ... are they searching for truth - or truth as said by so-and-so...?

CP: To be honest, from what I see, evolution explains the facts much better than scientific creationism. Granted, people can propose some sort of "anti-scientific creationism" where God inexplicably ages the universe by several orders of magnitude. But that's not a scientific theory, any more than the existence or relevance of God can be scientifically assessed. The "presuppositions" that are hard to defeat are like naturalism vs. supernaturalism. There is no empirical proof for one or the other (by the very nature of their statements) so science has no recommendation for which the individual should choose. (I've said a lot about this in my thread on "alternative interpretations".)