Why Has Evolution Gained Popularity With Christians?

[SackLunch]

Reading through these posts, I am amazed at the number of Christians who support the theory of evolution.

I always thought it was cut and dry. God created the earth and all that is in it. He created the entire universe, in fact. This shows God's sovereignty and His supremecy. God did not "use" evolution as a mechanism for creating the earth. Why would an all-powerful, sovereign God need an alternate mechanism to accomplish His purposes? Is He not powerful enough to create life on His own?

Secondly, the theory of evolution leaves God out altogether. It says all of life formed from a godless slime which just so happened to form itself into life (mathematically and scientifically impossible).

So basically it's one or the other. Either you believe God created the earth, or you believe He didn't. Theistic evolution doesn't fly either. It is merely an attempt by Christians to appear more acceptable in an era of scientific reasoning. But who are we pleasing? Man? God? Who is our allegiance to? Will we believe a theory based on tenuous "evidence" (not proof), or will we take our sovereign, Holy God for His word based on the evidence we've had all along in the Bible?

What do you believe?

 

[PaladinValer]

False.

God Created, and evolution is how.

Fallacy of False Dilemma on your part.

 

[SackLunch]

False.

God Created, and evolution is how.

Fallacy of False Dilemma on your part.

You don't know that. You cannot be sure God created the earth through the evolutionary process. Do you have a different Bible that tells us that God used evolution? You'll never find such evidence because it doesn't exist. Then again, not much evidence exists for evolution either.

To say that God used evolution is to say that He is not powerful enough to create the earth and man on his own. This reduces God's nature down to nothing. If He isn't really a powerful God, and if He had to "use" some other mechanism to get life going on earth, what kind of God do you suppose He is?

We have two opposing views: 1) God created the heavens and the earth according to the Bible; and 2) All of our complex life systems evolved over a magical millions of years without God. These two views cannot be combined. It's either-or.

 

[notto]

We have two opposing views: 1) God created the heavens and the earth according to the Bible; and 2) All of our complex life systems evolved over a magical millions of years without God. These two views cannot be combined. It's either-or.

Well, that may be your opinion, but that does not make it fact. The theory of evolution works just find with God and they certainly can be resolved. Darwin did it after carefully collecting evidence that evolution happened and was how the diversity of life came to be. When we look at the creation itself, there is plenty of evidence for evolution happening and the creation cannot tell a lie. If God is the creator of all, as Christians believe, the the logical conclusion is that the evolution and diversity of life is simply part of God's plan.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.

 

[gluadys]

Reading through these posts, I am amazed at the number of Christians who support the theory of evolution.

Most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution. Some of them even work professionally as biologists (e.g Kenneth Miller) or paleontologists (e.g Rev. Bob Bakker) and have added to our knowledge of evolution. I expect that theistic evolution will continue to become more popular as more Christians discover that evolution is true and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of bio-diversity.

I always thought it was cut and dry. God created the earth and all that is in it. He created the entire universe, in fact. This shows God's sovereignty and His supremecy. God did not "use" evolution as a mechanism for creating the earth.

In the first place the earth did not evolve. It is not a living, reproducing creature, so it can't evolve.

Why would an all-powerful, sovereign God need an alternate mechanism to accomplish His purposes?

Whether God needs a mechanism or not, he often uses one, according to scripture. For example, God used a strong east wind to part the Red Sea and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptians. (Exodos 14:21) Jesus once used saliva to heal a blind man. (Mark 8:23) So suggesting that God used evolution as a way for species to diversify does not suggest that God had to use a mechanism, only that he chose to do so.

Is He not powerful enough to create life on His own?

Of course.

Furthermore, evolution is not about how life came to be. Evolution pre-supposes that living things already exist. Evolution is about how species change over time, diversifying into many new species. Read the conclusion of Darwin's Origin of Species in notto's post. You will see he did not think of evolution as the origin of life, but as the way life developed after it was created.

Secondly, the theory of evolution leaves God out altogether. It says all of life formed from a godless slime which just so happened to form itself into life (mathematically and scientifically impossible).

Again evolution is not about the origin of life, but about the development of diverse forms of life.

Scientists are not in a position to control God. (I hope you think they should not be either.) So they cannot examine God or come to any conclusions about God. As a result, science can't say anything about God. That includes saying that God does not exist or create. Science will not tell you anything about God one way or the other. Just as the owner's manual in your car will not tell you about God either. Does that mean the person who wrote it must be an atheist?

Will we believe a theory based on tenuous "evidence" (not proof),

All science is based on evidence. Scientific theories are never proven, though they may be falsified. And the evidence for evolution is not tenuous, but very solid.

 

[Calminian]

Per your question in the thread title, I think it's a combination of things.

For sure christians want to avoid being thought of as irrational, but I don't necessarily fault them for this.

I'm starting to wonder if literal Genesis christians don't share a big portion of the blame in this. Many churches who do believe in a literal Genesis don't have any clue what arguments the other side is putting forth. For some reason they feel it's so simple and straight forward they don't bother to research and address the opposition. I sometimes cringe at some of the arguments I hear on my side. If they sound silly to me I can image how silly they must sound to the young christians looking at both sides trying to discern the truth.

Please don't take this as a blanket criticism against all YECs. The ones that hang out at these forums tend to be the ones that understand the issue best. I wish I could say that about most pastors.

Too harsh? I'd appreciate some feedback, especially from fellow YECs.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Reading through these posts, I am amazed at the number of Christians who support the theory of evolution.

I always thought it was cut and dry. God created the earth and all that is in it. He created the entire universe, in fact. This shows God's sovereignty and His supremecy. God did not "use" evolution as a mechanism for creating the earth. Why would an all-powerful, sovereign God need an alternate mechanism to accomplish His purposes? Is He not powerful enough to create life on His own?

Secondly, the theory of evolution leaves God out altogether. It says all of life formed from a godless slime which just so happened to form itself into life (mathematically and scientifically impossible).

So basically it's one or the other. Either you believe God created the earth, or you believe He didn't. Theistic evolution doesn't fly either. It is merely an attempt by Christians to appear more acceptable in an era of scientific reasoning. But who are we pleasing? Man? God? Who is our allegiance to? Will we believe a theory based on tenuous "evidence" (not proof), or will we take our sovereign, Holy God for His word based on the evidence we've had all along in the Bible?

What do you believe?

you're new here, aren't you?
ever had a decent class in evolutionary biology?
that is why Christians are persuaded that it is true, the evidence.



....

 

[Calminian]

you're new here, aren't you?
ever had a decent class in evolutionary biology?
that is why Christians are persuaded that it is true, the evidence.



....

Seems the same old confusion still exists about scientific theories disproving the Bible. Science can neither falsify nor verify miraculous acts of God like the six day creation, the curse, or the flood (nor any other recorded miracles). I think the OPer is asking you why you don't believe what the Bible has revealed about origins when you clearly believe what's it has revealed about other things. Why would a biologist's philosophical opinion about origins cause you to rethink Genesis?

 

[gluadys]

Seems the same old confusion still exists about scientific theories disproving the Bible. Science can neither falsify nor verify miraculous acts of God like the six day creation, the curse, or the flood (nor any other recorded miracles). I think the OPer is asking you why you don't believe what the Bible has revealed about origins when you clearly believe what's it has revealed about other things. Why would a biologist's philosophical opinion about origins cause you to rethink Genesis?

It depends on the miracle.

If a miracle ought to leave lasting physical evidence and does not, it puts the miracle into question. It is even more in question if there is evidence that ought not to be there if the miracle occurred.

Now for some miracles we do not expect to find either confirming or disconfirming evidence. e.g. Jesus calming a storm or feeding 5,000+ people with a few fish and loaves of bread. His resurrection also is not a miracle for which we would expect to find evidence, and to date no one has found disconfirming evidence (e.g. his skeleton).

But some miracles are said to have affected the earth in a way that we do expect to find evidence and do not expect to find disconfirming evidence.

A recent creation is disconfirmed by the measured age of the earth, the stars, distant galaxies and the universe. These cannot be if creation is recent.

In regard to the curse we have confirming evidence: snakes have no legs, thorns and thistles grow where we would prefer to see wheat or barley, women experience pain in childbirth. The problem is that we have no evidence that it has ever been any different---no starting point for the curse.

The flood is disconfirmed both by the lack of evidence of a global flood and numerous geological facts which could not exist were the flood an actual global event.

The only way to remove this evidence from consideration is to propose that God did two things:

1. removed all evidence of a recent creation, the beginning point of the curse and the global flood, and
2. planted false evidence in nature to lead students of nature (including devout Christians) to a conclusion that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

It is the second part that bothers me. If you want to believe that God performed a miracle and then erased all traces of the miracle, that is your prerogative. It's a possibility that science can neither confirm nor deny. To me, it is a little like choosing to live in fantasy-land, but that's just my opinion.

But to allege that God deliberately planted false evidence in nature is, in effect, to accuse God of lying.

I know that most creationists have not thought through to this conclusion. I know there is no deliberate intention of calling God a liar. Most creationists are simply not aware of how much evidence would have to be planted in nature to make it look as if the world is old when it is young or that a global flood had not occurred when it had. But once you start looking, you find out it is a lot.

The only way to ignore it all is to subscribe to a version of last Thursdayism or to a vision of the universe as a holographic matrix in which we cannot trust the appearance of the world to have any connection with reality.

IMO, that position is untenable for a Christian. To me, the doctrine of creation means God created a real world, not an imaginary one. And the real world includes evolution as a fact, not as a philosophy.

I don't believe I am ever called to interpret scripture in a way that denies fact.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Seems the same old confusion still exists about scientific theories disproving the Bible. Science can neither falsify nor verify miraculous acts of God like the six day creation, the curse, or the flood (nor any other recorded miracles). I think the OPer is asking you why you don't believe what the Bible has revealed about origins when you clearly believe what's it has revealed about other things. Why would a biologist's philosophical opinion about origins cause you to rethink Genesis?

like Glaudys said depends on the miracle.
global flood within 10K years has been disproved and fully falsified.
creation within the same time period unless you believe in a creation with apparent age and solve the brains in the vat problem with it.

changing water into wine won't leave a footprint like a recent creation or recent global flood.

but it is not Dawkins or Dennetts or SJGs scientism that convinces me of evolutionary theory but the low level evidence like (again) 2 human=2p+2p chimp or the GLO pseudogene or the HERV-W protein.

for the record, i believe what Genesis says, i just don't see it teaching modern science in the order of the days.


.....

 

[Calminian]

It depends on the miracle.

If a miracle ought to leave lasting physical evidence and does not, it puts the miracle into question. It is even more in question if there is evidence that ought not to be there if the miracle occurred.

It also depends on the details of how the miracle was performed and how much information we have on those details. Without those details it is impossible to predict what affect that miracle will have.

Now for some miracles we do not expect to find either confirming or disconfirming evidence. e.g. Jesus calming a storm or feeding 5,000+ people with a few fish and loaves of bread. His resurrection also is not a miracle for which we would expect to find evidence, and to date no one has found disconfirming evidence (e.g. his skeleton).

But some miracles are said to have affected the earth in a way that we do expect to find evidence and do not expect to find disconfirming evidence.

I think this is the problem. Many think they know how a certain miracle will affect the earth, therefore they think they can falsify it through the scientific method. But we know very little about the methodology God used in the six day creation. The event took 144 hours yet we can read about it in 5 minutes. We have no idea what it would take to create an earth with a completely functioning echo system. We know that the earth was not naturally formed 6,000 years, but rather via a miracle which we can hardly comprehend. We know what the miracle accomplished (the universe) but we know very little about the process. Therefore it's quite arrogant for one living today to claim they know how the aftermath should look. It's utterly illogical.

A recent creation is disconfirmed by the measured age of the earth, the stars, distant galaxies and the universe. These cannot be if creation is recent.

17 times in scripture it is said God stretched out the universe. I have no problem with the stars being so far away.

In regard to the curse we have confirming evidence: snakes have no legs, thorns and thistles grow where we would prefer to see wheat or barley, women experience pain in childbirth. The problem is that we have no evidence that it has ever been any different---no starting point for the curse.

We have biblical evidence. That's the same evidence you have for the resurrection. I'm not sure why you need more.

The flood is disconfirmed both by the lack of evidence of a global flood and numerous geological facts which could not exist were the flood an actual global event.

Scientists understand natural floods. They don't understand supernatural global floods at all. The Bible just doesn't give us many details on exactly how God caused it. Was it just one push of a domino and the rest fell into place, or was it a continuous supernaturally sustained event?? If the latter what kind of affect would that have on the earth?? This is a question science just can't answer for us. It is limited to the natural.

The only way to remove this evidence from consideration is to propose that God did two things:

1. removed all evidence of a recent creation, the beginning point of the curse and the global flood, and
2. planted false evidence in nature to lead students of nature (including devout Christians) to a conclusion that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

Again these two solutions show the arrogance of man claiming to understand miracles and their effect. This is the error that unfortunately is running rampant among scientists and now is spilling over into the church, who should know better.

 

[Dracil]

Reading through these posts, I am amazed at the number of Christians who support the theory of evolution.

Welcome to what most Christians believe (hint: there's a big chunk of world outside the US).

As for the rest of your post, false dichotomy. Learn more about evolution before trying again.

 

[gluadys]

It also depends on the details of how the miracle was performed and how much information we have on those details. Without those details it is impossible to predict what affect that miracle will have.

That is only true if the details are more miracles.

We know that the earth was not naturally formed 6,000 years

Precisely. But we also know much of what we ought to see if it was. For example, the genetic history of humanity should converge toward a common ancestor that lived about 6,000 years ago. It doesn't. It converges to an ancestral human population that lived about 70,000 years ago. And that population did not consist of only two people.

Furthermore, the genetic history of all other species should also converge to a common ancestor that lived no more than 6,000 years ago. They don't either.

(Actually, if you take the flood into account, all genomes in all species should converge to a bottleneck only some 4,000 years ago. Again, they don't.)

Therefore it's quite arrogant for one living today to claim they know how the aftermath should look. It's utterly illogical.

If God returns the world to normal functioning after the miracle, we do know how the aftermath should look. See above.

17 times in scripture it is said God stretched out the universe. I have no problem with the stars being so far away.

First it does not say God stretched out the universe. It says God stretched out the heavens. In some cases it says explicitly that God stretched out the heavens like a tent. I don't see how the expansion of the universe resembles unfolding and stretching out a tent over a piece of ground.

Second, does it say at all when God stretched out the heavens? Does it say God is continually stretching out the heavens? (The universe is continually expanding.) Does it say by how much God stretched the heavens? Do you know what a light-year is and what it means to say a star or galaxy is billions of light-years away? It means it takes that long for the light to travel from the star to earth. So how do we see light from stars that are more than 6,000 light-years from us if the universe was only created 6,000 years ago?

Do you know that we can confirm from ancient astronomical records what stars and constellations were visible 5,000 years ago, and that they are not different from those we see today. But that should not be. We should see all sorts of stars between 1,000 and 6,000 light years away that ancient astronomers could not--even without the use of a telescope. In fact, astronomical records should be filled with discoveries of new stars as their light reaches earth for the first time. And this appearance of new visible stars (no telescope needed) should be continuing into the present. We should have to revise the list of constellations every few centuries as more and more distant stars become visible.

We have biblical evidence. That's the same evidence you have for the resurrection. I'm not sure why you need more.

We have biblical testimony. Testimony that in many cases is not confirmed by any extra-biblical source. We believe testimony on the basis of faith. We believe science on the basis of evidence. While testimony is received as evidence in a court of law, it does not qualify as scientific evidence.

I do not have scientific evidence of the resurrection. I have two thousand years of testimony beginning with the apostles. I rely on that testimony by faith, not because the resurrection has ever been supported by evidence.

Scientists understand natural floods. They don't understand supernatural global floods at all.

So why do creationists point to the Grand Canyon as "evidence" of the flood? If we have no understanding of super-natural global floods, we cannot expect the Grand Canyon to provide any evidence of one because we don't know what evidence to look for.

Again these two solutions show the arrogance of man claiming to understand miracles and their effect. This is the error that unfortunately is running rampant among scientists and now is spilling over into the church, who should know better.

No one is claiming to understand miracles. But if miracles impinge on the physical world, they must leave physical evidence. Otherwise, when Jesus healed a blind man, the man would still be blind. And when the 5,000+ people were fed, there would be no scraps to gather up afterward.

We may not know how these things happened (that is the miracle part) but we know that they happened from the physical evidence that a man who could not see now sees and twelve baskets of fish bones and bread scraps picked up after the picnic.

Similarly, if God caused a miraculous flood, we may not understand how he caused it, but we could certainly know that it happened from the evidence that it left behind. No such evidence exists. Evidence that disconfirms a global flood does.

 

[PaladinValer]

You don't know that.

Not 100%, but 99%, yes.

You cannot be sure God created the earth through the evolutionary process.

The evidence doesn't lie.

Do you have a different Bible that tells us that God used evolution?

Do you have impiracle proof it never occured. Beyond, of course, psuedoscience, illogic, and urban legends?

ou'll never find such evidence because it doesn't exist. Then again, not much evidence exists for evolution either.

You're gravely mistaken.

To say that God used evolution is to say that He is not powerful enough to create the earth and man on his own.

False. No TE believes this. Why don't you do us a favor and LEARN WHAT TES ACTUALLY BELIEVE BEFORE YOU ASSUME EVERYTHING ABOUT US?!

This reduces God's nature down to nothing. If He isn't really a powerful God, and if He had to "use" some other mechanism to get life going on earth, what kind of God do you suppose He is?

Inventive. Something it seems YECs don't like to see.

We have two opposing views: 1) God created the heavens and the earth according to the Bible; and 2) All of our complex life systems evolved over a magical millions of years without God. These two views cannot be combined. It's either-or.

You haven't a clue what TEs even believe, so all your opinions are moot.

 

[Calminian]

That is only true if the details are more miracles.

Since global floods don’t happen naturally and since fully functioning echo-systems don’t happen naturally especially in six days, I would guess the hand of God was working the elements in ways we could never imagine.

Precisely. But we also know much of what we ought to see if it was.

Again claiming to know what miracle aftermath looks like without ever observing it. Don't you realize your whole system of thinking rests on this foundation?

For example, the genetic history of humanity should converge toward a common ancestor that lived about 6,000 years ago. It doesn't. It converges to an ancestral human population that lived about 70,000 years ago. And that population did not consist of only two people.

Oy!

Furthermore, the genetic history of all other species should also converge to a common ancestor that lived no more than 6,000 years ago. They don't either.

More of the same. I, a mere creature know for certain what effect a miracle will have, even though I’ve never actually seen one. I never cease to be amazed at what man tells God about His own creation.

(Actually, if you take the flood into account, all genomes in all species should converge to a bottleneck only some 4,000 years ago. Again, they don't.)

It’s as if I never made my point. I guess some lines of reasoning are too painful to let go of.

If God returns the world to normal functioning after the miracle, we do know how the aftermath should look. See above.

Now this is interesting. The claim now comes that scientific investigation CAN detect a miracle.

First it does not say God stretched out the universe. It says God stretched out the heavens. In some cases it says explicitly that God stretched out the heavens like a tent. I don't see how the expansion of the universe resembles unfolding and stretching out a tent over a piece of ground.

Hmm. This is a bible believing christian now telling me that the Bible is not true since she doesn’t understand a metaphor.

Second, does it say at all when God stretched out the heavens? Does it say God is continually stretching out the heavens? (The universe is continually expanding.) Does it say by how much God stretched the heavens? Do you know what a light-year is and what it means to say a star or galaxy is billions of light-years away? It means it takes that long for the light to travel from the star to earth. So how do we see light from stars that are more than 6,000 light-years from us if the universe was only created 6,000 years ago?

The best theory I’ve seen so far is Humphreys white hole cosmology. It makes sense to my non scientific mind. But this really isn’t the point. I don’t understand a lot of things in God’s word. I still believe them because the messenger is reliable and credible. It’s seems you don’t believe many portions of the Bible. That’s a shame.

Do you know that we can confirm from ancient astronomical records what stars and constellations were visible 5,000 years ago, and that they are not different from those we see today. But that should not be. We should see all sorts of stars between 1,000 and 6,000 light years away that ancient astronomers could not--even without the use of a telescope. In fact, astronomical records should be filled with discoveries of new stars as their light reaches earth for the first time. And this appearance of new visible stars (no telescope needed) should be continuing into the present. We should have to revise the list of constellations every few centuries as more and more distant stars become visible.

In other words, you believe that you know all the details of the miraculous creation of the universe. It’s a simple as that.

We have biblical testimony. Testimony that in many cases is not confirmed by any extra-biblical source. We believe testimony on the basis of faith. We believe science on the basis of evidence. While testimony is received as evidence in a court of law, it does not qualify as scientific evidence.

Actually in a court of law eye-witnesses are the most valuable evidence.

I do not have scientific evidence of the resurrection. I have two thousand years of testimony beginning with the apostles. I rely on that testimony by faith, not because the resurrection has ever been supported by evidence.

I’m glad you still believe that portion of scripture, albeit inconsistently. As you know historians have come up with several alternatives for the empty tomb. As a result, many "christians" now believe the resurrection is simply a story conveying some truths.

So why do creationists point to the Grand Canyon as "evidence" of the flood? If we have no understanding of super-natural global floods, we cannot expect the Grand Canyon to provide any evidence of one because we don't know what evidence to look for.

Creationists like those of AIG and ICR do not claim the Bible is proven by scientific evidence. They simply say the Bible and science can be harmonized when you start with biblical presuppositions. They are simply showing that science doesn’t not disprove scripture. And being that there are many details left out of the record, they can hypothesize about various models of how it may have happened. They are very clear about this. I would suggest reading their writings more carefully. No scientist and AIG or ICR would claim science proves the Bible.

No one is claiming to understand miracles.

Ahem!

But if miracles impinge on the physical world, they must leave physical evidence.

I had a feeling there would be a contradiction in the next sentence.

Otherwise, when Jesus healed a blind man, the man would still be blind. And when the 5,000+ people were fed, there would be no scraps to gather up afterward.

Oy!

We may not know how these things happened (that is the miracle part) but we know that they happened from the physical evidence that a man who could not see now sees and twelve baskets of fish bones and bread scraps picked up after the picnic.

Yes but apart from the testimonies would we be able to examine these individuals and determine they were once blind? Would we be able to examine the wine Jesus created and determine its age? With the assumption of naturalism you can bet other stories would be preferred.

Similarly, if God caused a miraculous flood, we may not understand how he caused it, but we could certainly know that it happened from the evidence that it left behind.

IOW, even though you never observed a miraculous flood and miraculous receding of the waters, you feel you know how it would look afterward. This is the mistake so many in the church are making. It’s really sad.

No such evidence exists. Evidence that disconfirms a global flood does.

You are right. No evidence of a natural global flood exists. But no one believes in a natural global flood. Christians believe God flooded the earth and then caused the waters to recede and restored the planet to sustain the life preserved on the ark. Who knows to what extent His hand was involved/ Thus the scientist with wrong presuppositions will no doubt come to all kinds of wrong conclusions about the evidence. But those that trust His Word will never be fooled.

 

[gluadys]

Since global floods don’t happen naturally and since fully functioning echo-systems don’t happen naturally especially in six days, I would guess the hand of God was working the elements in ways we could never imagine.

That is self-evident. There is no natural way these things can occur.

Again claiming to know what miracle aftermath looks like without ever observing it. Don't you realize your whole system of thinking rests on this foundation?

My thinking relies on the testimony of scripture that after the flood year was over, God restored the normal functions of the natural cycle. Gen. 8:22

Oy!

Very thoughtful response!

More of the same. I, a mere creature know for certain what effect a miracle will have, even though I’ve never actually seen one. I never cease to be amazed at what man tells God about His own creation.

Yes, you do. You assume that when sight is miraculously restored to a blind man, it will have the effect that the man sees. And that when a paralyzed man is healed it will have the effect that he is able to stand, pick up his bed and walk. In principle, the miracles of creation and of the flood are no different. We cannot explain the mechanism by which they happened, but we can predict their effects on nature.

It’s as if I never made my point. I guess some lines of reasoning are too painful to let go of.

You never made a valid point. Nor did you show that mine was not valid. If God created all species 6,000 years ago, why would you not expect genetic evidence to show that?

Now this is interesting. The claim now comes that scientific investigation CAN detect a miracle.

Of course it can. Ever read the scientific reports on the miracles at Lourdes? Every claimed healing is subjected to rigourous scientific scrutiny. Only those for which no natural explanation can be found are officially listed as miracles.

Hmm. This is a bible believing christian now telling me that the Bible is not true since she doesn’t understand a metaphor.

The metaphor is of a tent being unfolded, stretched out and erected (on some sort of support) over a piece of earth. The prophet using this metaphor is saying the heavens are like a great tent spread over the whole (presumably flat) earth and supported by foundations or pillars (e.g. mountains). There is no point in using a metaphor unless there is some real resemblance between the object and the metaphor.

And I did not say the bible is untrue. The metaphor was valid for its time. It is we who have changed our view of the structure of the cosmos.

The best theory I’ve seen so far is Humphreys white hole cosmology. It makes sense to my non scientific mind.

You would have to have a very unscientific mind to find any sense in Humphrey's cosmology.

It’s seems you don’t believe many portions of the Bible. That’s a shame.

Incorrect. There is no part of the bible I don't believe. I just strive to understand every part in the context of God's Word--including God's Word in nature, since the bible itself instructs us to listen to it.

In other words, you believe that you know all the details of the miraculous creation of the universe. It’s a simple as that.

I didn't say anything about knowing the details of the miraculous creation of the universe. But given that God created nature, and given the nature of light, and given your proposition that God stretched out the heavens so that the stars were far away from earth, it necessarily follows that it takes time for starlight to travel to earth and that we would continually see new stars as new light arrives.

It would be a fact that no starlight would be seen on earth at all until 4 years after creation because the nearest star to earth is 4 light years away. And it is a fact that we ought not to see, even today, light from any star that is more than 6,000 light years away.

But we see light that is over 12 billion years old. Given a creation that is only 6,000 years old that is impossible without more miraculous activity.

Actually in a court of law eye-witnesses are the most valuable evidence.

Actually, that is not true. Eye-witness evidence is often partial and contradictory. Good circumstantial evidence is often more reliable. Ask any lawyer. Eye-witness evidence generally comes down to which witness you believe.

I’m glad you still believe that portion of scripture, albeit inconsistently. As you know historians have come up with several alternatives for the empty tomb. As a result, many "christians" now believe the resurrection is simply a story conveying some truths.

I believe all of scripture. And historians' conjectures about the empty tomb are only conjectures until they have evidence for them. Besides the empty tomb is not really evidence for the resurrection, as a tomb can be empty for various other reasons. If we had only the empty tomb without the apostles' testimony of the risen Christ, we would have only a historical puzzle, not the gospel.

Creationists like those of AIG and ICR do not claim the Bible is proven by scientific evidence.

So why do creationists point to the Grand Canyon as "evidence" of the flood? If we have no understanding of super-natural global floods, we cannot expect the Grand Canyon to provide any evidence of one because we don't know what evidence to look for.

Did I say anything about proof?

They simply say the Bible and science can be harmonized when you start with biblical presuppositions.

Which means they agree with me. They agree that we can know what the aftermath of a global flood must look like, and we can seek evidence for the flood in nature.

If you are defending AiG & co. you are blatantly contradicting your earlier statements that this is not possible.

And being that there are many details left out of the record, they can hypothesize about various models of how it may have happened.

Sure, you can hypothesize that the universe is a ball of snot in the nostril of the Galactic Unicorn. But does your hypothesis uniquely explain the reality of nature in a way that accounts for all the evidence and reliably predicts more evidence?

Oy!

Another thoughtful response!
Can you deny that actual scraps of leftover fish and bread are physical consequences of this miracle?

Yes but apart from the testimonies would we be able to examine these individuals and determine they were once blind? Would we be able to examine the wine Jesus created and determine its age? With the assumption of naturalism you can bet other stories would be preferred.

We don't know that these miracles occurred. We have only the biblical testimony that they did. But if the biblical testimony is true, we know that those who were there could examine the individuals and determine that they were once blind. John 9:13-23

IOW, even though you never observed a miraculous flood and miraculous receding of the waters, you feel you know how it would look afterward. This is the mistake so many in the church are making. It’s really sad.

Including, apparently AiG, right?

Christians believe God flooded the earth and then caused the waters to recede and restored the planet to sustain the life preserved on the ark. Who knows to what extent His hand was involved.

Some Christians believe this.

And apparently they believe that God restored the planet by
1. removing all evidence of a global flood, and
2. planting false evidence in nature to lead students of nature (including devout Christians) to a conclusion that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the flood accounts in Genesis.

I have already given my opinion of this sort of hermeneutic.

Thus the scientist with wrong presuppositions will no doubt come to all kinds of wrong conclusions about the evidence. But those that trust His Word will never be fooled.

The scientist is not coming to wrong conclusions about the evidence. The evidence is what it is. Your claim is that the evidence is misleading because it was placed there by a miracle. Scientists assume that the evidence is not misleading. Christian scientists assume that nature does not mislead because the God who created it does not lie. Read Descartes.

 

[Crusadar]

Gluadys said: So why do creationists point to the Grand Canyon as "evidence" of the flood? If we have no understanding of super-natural global floods, we cannot expect the Grand Canyon to provide any evidence of one because we don't know what evidence to look for.

Here is a lie that one text book is teaching our kids:

“Over millions of years, the Colorado River has carved out the Grand Canyon from solid rock.” - General Science, Pretence Hall 1992 p174.

And how do we know that this is false. Lets see we know several things about the Grand Canyon:

1. The Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon at about 2800 ft above sea level.
2. The highest point of the GC is about 8000 ft above sea level.
3. The CR flows through the bottom - at its deepest point about 6000 feet.
4. As far as we know rivers do not flow uphill.

Conclusion: The GC was not formed by the CR.

 

[depthdeception]

Gluadys said: So why do creationists point to the Grand Canyon as "evidence" of the flood? If we have no understanding of super-natural global floods, we cannot expect the Grand Canyon to provide any evidence of one because we don't know what evidence to look for.

Here is a lie that one text book is teaching our kids:

“Over millions of years, the Colorado River has carved out the Grand Canyon from solid rock.” - General Science, Pretence Hall 1992 p174.

And how do we know that this is false. Lets see we know several things about the Grand Canyon:

1. The Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon at about 2800 ft above sea level.
2. The highest point of the GC is about 8000 ft above sea level.
3. The CR flows through the bottom - at its deepest point about 6000 feet.
4. As far as we know rivers do not flow uphill.

Conclusion: The GC was not formed by the CR.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys said: So why do creationists point to the Grand Canyon as "evidence" of the flood? If we have no understanding of super-natural global floods, we cannot expect the Grand Canyon to provide any evidence of one because we don't know what evidence to look for.

Here is a lie that one text book is teaching our kids:

“Over millions of years, the Colorado River has carved out the Grand Canyon from solid rock.” - General Science, Pretence Hall 1992 p174.

And how do we know that this is false. Lets see we know several things about the Grand Canyon:

1. The Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon at about 2800 ft above sea level.
2. The highest point of the GC is about 8000 ft above sea level.
3. The CR flows through the bottom - at its deepest point about 6000 feet.
4. As far as we know rivers do not flow uphill.

Conclusion: The GC was not formed by the CR.

Premature conclusion.

The CR enters the GC at 2800 feet today after wearing away the canyon it is in.
What was the height of the plateau around the GC area when the CR first began to erode it? Was it as high as 8,000 feet above sea level then?

Here is an informative site on the history of the Colorado river and its tributaries which explains apparent uphill flow.

http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html

 

[Crusadar]

Gluadys said: The CR enters the GC at 2800 feet today after wearing away the canyon it is in. What was the height of the plateau around the GC area when the CR first began to erode it? Was it as high as 8,000 feet above sea level then?

Where is evidence showing that it was much higher than it is today? NONE. What are the evidences that it was caused by something other than the CR?

1. There is little sediment deposit at the western end of the GC where the CR exits the canyon.

2. Satellite pictures show:

The flowing of water that carved the barbed canyons shown in yellow flowed in a direction against to the flow of the CR (in red) today. The funnel like evidence shows a spillway for water that has been dammed in which the GC was the result.

*Pictures are from creationscience.com

Here is an informative site on the history of the Colorado river and its tributaries which explains apparent uphill flow.

Uphill flow? Now that I’d like to see! Would make a great tourist attraction you know - a river that flows uphill. Who are you trying to kid gluadys? I guess evolutionists will believe in anything as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with creationism - even if rivers need to be imagined to flow uphill.

Now does this say anything about the age of the earth (i.e. that it is young) - no, only that the GC was not formed by slow erosion due to the CR and a case that there are lies in textbooks that are being told to our kids.