Young Earth looking Old

[Critias]

I am not dodging. I and others have already answered how evolutionary theory does indeed point to God. Now, how does creationary theory point to God? After all, when AiG comes up with some latest "anti-evolutionary" statement that supposedly points "to God", half the time Islamic creationist groups start aping it and coming up with statements that point "to Allah". If creationism points to God then why is it pointing to Allah?

The Creationary Theory starts with, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Hand hands, fingers and toes point to God as the Creator.

The fact is that no theory alone can point to or away from God, except the "theory" that God chose to be incarnated as man to die on the cross to atone for the sins of the world. That is the only uniquely Christian theory in the world. Creationism is not uniquely Christian, and creation science isn't half workable, so why put weight behind it?

As I said above, the Creationary Theory starts with God as the Creator. It in and of itself is a testimony of God as the Creator. Show me where the Evolutionary Theory does this.

So you admit that the universe's looking old has nothing to do with its sustaining life?

What I said was that God didn't create this universe with the purpose or intent to look old. The reason "look old" was not the intent of God when He created a universe in six days that supported life. His intent was just that, to support life.

Tell me, honestly, if science didn't see the miracle of Jesus turning water to wine, what would be the initial guess about the wine? Would science say it was just water a minute ago, thus recently created or would science say this must have happened by a natural process, thus the wine has been aging for quite some time?

If science gave the latter explanation, would you now call Jesus a deceiver?

I'm sorry to have offended you, but you get the point. When people say that there is evidence for evolution you find it easy to brush them off as substandard Christians who don't like to see God glorified. So when people say that God had no reason to make the world look old, you are perfectly at liberty to employ the exact same defense, instead of finding a rationalization on God's behalf ("God made the universe look old because only then it would support life!" - falsified) that doesn't stand up anyhow.

I do not think of you or any TE here as any less than myself. If anything, I am less than you all. I have not stated anything about your faith, or belief in Jesus Christ that would indicate I believe you are not what you say you are. I have simply asked a question that neither you nor anyone else has yet to answer.

How does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

 

[Critias]

A 24-hour day does not need to be a historical day.

Yes, I am aware of your mythology belief.

Saddens, not angers. Actually, God should be part of discussions on science. But not part of the teaching of science. I trust you understand the difference. There is nothing science can say about God.

You see, I beg to differ. Science could say a lot about God, but it chooses not to and you support this. It is not that Science ought to test God, but rather it ought to glorify God. For what science studies, is what God Himself created. But, there are people like yourself who agree that science should not credit God as the Creator.

As a Christian, I would think you would be joyful that children in classrooms will hear talks of there being a Creator God. Instead you respond saying you are saddened by this, or maybe you are saddened because now the Evolutionary Theory can be questioned in classrooms instead of the children being told the whole theory is actually a fact.

Rejecting the answer does not mean it was not given.

You never explained how a person who doesn't know God, has not read the Bible, would know God is the Creator of all we see by just hearing the Evolutionary Theory. Instead you assumed that such a person would already know of God and the Bible. As much as you may or may not want to believe, many people within the United States alone have never read the Bible nor have many truly listened about who God is.

Even within the Christian community there is a real problem of Biblical illiteracy.

By the way just how does creationary "theory" point to God scientifically? Doesn't it just assume God?

Creationary Theory starts with Genesis 1:1. Science starts with something similiar, except it removes God, a Creator, and says there was a beginning in which things came to be, naturally.

 

[random_guy]

So I guess the entire problem is science doesn't glorify God? I really don't see any problem with that. A criminal investigation also doesn't glorify God, so what's wrong with that?

Just because science doesn't include God, doesn't make science bad in any way. When I see pictures of galaxies and nebulas, I see God. While the theory about galaxy formation and nebula formation do not mention Him, I believe that he created everything, and I'm awed by its awesomeness. However, none of this would be possible without science.

Do Creationists also dislike math since it doesn't glorify God? Do they not like the fundamental theorem of calculus?

 

[Critias]

So I guess the entire problem is science doesn't glorify God? I really don't see any problem with that. A criminal investigation also doesn't glorify God, so what's wrong with that?

Just because science doesn't include God, doesn't make science bad in any way. When I see pictures of galaxies and nebulas, I see God. While the theory about galaxy formation and nebula formation do not mention Him, I believe that he created everything, and I'm awed by its awesomeness. However, none of this would be possible without science.

Do Creationists also dislike math since it doesn't glorify God? Do they not like the fundamental theorem of calculus?

Another nice tangent.

You have yet to answer my question, just as every other TE has yet to answer it. How does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

After all, TEs want the Creationary Theory replaced with the Evolutionary Theory.

 

[gluadys]

The Creationary Theory starts with, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Hand hands, fingers and toes point to God as the Creator.

That is a statement of faith--not a theory.

If this were a theory, the next step would be to predict what observations could be made because of this and show that the observations can be made.

You claim that hands, fingers and toes point to God as creator. Well, they would if the theory of creation predicted that the creator would create hands, fingers and toes. But if God had chosen to create humans -centaur like- with hooves instead of toes on our feet, would that falsify creation?

If not, then creation does not predict toes on humans.

As I said above, the Creationary Theory starts with God as the Creator. It in and of itself is a testimony of God as the Creator. Show me where the Evolutionary Theory does this.

And testimony is testimony received by faith. It is not theory built on evidence. So you have not shown yet how creation theory points to God.

What you have shown is that the doctrine of creation is an essential Christian belief attested to in scripture and the teaching of the church. But that does not contradict evolution or suggest that evolution replaces belief in creation.

 

[Critias]

That is a statement of faith--not a theory.

And I know your belief is that God, faith, must be separated from any types of science theories. So, is the Bible in error when it says in all ways acknowledge God? Is the Bible in error when it says in everything you do, glorify God?

If this were a theory, the next step would be to predict what observations could be made because of this and show that the observations can be made.

You claim that hands, fingers and toes point to God as creator. Well, they would if the theory of creation predicted that the creator would create hands, fingers and toes. But if God had chosen to create humans -centaur like- with hooves instead of toes on our feet, would that falsify creation?

If not, then creation does not predict toes on humans.


And testimony is testimony received by faith. It is not theory built on evidence. So you have not shown yet how creation theory points to God.

What you have shown is that the doctrine of creation is an essential Christian belief attested to in scripture and the teaching of the church. But that does not contradict evolution or suggest that evolution replaces belief in creation.

All theories start with presuppositions that are taught. The Creationary Theory starts with Genesis 1:1 teaching that God is the Creator of all that we see. The Doctrine of Creation is part of the Creationary Theory. Is the Evolutionary Theory built on the premise that God is the Creator? No.

The Creationary Theory: God creating in six days, is the the theory you want dismissed. You have called it both bad science and bad theology. Furthermore you have stated you are saddened that now children in classrooms will hear about God and be able to question the Evolutionary Theories validity.

It seems whenever God is involved with science, whether He is simply mentioned as the Creator or postulated as the Creator, you are offended. This is not a private faith we have, it is faith that must be made public. Was it not Jesus who said tell all nations? Or did He says only certain ones where man deems it ok to speak of Him?

Remove God, in anyway, from Creation/Origins, and you will travel in the opposite direction of His will.

Once again, tell me how the Evolutionary Theory points to God as the Creator so that a person who doesn't know God and has not read the Bible will know God, the Almighty, is the Creator?

 

[humbledbyhim]

Isn't it funny how people make fun of you when you use faith as if faith is some bad thing. Some people say that because the evidence is pointing to an old earth, then the earth must be older than what the bible implies. That is like saying," because all of the evidence points to Christ dying, but there is not a shred of evidence proving that he got back up (outside of testimonies in the bible) then he clearly didn't get back up. Thus it's foolish to go on faith to believe that he did get up." However, some people around here know that Christ is alive without scientific evidence of such. How can one believe what the bible says historically about Christ in terms of his miracles and ressurection without evidence, but then won't believe that the earth was created in 6 days. If I were a scientist, the fact that no one has seen Jesus in 2000 yrs would be enough evidence to prove that he is dead. (But he isn't)


What if I was on death row, and all evidence appeared to show that I killed my mother. However, years down the line, it is discovered that my twin (who was also dead according to the evidence and investigation into his past) actually committed the crime. Rememeber, the scientific evidence was sound. There was no way that i didn't kill mom in their minds. The only person who believed me was my son. See, my son knew me. He knew my character from past experiences and writings about me. All he had was past experiences and faith to know that what I told him was the truth in spite of the overwhelming evidence.
My point is that we cannot and do not see everything, and it is not Christian behavior to put someone down because they believe something based on faith and past experiences with God in spite of what the empirical evidence showed. If God had it written that he created the earth in 6 days, then he did. It doesn't matter what the evidence shows. If you don't trust what the bible says about God in the OT, then you have put yourself above Christ, because a lot of Christ's experiences and techings come from OT scriptures. You'll notice that he says "It is written... " when he fought off the devil. Where was it written? In the scriptures that are now called the OT. (the same place where it is written that the earth was created in 6 days)

Even the DEVIL knows that scripture is true which is why he tried to use it against Jesus. I know this may sound ridiculous, but take a note from the devil and trust that what scripture says is true.

 

[random_guy]

Another nice tangent.

You have yet to answer my question, just as every other TE has yet to answer it. How does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

After all, TEs want the Creationary Theory replaced with the Evolutionary Theory.

It wasn't a tangent. Another poster implied that it was a problem because Evolution doesn't glorify God. Well, science, in general doesn't glorify or point to God. So what's the problem with that?

To me, the study of the natural world (science) points to God, but I wouldn't teach that to people in science class rooms.

To your second point, I don't want to replace Creationary Theory with Evolution. Creation Theory, to me, means God created everything. How he created, is not part of that theory. He could've poofed the animals into existence or he could've used abiogenesis and evolution. I believe the latter.

Now, atomic theory and gravity also don't point to God as a Creator. Is there anything wrong with those theories?

 

[shernren]

The Creationary Theory starts with, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Hand hands, fingers and toes point to God as the Creator.

For starters, no TE here denies that God did so. We only differ on methods and chronologies.

But hey, saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" isn't enough to point to the Christian God. That's what I'm trying my darndest best to get at and it's what you aren't hearing. From what I hear your main objection with evolution is that it doesn't point at the God of Christianity. Gee, is that such a surprise? GR doesn't point to the God of Christianity, and most Christians have never seen spacetime bend, so why not reject GR as not pointing to God? The sun as a fusion generator doesn't point to the God of Christianity, and most Christians have never seen fusion-temperature plasmas, so why not reject the sun as a fusion generator as not pointing to God?

What is more surprising, perhaps a bit counter-intuitive to the creationist mind but still true, is that creationist theory does not point to the Christian God. Atheists aren't the only unbelievers in the world. There are many who worship false gods and telling them that God exists isn't really any news to them. "Sure God exists. Sure HE created the world. So what? How do you know that it's your God and not my God?" is a typical reply you will get from a Muslim about creationism as evangelism. The fact that Islamic creationism is pretty much derivative from Christian creationism is telling. The central creationist statement:

A: God created the world 6,000 years ago.

take it and turn it around:

A': The world was created by God 6,000 years ago. (which says the exact same)

and you will see that it says a lot more about the world than about God. It makes very specific predictions about the world. It doesn't make a very specific statement about God except that He created. So? Allah also created, say the Muslims. Brahma also created, say the Hindus (although not in Genesis fashion, AFAIK). So what? A God who is love can create. So can a god who is pure evil. So can a god who decides to abandon the universe right after it is created. So can a god who is pushed out of the universe in defeat by sin. Creationism says nothing about God, really, other than that He started it all. So since creationism doesn't defend the Christian concept of God in any way I don't see what the big deal is to Christianity if creationism falls.

(Curious: I am seeing you use the term "creationary theory" nowadays. Not that I have anything against it, but are you trying to describe a concept that should be separate from / more defind than the normal term "creationist theory", or are they just two words for the same thing in your vocab?)

As I said above, the Creationary Theory starts with God as the Creator. It in and of itself is a testimony of God as the Creator. Show me where the Evolutionary Theory does this.

The entire old-universe old-earth edifice accepts and argues that the universe is real (not maya), trustably observable and rational. If one believes that God is self-consistent and the creator and originator of the universe, one can through evolutionary theory believe that His characteristics show through creation and that He is therefore also real (and not something emotional people make up to fulfill their needs of transcendence), trustably observable and rational, and thus worth taking the effort to know and obey and love.

What I said was that God didn't create this universe with the purpose or intent to look old. The reason "look old" was not the intent of God when He created a universe in six days that supported life. His intent was just that, to support life.

I have shown that if His intent was to support life many of the features of the universe not necessary to life would not have been here, notably its immense wideness of space that would never have interacted with a 6,000-year-old earth. I hope I'm being clear here. If you don't understand what I'm saying so I hope you won't mind being direct about it instead of rebutting something I'm not saying .

Remember: when

A: God created the universe to look old because
B: Only a universe that looks old can support life

is examined B falls apart. This does not affect the possible validity of

A': God created the universe to look old

but it affects the rationale behind it.

Tell me, honestly, if science didn't see the miracle of Jesus turning water to wine, what would be the initial guess about the wine? Would science say it was just water a minute ago, thus recently created or would science say this must have happened by a natural process, thus the wine has been aging for quite some time?

If science gave the latter explanation, would you now call Jesus a deceiver?

Of course science would have said that the wine was aged. And science would have been wrong. Because Jesus had a very clear purpose for that wine: to serve His mother's guests, which is something any filial son would do. On the other hand, I have shown that "to support life" is not a clear purpose for God creating the universe with an appearance of age.

 

[Critias]

It wasn't a tangent. Another poster implied that it was a problem because Evolution doesn't glorify God. Well, science, in general doesn't glorify or point to God. So what's the problem with that?

TEs, in general, want the Creationary Theory that does point to God as the Creator, thrown out. They want it permantly replaced with the Evolutionary Theory. So, I have asked, how will the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator. Still waiting for an answer from someone.

To me, the study of the natural world (science) points to God, but I wouldn't teach that to people in science class rooms.

That is wonderful that you see it points to God. But, for those who don't know God, haven't read the Bible, and hear about the Evolutionary Theory, how will they understand that God is the Creator? They won't. And TEs support this.

I am rather disappointed with Christians attitude that God doesn't belong in certain places. Why don't you tell Him that the next time you are in prayer.

To your second point, I don't want to replace Creationary Theory with Evolution. Creation Theory, to me, means God created everything. How he created, is not part of that theory. He could've poofed the animals into existence or he could've used abiogenesis and evolution. I believe the latter.

If you don't want God creating in six days taught, then you don't want the Creationary Theory to remain. If you are a TE, then you are obviously for the Evolutionary Theory. Why else are you here arguing against YECs if you don't want the Creationary Theory to be gone?

Now, atomic theory and gravity also don't point to God as a Creator. Is there anything wrong with those theories?

It seems you didn't understand my previous statement. Because you argue against God creating in six days, you are arguing against the Creationary Theory. Because you stand up and promote the Evolutionary Theory you are for it. So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you don't want the Creationary Theory to be heard and you do want the Evolutionary Theory to be heard. That is a replacement.

Since, you uphold the Evolutionary Theory and it want taught and referred to as part of our Origins, then tell me how this Theory points to God as the Creator.

We are all Christians here, so explain to us why you and why other TEs want God out of science, out of Origins when spoken about publically. Are we not to acknowledge God in all our ways? Are we not to glorify Him in everything we do?

Ask yourself how you are glorify God when you want Him removed from science when it is discussing where we came from.

 

[Critias]

For starters, no TE here denies that God did so. We only differ on methods and chronologies.

Maybe you haven't understood yet, this isn't about what TEs think of God. This about how TEs think the Evolutionary Theory points to God as the Creator. It is the TEs who want the Theory of Creationism removed. The Theory that does point to God as the Creator, the God who did create in six days.

But hey, saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" isn't enough to point to the Christian God. That's what I'm trying my darndest best to get at and it's what you aren't hearing. From what I hear your main objection with evolution is that it doesn't point at the God of Christianity. Gee, is that such a surprise? GR doesn't point to the God of Christianity, and most Christians have never seen spacetime bend, so why not reject GR as not pointing to God? The sun as a fusion generator doesn't point to the God of Christianity, and most Christians have never seen fusion-temperature plasmas, so why not reject the sun as a fusion generator as not pointing to God?

So, Genesis 1:1 is not enough to point to God as the Creator? Funny, TEs have been saying Genesis 1:1 is all that is needed to know God is the Creator. Now the tune changes.

What is more surprising, perhaps a bit counter-intuitive to the creationist mind but still true, is that creationist theory does not point to the Christian God. Atheists aren't the only unbelievers in the world. There are many who worship false gods and telling them that God exists isn't really any news to them. "Sure God exists. Sure HE created the world. So what? How do you know that it's your God and not my God?" is a typical reply you will get from a Muslim about creationism as evangelism. The fact that Islamic creationism is pretty much derivative from Christian creationism is telling. The central creationist statement:

A: God created the world 6,000 years ago.

take it and turn it around:

A': The world was created by God 6,000 years ago. (which says the exact same)

and you will see that it says a lot more about the world than about God. It makes very specific predictions about the world. It doesn't make a very specific statement about God except that He created. So? Allah also created, say the Muslims. Brahma also created, say the Hindus (although not in Genesis fashion, AFAIK). So what? A God who is love can create. So can a god who is pure evil. So can a god who decides to abandon the universe right after it is created. So can a god who is pushed out of the universe in defeat by sin. Creationism says nothing about God, really, other than that He started it all. So since creationism doesn't defend the Christian concept of God in any way I don't see what the big deal is to Christianity if creationism falls.

So, you are arguing that no one would know that the statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is from the Bible?

(Curious: I am seeing you use the term "creationary theory" nowadays. Not that I have anything against it, but are you trying to describe a concept that should be separate from / more defind than the normal term "creationist theory", or are they just two words for the same thing in your vocab?)

That is how I am using them, but if you require a strict usage of the Creationist Theory, than I will do so for your benefit.

The entire old-universe old-earth edifice accepts and argues that the universe is real (not maya), trustably observable and rational. If one believes that God is self-consistent and the creator and originator of the universe, one can through evolutionary theory believe that His characteristics show through creation and that He is therefore also real (and not something emotional people make up to fulfill their needs of transcendence), trustably observable and rational, and thus worth taking the effort to know and obey and love.



I have shown that if His intent was to support life many of the features of the universe not necessary to life would not have been here, notably its immense wideness of space that would never have interacted with a 6,000-year-old earth. I hope I'm being clear here. If you don't understand what I'm saying so I hope you won't mind being direct about it instead of rebutting something I'm not saying .

Remember: when

A: God created the universe to look old because
B: Only a universe that looks old can support life

is examined B falls apart. This does not affect the possible validity of

A': God created the universe to look old

but it affects the rationale behind it.

I am curious, is it man who decides what is necessary for life or God? If God created in six days, as the Bible states, shall you call Him into question for how He did so?

And if your summation of what I have stated previously is contained in A and B respectively, then you have not understood anything I said about God creating to sustain life, not for the purpose of looking old. It seems you are still hung up on accusing God of deception if you are wrong.

Of course science would have said that the wine was aged. And science would have been wrong. Because Jesus had a very clear purpose for that wine: to serve His mother's guests, which is something any filial son would do. On the other hand, I have shown that "to support life" is not a clear purpose for God creating the universe with an appearance of age.

And I have said repeatedly, God did create the earth with the appearance of age. It appears to man as if it is aged, thus the appearance of age in the perspective of mankind.

You haven't shown anything, shernren. You have asserted that you know what is needed to support life in God's perspective. Genesis 1-2 shows us what God created because He saw it to be so. There is purpose in what God does. If man doesn't know the purpose, shall you call God into question?

 

[shernren]

Nope, I don't mind creationary but I was just curious if maybe you had defined it to be something else and I missed that definition. As it is I think we're going round in circles so if you don't mind I'm going to take the whole "which theory points to God?" issue and start a new thread with it. Wipe the slate clean. You don't mind?

 

[Critias]

I take it you won't be answering my question then....

 

[shernren]

sorry. paying attention to two threads in the stead of one.

I am curious, is it man who decides what is necessary for life or God? If God created in six days, as the Bible states, shall you call Him into question for how He did so?

God decides what is necessary for life, right? So it is very curious that He decided that a young universe which looks old is necessary, instead of a young universe which looks young which would have been more straightforward.

And here we go back to the issue of the plain and simple interpretation. I know this will be a massive veering from the original purpose of the thread if pursued but Genesis 1 is six literal days in a very mythical description.

And if your summation of what I have stated previously is contained in A and B respectively, then you have not understood anything I said about God creating to sustain life, not for the purpose of looking old. It seems you are still hung up on accusing God of deception if you are wrong.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have not yet, on this thread at least as far as I remember, accused God of deception if I am wrong. In any case, a lot of YEC statements here and elsewhere either imply or outright declare that God has deceived if they are wrong. Poor God.

And what I have said was that even if God created with appearance of age, God did not do so with the intent of supporting life, for if He did then to the best of our current knowledge He would have created very differently indeed.

And I have said repeatedly, God did create the earth with the appearance of age. It appears to man as if it is aged, thus the appearance of age in the perspective of mankind.

You haven't shown anything, shernren. You have asserted that you know what is needed to support life in God's perspective. Genesis 1-2 shows us what God created because He saw it to be so. There is purpose in what God does. If man doesn't know the purpose, shall you call God into question?

Who called God into question? What I am calling into question is the purpose you (not me) have ascribed to God for creating the earth with apparent yet not actual age. He may have some purpose we do not know. But to the best of our current knowledge it was not simply for supporting life.

 

[random_guy]

It seems you didn't understand my previous statement. Because you argue against God creating in six days, you are arguing against the Creationary Theory. Because you stand up and promote the Evolutionary Theory you are for it. So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you don't want the Creationary Theory to be heard and you do want the Evolutionary Theory to be heard. That is a replacement.

Since, you uphold the Evolutionary Theory and it want taught and referred to as part of our Origins, then tell me how this Theory points to God as the Creator.

We are all Christians here, so explain to us why you and why other TEs want God out of science, out of Origins when spoken about publically. Are we not to acknowledge God in all our ways? Are we not to glorify Him in everything we do?

Ask yourself how you are glorify God when you want Him removed from science when it is discussing where we came from.

So Creationary Theory is defined as a literal belief in the Bible. So you're arguing why we don't believe in your interpretation of the Bible, evolution is just a side point. My goodness, I really don't understand your point. Accepting Creationary Theory, as defined by you, means more than just rejecting evolution. It means rejecting physics, astronomy, anthropology, paleontology, geology, chemistry, biology, and nearly every other modern science. Again, by accepting any of these disciples, according to you,, whether it's radioactive dating or quantum mechanics, means it's removing God from our lives.

Heck, I study differential equations, part of which is used in radioactive dating. Am I removing God from our world because it's used to date things far older than 6000 years, thus contradicting your Creationary Theory?

I guess I'm a heathen because I also teach how radioactive dating works to elementary school kids for volunteer work. God forbid the kids learn about science and remove God from their views by letting them know what a star is.

 

[John Spong is wrong]

I am an advocate of God creating a mature universe. He did so with man, He did so with wine, and creation was completed in six days and supported life. It just makes sense to me. Some people here choose to call this deception on God's part which really places themselves above God.

My thoughts entirely!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Jesus created wine from water, but he did not put the wine into bottles and stamp it with a date decades earlier.

Creation has scars that remember events in the past.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Ok, how does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?
.....

I don't see why you can't answer my question and why you instead return personal attacks. So, tell me how the Evolutionary Theory acknowledges God.

My answer was that it is an ill-posed question. Evolutionary Theory does not acknowledge God any more than your breakfast did. You would look at me sideways if I asked you if your favorite pen acknowledges God and demand that you cast it aside if it didn't. Read my response below to show why I think you're off base with your idea of acknowledgement.

Oh, so what we say doesn't have anything do with our ways of acknowledging God?

At least not in the Proverbs 3:5-6 version of "acknowledge". It's personal and mediopassive. Acknowledging God means knowing, not telling. The modern meaning of "acknowledge" as in "I'd like to acknowlege Mr. Henley for his great work with the lighting of the event" is recent and does not get at what "acknowledge" meant in the KJV and other versions that have followed its translation. "To acknowlege" means "to know, remember". Secondary to that it means "to make known." And neither your cereal nor the belief that Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth nor evolutionary theory does either.

I didn't even give you a verse. I spoke about what the Bible teaches. Do you want me to present verses that talk about acknowledging and glorify God to prove that we should do so? Do you not agree that we should?

You spoke about what Critias teaches about what the Bible teaches. But laying your fuzzy logic aside, yes I do believe we are to glorify God in all our speech. But I hold the belief that truth on its own glorifies God. For me to tell you that I have blonde hair upholds the standard of guarding my speech against defaming our Lord because it's true. For me to say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago would not be to the glory of God, because it's not true. The fact that I tell of what God did, how he used evolution to create you and me - that is glorifying God.

Tell me, how does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

It does not! But then again, neither does YEC, being a false teaching.

 

[Critias]

Jesus created wine from water, but he did not put the wine into bottles and stamp it with a date decades earlier.

Creation has scars that remember events in the past.

And God didn't put a time stamp on the Creation, man did. Just as man would put a time stamp on the wine Jesus created from water and say the wine was X amount of years old.

 

[Critias]

My answer was that it is an ill-posed question. Evolutionary Theory does not acknowledge God any more than your breakfast did. You would look at me sideways if I asked you if your favorite pen acknowledges God and demand that you cast it aside if it didn't. Read my response below to show why I think you're off base with your idea of acknowledgement.

I agree, the Evolutionary Theory doesn't point to God as the Creator. It points to no creator.

At least not in the Proverbs 3:5-6 version of "acknowledge". It's personal and mediopassive. Acknowledging God means knowing, not telling. The modern meaning of "acknowledge" as in "I'd like to acknowlege Mr. Henley for his great work with the lighting of the event" is recent and does not get at what "acknowledge" meant in the KJV and other versions that have followed its translation. "To acknowlege" means "to know, remember". Secondary to that it means "to make known." And neither your cereal nor the belief that Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth nor evolutionary theory does either.

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,"

This verse, to me, can be implied to the many people's belief in the Evolutionary Theory that sees fit to not acknowledge God any longer as the Creationary Theory or Creationism does.

Acknowledge here can also mean to be closely joined to. We know that the Evolutionary Theory, as it is described, has nothing to do with a creator, let alone God.

It is about the presentation of the Theory leading to the conclusion of there not being a creator for those who don't know of God. The only reason why ID is being so heavy disputed is because it points to a Creator. Man does not want to acknowledge God as the Creator. And for whatever reason(s), TEs support this.

You spoke about what Critias teaches about what the Bible teaches. But laying your fuzzy logic aside, yes I do believe we are to glorify God in all our speech. But I hold the belief that truth on its own glorifies God. For me to tell you that I have blonde hair upholds the standard of guarding my speech against defaming our Lord because it's true. For me to say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago would not be to the glory of God, because it's not true. The fact that I tell of what God did, how he used evolution to create you and me - that is glorifying God.

And maybe I have a clear understanding of the Bible, but you will never be open enough to hear what I have to say. There are many truths in this world that in essence are defined by man. But because man is fallible, these truths are not necessarily God's truths.

It was a widely accepted truth that the Hitittes were not a real people as described in the Bible. That is until the Hittite empire was dug up. Truth, as men know it, is subjective. Man cannot prove it, but can only believe it. Believing doesn't make it truth, only the One who is complete Truth can reveal what is Truth.

It does not! But then again, neither does YEC, being a false teaching.

I agree, the Evolutionary Theory doesn't point to God as the creator. Instead it postulates creation without a creator.

And many call those who preach Jesus Christ is the Son of God are preaching a false teaching. Your statement really means nothing to me.