Young Earth looking Old

[random_guy]

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.

Again, ToE doesn't lead to the conclusion that there isn't a Creator. In fact, it makes no mention about a Creator. More importantly, you never answered anyone's question. No scientific theory points to a God. Why are you singling out Evolution? Physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, paleontology, geology all contridict a literal interpretation of the Bible. Why attack just evolution? Why not attack all of science for not pointing to a Creator?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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.

Creation has marks revealing its age. Just because they don't use arabic numerals and a modern calendar doesn't make them any less of a date.

 

[Didaskomenos]

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

You'll be glad to know you're getting closer to my rarely used ignore button. When you refuse to actually read what we say and endlessly pontificate about the flaws of the strawman, you are useless in discussion. Evolutionary theory doesn't point to "no creator". Science can't speak to whether or not there is a creator. The bookshelf you bought from the yardsale doesn't point to no bookshelf-maker, just because it doesn't have the manufacturer's name on it anywhere. But at very least you're disregarding the basis for us calling ourselves "theistic" evolutionists - how exactly does our view of evolution point to "no creator"?

"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.

Sure it can. And there are plenty of misguided people who believe that God is not behind evolution. They're wrong.

Acknowledge here can also mean to be closely joined to.

What? The original says "hold God in [their] knowledge". How does that mean "closely joined to?"

We know that the Evolutionary Theory, as it is described, has nothing to do with a creator, let alone God.

Already dealt with that fallacy.

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 once upon a time wrecked a thread with your hand-wringing over what you thought was my putting words in your mouth, yet here you are doing it. I don't support men not wanting to acknowledge God as the Creator. I happen to agree with those men on a particular subject, as doubtless you do on other subjects. That doesn't support their refusing to acknowledge God as the Creator.

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.

Actually, there is serious debate over whether the Anatolian Hittites and the "sons of Heth" Hittites are the same people; the similarity of names is suggestive, but there are major problems with placing them in Palestine, especially after the time of Abraham. Otherwise, I agree with you. But what Truth did He purpose to reveal in the Bible? Our contention is over whether everything in the Bible was revealed by God or not.

 

[Critias]

Again, ToE doesn't lead to the conclusion that there isn't a Creator. In fact, it makes no mention about a Creator. More importantly, you never answered anyone's question. No scientific theory points to a God. Why are you singling out Evolution? Physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, paleontology, geology all contridict a literal interpretation of the Bible. Why attack just evolution? Why not attack all of science for not pointing to a Creator?

I have answered your question. The Evolutionary Theory is in question because this is the theory that you and other TEs want to be recognized as the truth. You want the Bible's version, God created in six days, removed.

Tell me, if God wanted man to know that He created in six days, how would He go about telling us this? Would He have it written like it is in Exodus 20:11?

 

[Critias]

Creation has marks revealing its age. Just because they don't use arabic numerals and a modern calendar doesn't make them any less of a date.

Man interprets these "marks" as revealing age and it is man who asserts a certain age to those marks.

 

[Critias]

You'll be glad to know you're getting closer to my rarely used ignore button. When you refuse to actually read what we say and endlessly pontificate about the flaws of the strawman, you are useless in discussion. Evolutionary theory doesn't point to "no creator". Science can't speak to whether or not there is a creator. The bookshelf you bought from the yardsale doesn't point to no bookshelf-maker, just because it doesn't have the manufacturer's name on it anywhere. But at very least you're disregarding the basis for us calling ourselves "theistic" evolutionists - how exactly does our view of evolution point to "no creator"?

Didaskomenos, we are talking about the Evolutionary Theory, not Theistic Evolution. I am not disregarding you or any TE here. I am not even speaking of an individual, I am speaking of a Theory. Why is it that Evolutionist take this Theory so personally that you cannot even question the Theory without an Evolutionists making it personal?

If you feel the need to ignore me because I am questioning the Theory, not the people, then that is your choice. I have not stated you or any TE is anything but Christian. I have focused solely on the Theory itself, but unfortunetely, TEs here are trying to make this personal when it is not.

This is not about the TE view of the Theory of Evolution, it is about the Theory itself. Each Theory starts with presuppostions that are put forth. The Evolutionary Theory starts with no known creator, or the absense of a creator. You state that because it leaves a creator out, it isn't pointing to no creator. I disagree.

Sure it can. And there are plenty of misguided people who believe that God is not behind evolution. They're wrong.

And there are plenty of people who know God exists and yet don't want God to be recognized as the Creator. ID is a great case in point. We can see that the main problem with ID is that it points to a Creator. Even some TEs here have stated that it is saddening to see that ID is allowed to be taught alongside the Evolutionary Theory. We also see that TEs are upset that the Evolutionary Theory is being questioned.

I know this isn't the most popular thing to say, but I am joyous that children who may otherwise not hear of God are hearing of Him as the Creator.

What? The original says "hold God in [their] knowledge". How does that mean "closely joined to?"

It is how the Greek word can also be understood.

Already dealt with that fallacy.

As a Theory, it does not speak of a creator. That is not a fallacy, that is the truth.

You once upon a time wrecked a thread with your hand-wringing over what you thought was my putting words in your mouth, yet here you are doing it. I don't support men not wanting to acknowledge God as the Creator. I happen to agree with those men on a particular subject, as doubtless you do on other subjects. That doesn't support their refusing to acknowledge God as the Creator.

And if you agree that God ought to be acknowledged as the Creator, whether in Church or State, Theory or no theory, then we agree.

In the back of my head, I keep hearing Scripture say, 'If you acknowledge Me, I will acknowledge you to My Father.' (paraphrase). This hits me personally, and it may be different for you, but I believe we ought to acknowledge God in everything that we do. To me this means if I was a supporter of the Evolutionary Theory, then I would fight for this Theory to include a Creator. I would not accept and support it when it speaks of an absense of a creator.

That is what I have a hard time understanding with TEs is that many seem to support God not being talked about in the Theory as the Creator. TEs also support God not being talked about in certain venues of life. I don't support this and I know this is very unpopular and unPC of me to say, but I support God being heard everywhere.

Actually, there is serious debate over whether the Anatolian Hittites and the "sons of Heth" Hittites are the same people; the similarity of names is suggestive, but there are major problems with placing them in Palestine, especially after the time of Abraham. Otherwise, I agree with you. But what Truth did He purpose to reveal in the Bible? Our contention is over whether everything in the Bible was revealed by God or not.

What I was trying to convey is that man's truth is not the same as God's truth. Our truth rests on our fallible understanding. To be honest, man's truth is an oxymoron. Truth does not equal fallible.

I don't contend if everything in the Bible was from God or not. I have faith that is was and I act on this faith. Through reading the Bible, God's Spirit works within me and shows me the truth. In God, His Spirit, His love, I have faith in. That is how I can rest easy, knowing that what I believe is the Truth.

 

[random_guy]

I have answered your question. The Evolutionary Theory is in question because this is the theory that you and other TEs want to be recognized as the truth. You want the Bible's version, God created in six days, removed.

Tell me, if God wanted man to know that He created in six days, how would He go about telling us this? Would He have it written like it is in Exodus 20:11?

I don't think evolution is the truth. I accept it as a scientific theory, and as such, it should be taught in schools. If new evidence came up that disproved evolution, I would accept whatever theory replaces it.

However, you continue to avoid my point. Geology points towards an old Earth. Physics points towards an old Earth and old Universe. Biology points against special creation. Chemistry points towards an old Earth and Universe. Anthropology points towards an older Earth than 6000 years. Why Evolution? Every one of the sciences points against your belief. Every one of them is accepted as a science, and every one of them is taught in science classes.

Why just evolution?

 

[gluadys]

Tell me, if God wanted man to know that He created in six days, how would He go about telling us this? Would He have it written like it is in Exodus 20:11?

First, why would God want to tell us that he created in six days when he didn't?

Second, you have already been told how God could confirm that the biblical statement is intended as a literal historical statement. The evidence would look different.

If the world were created in 6 days (even if it was 4.5 billion years ago) there would be no evidence of a big bang, no remnant of stellar super-novas which occurred earlier than the date of creation, no faunal succession in the fossil record, no nested phylogeny that links all forms of life, no ERVS or other remnants of evolution in our genomes. In short the real world would contain no evidence that contradicts a six-day creation. And it would contain evidence that creation did take only six solar days.

Maturity is not history. It is perfectly possible to create a mature-appearing and acting universe without creating a false history for that universe. If that is what happened and if that is what God wants us to know happened, then that is the way the universe should look.

Since it doesn't, it calls into question the historicity of a six-day creation. It suggests there is a different reason for recounting creation in a six-day framework.

It does not--let it be noted--call into question the inspiration or truth of the scriptural accounts of creation.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Didaskomenos, we are talking about the Evolutionary Theory, not Theistic Evolution. I am not disregarding you or any TE here. I am not even speaking of an individual, I am speaking of a Theory. Why is it that Evolutionist take this Theory so personally that you cannot even question the Theory without an Evolutionists making it personal?

If you feel the need to ignore me because I am questioning the Theory, not the people, then that is your choice. I have not stated you or any TE is anything but Christian. I have focused solely on the Theory itself, but unfortunetely, TEs here are trying to make this personal when it is not.

This is not about the TE view of the Theory of Evolution, it is about the Theory itself. Each Theory starts with presuppostions that are put forth. The Evolutionary Theory starts with no known creator, or the absense of a creator. You state that because it leaves a creator out, it isn't pointing to no creator. I disagree.

And it's here you're wrong! "Theistic evolution" is not a theory of evolution at all. It's a belief tangential to a scientific theory. Science can say nothing of ultimate causes, and doesn't try to. Science can say nothing of the divine intentionality or sovereignty behind the events of the world. Do you not believe that He is sovereign? That He works through history without having to create a miracle every time?

History says that Koine Greek was the lingua franca of Palestine and most of the known world because the Greeks were a powerful and influential people and the Romans admired Hellenistic culture. This is all true, but it doesn't speak to God's involvement - God's sovereign intentionality saw to it that there was a lingua franca and that there was a huge empire without the obstacle of political boundaries so that the Gospel message would spread far and wide very quickly. Should we not believe that God had anything to do with there being a common language and the Romans having a peaceful empire at the right time, just because history doesn't show that He intervened miraculously to create them on instantaneously? Similarly, scientists see history as random mutations and breeding that created mankind and the biological world as we see it. Should we believe that God had no dog in the fight, just because we don't see signature at the bottom right of every biological entity?

And there are plenty of people who know God exists and yet don't want God to be recognized as the Creator. ID is a great case in point. We can see that the main problem with ID is that it points to a Creator. Even some TEs here have stated that it is saddening to see that ID is allowed to be taught alongside the Evolutionary Theory. We also see that TEs are upset that the Evolutionary Theory is being questioned.

Evolutionary theory, as a scientific theory, should only be questioned on scientific grounds, and it is currently being tested every day. It just always comes out on top. As for ID, I don't know much about it, but it is not currently passing scientific muster even among all Christian scientists. It's a shoddy argument to declare ipso facto that those scientists are all wrong just because they disagree with something that some Christians think would help Christianity. I say bring ID on - they could be right. But they could be wrong.

It is how the Greek word can also be understood.

That sounds ridiculous. Where did you hear that?

As a Theory, it does not speak of a creator. That is not a fallacy, that is the truth.

As science, it does not speak of a creator. Tell me how science can prove a creator, much less that the Christian deity was the creator.

That is what I have a hard time understanding with TEs is that many seem to support God not being talked about in the Theory as the Creator. TEs also support God not being talked about in certain venues of life. I don't support this and I know this is very unpopular and unPC of me to say, but I support God being heard everywhere.

Now we're getting into politics! Wrong forum!

 

[Critias]

I don't think evolution is the truth. I accept it as a scientific theory, and as such, it should be taught in schools. If new evidence came up that disproved evolution, I would accept whatever theory replaces it.

However, you continue to avoid my point. Geology points towards an old Earth. Physics points towards an old Earth and old Universe. Biology points against special creation. Chemistry points towards an old Earth and Universe. Anthropology points towards an older Earth than 6000 years. Why Evolution? Every one of the sciences points against your belief. Every one of them is accepted as a science, and every one of them is taught in science classes.

Why just evolution?

Sigh. I have answered this question many times now.

Here is the answer yet again.

Because this is the Origins forum and TEs advocate the Evolutionary Theory to replace the Biblical teaching of God creating in six days.

 

[Critias]

First, why would God want to tell us that he created in six days when he didn't?

I asked the question how would God tell you in the Bible that He created in six days. The Bible says He created in six days, you say He did not.

Second, you have already been told how God could confirm that the biblical statement is intended as a literal historical statement. The evidence would look different.

I speaking of how God would tell us that He created in six days, such as words, much like the Bible does. I wasn't speaking of evidence that requires an interpretation that asserts billions of years.

If the world were created in 6 days (even if it was 4.5 billion years ago) there would be no evidence of a big bang, no remnant of stellar super-novas which occurred earlier than the date of creation, no faunal succession in the fossil record, no nested phylogeny that links all forms of life, no ERVS or other remnants of evolution in our genomes. In short the real world would contain no evidence that contradicts a six-day creation. And it would contain evidence that creation did take only six solar days.

Maturity is not history. It is perfectly possible to create a mature-appearing and acting universe without creating a false history for that universe. If that is what happened and if that is what God wants us to know happened, then that is the way the universe should look.

Since it doesn't, it calls into question the historicity of a six-day creation. It suggests there is a different reason for recounting creation in a six-day framework.

It does not--let it be noted--call into question the inspiration or truth of the scriptural accounts of creation.

Read Exodus 20:11 and tell me what it says about the time frame in which God created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. Does it say six days? Does say nothing of six days? Or does it say billions of years? What does the Bible say?

 

[Critias]

And it's here you're wrong! "Theistic evolution" is not a theory of evolution at all. It's a belief tangential to a scientific theory. Science can say nothing of ultimate causes, and doesn't try to. Science can say nothing of the divine intentionality or sovereignty behind the events of the world. Do you not believe that He is sovereign? That He works through history without having to create a miracle every time?

Please reread what I said. I said I was NOT talking about TE, but about ToE.

History says that Koine Greek was the lingua franca of Palestine and most of the known world because the Greeks were a powerful and influential people and the Romans admired Hellenistic culture. This is all true, but it doesn't speak to God's involvement - God's sovereign intentionality saw to it that there was a lingua franca and that there was a huge empire without the obstacle of political boundaries so that the Gospel message would spread far and wide very quickly. Should we not believe that God had anything to do with there being a common language and the Romans having a peaceful empire at the right time, just because history doesn't show that He intervened miraculously to create them on instantaneously? Similarly, scientists see history as random mutations and breeding that created mankind and the biological world as we see it. Should we believe that God had no dog in the fight, just because we don't see signature at the bottom right of every biological entity?




Evolutionary theory, as a scientific theory, should only be questioned on scientific grounds, and it is currently being tested every day. It just always comes out on top. As for ID, I don't know much about it, but it is not currently passing scientific muster even among all Christian scientists. It's a shoddy argument to declare ipso facto that those scientists are all wrong just because they disagree with something that some Christians think would help Christianity. I say bring ID on - they could be right. But they could be wrong.

There are aspects of ID that accept Evolution, but insist that their is an Intelligent Creator behind it. That is where scientists have the problem, the Intelligent Creator.

That sounds ridiculous. Where did you hear that?

If you know Greek, then you will know that this is one way of understanding the word echein.

As science, it does not speak of a creator. Tell me how science can prove a creator, much less that the Christian deity was the creator.

It doesn't need to prove a Creator just as much as science doesn't prove anything. Science is against any theory, whether it even the Evolutionary Theory, that includes a Creator.

Let me ask you something since it seems many TEs here see nothing wrong with remaining silent about God.

Do you want Jesus to remain silent about you when it comes time for Him to tell the Father about all who believe in Him?

 

[random_guy]

Sigh. I have answered this question many times now.

Here is the answer yet again.

Because this is the Origins forum and TEs advocate the Evolutionary Theory to replace the Biblical teaching of God creating in six days.

And here we go again. TEs don't advocate replacing the Biblical teaching of God creating in six days with evolution, any more than we advocating replacing the Biblical teaching of God creating in six days with physics, chemistry, or geology. We advocate teaching science in science classes.

Again, you think evolution replaces the Biblical teaching of God creating in six days because evolution contradicts it. By the same logic, why doesn't geology also replace the Biblical teaching of God creating in six days? Until you answer what makes evolution special (all science contradicts 6 day Creation period), your argument has no legs.

 

[gluadys]

What does the Bible say?

No one is questioning what the bible says. It says 6 days.
Now we know that creation did not take place in 6 days.

This gives us two options.

1. The six days referred to in the bible are not days of history which we can place on a calendar. The creation account is not a literal chronology of creation and the meaning of the six day referent is not about the timeline of creation.

2. The bible is in error. It is quite simply wrong about the temporal framework of creation.

Your choice?

 

[Critias]

No one is questioning what the bible says. It says 6 days.
Now we know that creation did not take place in 6 days.

This gives us two options.

1. The six days referred to in the bible are not days of history which we can place on a calendar. The creation account is not a literal chronology of creation and the meaning of the six day referent is not about the timeline of creation.

2. The bible is in error. It is quite simply wrong about the temporal framework of creation.

Your choice?

My choice?

3. God did created the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days as Genesis states as well as other parts of the Bible state.

Genesis was written to the Hebrews, would the Hebrews have understood that six days was not really six days as they experience them?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

My choice?

3. God did created the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days as Genesis states as well as other parts of the Bible state.

Genesis was written to the Hebrews, would the Hebrews have understood that six days was not really six days as they experience them?

Probably. Ancient cultures were familiar with what myths were and were not.

 

[gluadys]

would the Hebrews have understood that six days was not really six days as they experience them?

Quite likely they would. Myth was a natural way of expressing their teachings then as it is not to us today. And they used a lot of numeric symbolism as well.

 

[Critias]

Quite likely they would. Myth was a natural way of expressing their teachings then as it is not to us today. And they used a lot of numeric symbolism as well.

Is that why Peter and Paul write as if Genesis 1-3 is literal?

 

[Critias]

Probably. Ancient cultures were familiar with what myths were and were not.

Just as the Greek myths of the gods? They did actually believe in gods.

 

[gluadys]

Is that why Peter and Paul write as if Genesis 1-3 is literal?

Isn't that an assumption on your part?