abiogenesis or special creation?

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEOTW
RNA strands can do the same sort of complex folding as proteins and can form the same kinds of tasks as protein enzymes. In the lab, we have seen where completely random strands of RNA can do useful things in this role. And we see in extant life where RNA still peforms this function in some roles in some organisms.

.

I don't doubt that a molecule can be useful - EVEN if it is a molecule of RNA. Your penchant for hyper-inflating the modest lab experiments of atheist darwinists and "a molecule of RNA" AS IF they had actually shown ABIOGENESIS to take place is "nothing" if not glaringly obvious.

I have to admit UTEOTW it is fun to watch you over-state, inflate, and generalize the modest role of A FORMED strand of RNA (as in FORMED in the lab via the atheist darwinist experiments ALSO cited here) - but still what we do not find - is THOSE "formed RNA molecules" functioning INSIDE Eukaryote cells. What we DON't find is Eukaryotes using the fabrications instead of Proteins and enzymes. What we DON't find is the MECHANISM to actually produce an abiogenesis result IN the Lab even ARTIFICIALLY!

We DO find you generalizing and overstating - we do NOT find abiogenesis being demonstrated in the lab, fabricated in the lab or SHOWN to have happened at any point in all of time!!

Outside of the imanginative thought experiments of atheist darwinists - all we have from their LAB is a set of interesting tests on a molecule of RNA. Period. That is far from creating a living thing!

The real question for the thinking, objective, reasoning mind is WHY would anyone want to trade in the Gospel and the fact of God's Word telling us about God CREATING LIFE -- ALL life on this world in 7 "evenings and mornings" -- for the fools-gold of UTEOTW who over-states, hyper-inflates and generalizes the antics of atheist darwinists???

AT a MINIUMUM - UTEOTW should be an I.D evolutionists JUST to make the claim that he is a CHRISTIAN Evolutionist. But failing to master that modest achievement in reason and logic -- one is immediately impressed with UTEOTW's blinders-on avoidance of the self-contradicting stance he takes in this extreme defense of the atheist distinctives in Darwinism -- on this very point!!

Abiogenesis and the denial of I.D is the very core - the heartbeat of atheism when it comes to darwinism. UTEOTW falls on his sword for all to see - time after time on this one - even though ALL he has is FAILURE in the Lab to spin and inflate as IF they had SHOWN viable abiogenesis results!!

UTEOTW you dress up the failure to SHOW abiogenesis to be viable in the lab - by adding the same desperate faith to it that any athiest darwinist would ever do -- and this is what you hold up as your standard against the Word of God - against the claims that God is the creator of all life... against the Romans 1 claim of Intelligent Design??

As the well-known atheist darwinist Richard Dawkins observes - your position is self-defeating because you are marching to the atheist drummer EVEN in thise most extreme reaches - while claiming to still be a Christian.

I like the focus on this ONE launching point for the Atheist Darwinist "stories" because HERE we have the atheist component of Darwinism MOST exposed for all to see! Amino acids CAN Not "evolve" and so the Atheist has no way to argue "given enough time amino acids chemically ASSEMBLE or EVOLVE into viable cell structures". There is NO "magic time element here" -- the Lab is fully capable of manipulating the SAME AMINO ACID chemicals today as are being "supposed" in the Atheist stories to have existed billions of years ago. The very same Carbon atoms the very same chemicals STILL available to us today! No "evolutionary mutations needed" JUST chemistry! No "natural selection" just chemistry and all the freedom in the world to FORCE the reaction that you want.

There is "no rock for them to hide behind" on this one claiming that some intermediate form helped the Elephant go back into the sea and become a whale if only we could just see that link --.. No such "missing link" can be inserted into this argument about PURE-CHEMESTRY ALONE!! ALL the materials are in the lab - if it is supposed to happen "all by itself" - then failure to FORCE it to happen artificially is a giagantic GONG going off every day shouting out ATHEISM IS FALSE! On this point if at no other time the Christian lost and floundering in the sea of atheism should be able to shake off the chainst of darkness - stand upright and say "hey wait a minute - something is not right here"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since this thread is on abiogenesis -- I thought the above would be useful

 

[Faith alone]

OK, i thought I'd throw this in - not trying to side-track the thread:

How about the view of someone like the apologetist and astrophysist Hugh Ross? His position is that of Day-age such that there is special creation at certain points in history. He would not refer to it as life coming from non-living matter.

Another question: How about views of Genesis 1-3 which take a more allegorical approach - perhaps even assuming theistic evolution? I know some who have done so. They believe they are handling scripture as it was intended and that others are forcing the Genesis text into their own mold. Thx,


FA

 

[BobRyan]

I will get to that in a minute - first let me unload this box of goodies for the thread..

Originally Posted by UTEOTW
Now you will often see it asserted here that abiogenesis is either impossible or highly unlikely.

In contrast, from what they have learned in the last several decades, most scientists think that given liquid water and a few raw ingredients, that life is almost inevitable. There are a variety of reasons for this. Organic molecules being found in deep space and in meteorites. Finding that common materials like some clays can catalyze the formation of optically pure organic chains like RNA.

Ok - time for the fact vs fiction exercise with UTEOTW's rabbit trailing.

"Finding molecules" - yes.

Finding Carbon based molecules - yes.

FINDING that in the lab water and a few raw incredients almost always can be combined to form living creatures?? Dead wrong!

In fact that is NEVER the case in the lab. IT can not even be FORCED to happen let alone "almost inevitably (always) happens by itself".

How sad that this drivel gets dished out as "the reason for ignoring the Word of God" in Gen 1-3!

How sad that such shallow story-telling is EVER accepted by ANY Christian as the fools-gold that is worth trading in the Gospel and the Word of God itself.

The fact that a molecule like non-functioning RNA can be formed is a given. The fact that NOTHING reads what is formed NOTHING translates it into Eukaryote cell structures once a molecule of RNA of any stripe is formed in the lab -- stands out as a glaring blue "fact" that is simply to be "glossed over" by our modern day alchemist chasing after their fools gold.

 

[BobRyan]

OK, i thought I'd throw this in - not trying to side-track the thread:

How about the view of someone like the apologetist and astrophysist Hugh Ross? His position is that of Day-age such that there is special creation at certain points in history. He would not refer to it as live coming from non-living matter.

Another question: How about views og Genesis 1-3 which take a more allegorical approach - perhaps even assuming theistic evolution? I know some who have done so. They believe they are handling scripture as it was intended. Thx,


FA

That is actually much closer to a debate between two groups of Christians. One holding to Intelligent Design but in the context of evolution and the other holding to the Bible context for Intelligent Design.

By contrast the true devotees to atheist darwinism will attack both groups - both the evolutionists that ADMIT to I.D and the Bible believers that take the Bible context for I.D.

But as for your question about ways to spin Gen 1-3... imagine for a minute that you are a historian and linguist. Someone who knows and cares about the Hebrew text, exegesis, history and the integrity of the text itself -- but you know absolutely KNOTHING about the doctrines of evolutionism NOT even the 4 billion year mantra of the evolutionists.

When you read the text of Gen 1-3 and look for the history and context going back century after century even into the ages before Christ - studying the Hebrew people. Do you "imagine" the text to say "NOT an evening and a morning but something wayyyy different" in each of the 7 segements for creation?

When you read Exodus 20:8-11 "FOR in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth and RESTED on the seventh day" as the arguement for "so you should KEEP the Sabbath day - SIX days shall YOU labor and do all your work but the Seventh day IS the Sabbath .." do you imagine "This is not talking about 7 actual evening-morning sequences"???

Not at all! If you are just looking at the text and history - the answer as to what IT is saying is pretty obvious.

It is only by STARTING from the context of belief in evolutionism that you can even be "tempted" to wrench the text.

And that speaks volumes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[annsni]

:saint: Just popping this guy in to mark where I am and to subscribe to the thread. I wish we had a popcorn smilie - I'd use him. This is very interesting to read!

BTW - I'm cheering on the creationists. Go team!!

 

[Faith alone]

That is actually much closer to a debate between two groups of Christians. One holding to Intelligent Design but in the context of evolution and the other holding to the Bible context for Intelligent Design.

By contrast the true devotees to atheist darwinism will attack both groups - both the evolutionists that ADMIT to I.D and the Bible believers that take the Bible context for I.D.

Actually, both groups are taking what they believe to be the Bible's context for ID. One group is handling the text in a strictly literal manner while the other group holds that it was not intended to be literal.

But as for your question about ways to spin Gen 1-3... imagine for a minute that you are a historian and linguist. Someone who knows and cares about the Hebrew text, exegesis, history and the integrity of the text itself -- but you know absolutely KNOTHING about the doctrines of evolutionism NOT even the 4 billion year mantra of the evolutionists.

When you read the text of Gen 1-3 and look for the history and context going back century after century even into the ages before Christ - studying the Hebrew people. Do you "imagine" the text to say "NOT an evening and a morning but something wayyyy different" in each of the 7 segements for creation?

When you read Exodus 20:8-11 "FOR in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth and RESTED on the seventh day" as the arguement for "YOU to KEEP the Sabbath day - SIX days shall YOU labor and do all your work but the Seventh day IS the Sabbath .." do you imagine "This is not talking about 7 actual evening-morning sequences"???

Not at all! If you are just looking at the text and history - the answer as to what IT is saying is pretty obvious.

It is only by STARTING from the context of belief in evolutionism that you can even be "tempted" to wrench the text.

And that speaks volumes.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

No, of course I would not expect people thousands of years ago to understand a theistic evolution viewpoint. But let's assume it was through TE. Then how would God have chosen to explain it? Might he do as in Genesis 1-3?

For example, say you are a brain surgent. Your 5 yo child asks you what you are going to be doing when you operate today. Do you give the details, or do you greatly simplify and say simply that you are opening up someone's head to make it better? God's focus in Genesis 1-3 is on theology - actually soteriology. God did create the world - the universe. I do not think that what was given in Genesis was intended to be either a history textbook or a science textbook.

And there are issues for a strictly literal approach as well. Cain's wife is typoically taken by a literal approach to be a sister. That's usually what I say. (Though she might have been a niece.) Yet the context as read

With that in mind, does a TE approach seem so bad... unChristian or unbiblical?

And every apologist I've ever heard or read assumes a Big Bang approach. Because the BB necessitates a Cause. Physicists have a problem with the Big Bang.

Genesis 4:13-17, 25 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." But the Lord said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

16 So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Genesis 5:3, 4 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Now Cain was the first child of A & E, and Abel the 2nd (probably). Adam and Eve had another child whom they named Seth - and who took the place of Abel. The Bible says that they had other children after Seth, but it does not say that they had any before. Reading the text naturally it appears that the other people spoken about above were already around and were not children of A & E. The text does not say anything about their origen - granted. But the natural reading is that they were around.

All I'm saying is that it is not so "unbiblical" to take this text in other than the traditional manner.

Comments?

FA

Comments?

FA

 

[BobRyan]

Here is UTEOTW's quote again

Quote:
Sabrina D. Dyall, Mark T. Brown, Patricia J. Johnson, Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles, Science 9 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5668, pp. 253 - 257

The acquisitions of mitochondria and plastids were important events in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, supplying it with compartmentalized bioenergetic and biosynthetic factories. Ancient invasions by eubacteria through symbiosis more than a billion years ago initiated these processes. Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles. In losing their autonomy, endosymbionts lost the bulk of their genomes, necessitating the evolution of elaborate mechanisms for organelle biogenesis and metabolite exchange. In the process, symbionts acquired many host-derived properties, lost much of their eubacterial identity, and were transformed into extraordinarily diverse organelles that reveal complex histories that we are only beginning to decipher.

The careful, objective, critical thinking-mind will instantly note that the only actual fact provided in UTEOTW's quote is that we have had "Advances" in the sciences listed -- but "offered insight" is merely propaganda language for "have been used in our story telling" but it does not mean "have SHOWN the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles in the lab"

Everybody KNOWS this.

UTEOTW simply hopes that his frantic handwaiving will encourage some to "overlook it"

(sorry UTEOTW - this just never get's old)

 

[BobRyan]

No, of course I would not expect people thousands of years ago to understand a theistic evolution viewpoint. But let's assume it was through TE. Then how would God have chosen to explain it? Might he do as in Genesis 1-3?

Why not suppose that God would tell the truth instead? Something like

"For the explanation pertains to many days in the past" (as He said to Daniel about many days in the future_.

For "God spoke and the lights in the sky began to appear over many days. And after many days the Sun appeared in the heavens. And after many days the earth was without form and void. And after many more days the dry land began to appear. And after many more days... "

The truth is - it is VERY EASY to tell the TE story using the language already present in the Bible -- and remain truthful. -- IF TE was the story God intended to tell.

However your comment is significant in that you admit that the text conveys a YEC meaning - obviously. It has to be worked and bent to do anything else.

This represents the contrast between exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis in this case demans that we admit that the text is conveying the meaning of YEC -- and Eisegesis tells us that some people having the need to insert Evolutionism into the text - have to do so while admitting that this is not the point Moses was making to his readers.

And there are issues for a strictly literal approach as well. Cain's wife is typoically taken by a literal approach to be a sister. That's usually what I say. (Though she might have been a niece.) Yet the context as read

What are the "issues"??

Just exactly what do you think a clone of Adam would be by simply taking his DNA and changing gender?? God takes ADAM's rib to form Eve. They are genetically linked about as close as any family could ever imagine!

Abraham obviously marries his half sister.

Isaac is told to marry his cousin.

Jacob is told to mary his cousin.

The gradual decay of the genomic "system" over the ages has resulted in the sanction against such practices. But trying to insert our problems back on Adam and Eve does not work for them, or for Abraham or for Isaac or for Jacob.

No sense in pretending.

With that in mind, does a TE approach seem so bad... unChristian or unbiblical?

Unbiblical yes - since you have already admitted that the text does not state TE.

Now Cain was the first child of A & E, and Abel the 2nd (probably). Adam and Eve had another child whom they named Seth - and who took the place of Abel. The Bible says that they had other children after Seth, but it does not say that they had any before.

It does not say how many children Adam had between Abel and Seth -- all we know is that he had enough so that Cain had access to a wife.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Faith alone]

Bob,

I'm just trying to point out that there are issues with a strictly literal approach to Genesis. You never addressed the texts I listed which naturally read as if cain got a wife from outside - not a sister or niece. That is not the natural reading.

Also, there are some conflicts between Genesis 1 and the retelling in Genesis 2. Now I don't have a problem with it. But if you take a strictly literal approach - you do. My approach is that God is giving us what He wants us to know regarding how He created the earth. I focus on the spiritual and don't worry as much about the details of the scientific info. there.

And a TE approach is not necessarily "unbiblical." It is assuming an allegorical view of the Genesis record. But how can you say it is unbiblical?! It does not agree with your interpretation of the text. That doesn't make it unbiblical. That makes it allegorical. Do you think that when Psalms talks about trees clapping that it should be takern as literally happening?

I do believe that Adam was the 1st human being - created by God on the 6th day. But, for example, some believe that God created other humans in other places. I know - sounds weird. Some say that God had created humans earlier, and that He took Adam and did something special - selecting his line for the Messiah. I know, why would God use flesh from Adam's side to create Eve - the first woman? And why would He pronounce marriage regarding Adam and Eve cleaving to one another?

I am just saying that we should not be too quick to shoot down believers with other understandings for Genesis.


FA

 

[Helen]

Faith Alone, other 'understandings' of Genesis are ALWAYS invented in order to try to fit Genesis in with secular science. And when the two are forced together, guess which loses? Genesis.

Genesis 1 presents itself as straight historical narrative, as does all of Genesis. We need to either accept it or reject it on its OWN terms, not on terms thrust upon it to make us feel better.

What has actually happened scientifically in the last ten years or so is actually showing support for the exact way Genesis describes the beginning. They have the time frame wrong, but something called the plasma model is starting to shape up to show that there was light before the sun and that the earth itself was formed before the sun lit.

By the way, Genesis 2 does not disagree with Genesis 1 in any way. It is our translations of the verb tenses which cause confusion.

In short, Genesis -- and the rest of the Bible -- does not leave any room for Genesis to be considered allegory, mythical, or anything other than a true historical record. It is treated as such by all other biblical authors as well as our Lord when referring to it. It is presented and accepted as straightforward historical narrative.

And either it is or it isn't.

 

[grahame]

By the way, Genesis 2 does not disagree with Genesis 1 in any way. It is our translations of the verb tenses which cause confusion.

I have never seen any kind of contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2. Neither can I see two accounts of creation here. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to point them out to me?

 

[BobRyan]

Good point Grahame -- there is only one "chronological sequence" given in Gen 1-2 -- not two.

The added detail narrative that we have in Gen 2 has no chronology and must be inserted into the chronological sequence according to the added detail it provides IF one wants to see the added details of Gen 2 expanding at their given point in the Chronology given by Gen 1-2:3.

The chronological sequence tells us about the order in which all things on earth (and the Sun and Moon) were created - and the basis for Christ the Creator's Holy day.

The narrative of Gen 2 tells us about the Garden, the conditions of paradise (the old covenant obey and live) - and the basis for marriage and family.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Faith Alone, other 'understandings' of Genesis are ALWAYS invented in order to try to fit Genesis in with secular science. And when the two are forced together, guess which loses? Genesis.

And it is instructive that the practice of "fitting the text to some other agenda" is the heart and soul of eisegesis - inserting into scripture ideas that are not actually part of the text so that it fits some man-made tradition or bias. Hence all the divided denominations including the RCC.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

I'm just trying to point out that there are issues with a strictly literal approach to Genesis. You never addressed the texts I listed which naturally read as if cain got a wife from outside - not a sister or niece. That is not the natural reading.

I don't find anything in the text saying that "some other families existed at the time and from one of them Cain got his wife". When the text tells us that there are only two humans - Adam and Eve and that THEY are the ones having children - why in the world would we then invent "and then from some unknown place other families started - not descended from Adam".

In fact all the lineages of the Bible going back to the time of Adam ALWAYS show the descent from Adam alone.

Where in the world would sound exegesis get us to "and other sources for the human race were there besides Adam"???

Also, there are some conflicts between Genesis 1 and the retelling in Genesis 2. Now I don't have a problem with it. But if you take a strictly literal approach - you do.

A strictly literal approach does not yield two chronological sequences -- it only shows one because the "details" are very important. One is a chronology the other narrative is not but it ADDs more detail on some points than you had in the chronology given.

The combination of the two gives a far more complete picture than either one by itself.

And a TE approach is not necessarily "unbiblical." It is assuming an allegorical view of the Genesis record.

TE always starts with "Evolution is true" THEN goes to the Bible to try to make it fit. TE never starts with the text and says "Hey look - for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth" is not true according to the Bible it is just allegory inserted into law.

In fact - allegory is not being inserted into Law in the case of Exodus 20 and it is impossible to turn it to that purpose. The problem is that the 4th commandment clamps and iron-clad link between the events of creation week in Gen 1-2:3 and the literal week at Sinai -- it is impossible to separate them. You have to start by "wanting to find a way out of it" to even make the effort. And unless you can be successful at breaking that link there is no way to get Gen 1-2:3 to be allegorical.

But how can you say it is unbiblical?!

"Unbiblical" because inventing the idea that "God really meant to say -- God spoke and then after many days lights began to appear in the heavens, then after many more days the earth appeared formless and void, then after many more days the dry land appeared" - is pure eisegesis. It does not fit the "evening and morning" reading of the text as each set is called "one day".

You can not argue that "making wild stuff up as I read the Bible is biblical as long as I am abusing the text of scripture itself as I do it and not some other book". That does not make it "biblical" but just my interpretation. That is the entire reason we have the concept of eisegesis vs exegesis. We want to show when someone is simply coming up with an excuse to insert their own bias into the text - vs actually reading the text for what IT says.

Without the evolution model for TE - there is no TE insert into the text.

Do you think that when Psalms talks about trees clapping that it should be takern as literally happening?

IF God had added moral law saying "each Tuesday you are to clap your hands 3 times just as the trees clap their hands exactly 3 times each tuesday at 4 pm" then you would have a hard time arguing "He is just being silly there".

But as it is - it is placed in Psalms in a way that does not demand an exact link to that same literal event in our lives as law.

But in this case - God gave this 7 day creation week as a literal event cycle in moral law.

Hard to ignore.

I do believe that Adam was the 1st human being - created by God on the 6th day.

It is very easy to read that detail directly from the text.

But, for example, some believe that God created other humans in other places.

That is a very specific detail that needs to be "inserted" it can not be read from the text and there is no lineage ever given showing anyone to come from some other source than Adam. Furthermore in Romans 5 Paul flatly denies that such is true - he argues that all mankind descends from Adam and so in the fall of ADAM all mankind is condemned. Having other humans condemned by God who are NOT related to Adam inserts not only myth into Gen 1 it attributes injustice to God. This is why God condemns the practice of making those little "Additions" to scripture.

But the contrast is instructive. The first detail you give can actually be read from the text - the second has to be invented. And the second

I know - sounds weird. Some say that God had created humans earlier, and that He took Adam and did something special - selecting his line for the Messiah. I know, why would God use flesh from Adam's side to create Eve - the first woman? And why would He pronounce marriage regarding Adam and Eve cleaving to one another?

Indeed - it would mean that only the descendants of Adam are sinners only they are to be married to each other only they have the Gospel for it only goes to the children of Adam according to Romans 5.

The idea that you can toy-with and add things to scripture with "no effect" is what is getting into trouble here.

The Bible is a "house of cards" not a battleship. If you remove its foundations or toy with it - you destroy the integrity of the delicate links and what you end up with is an "invention of man" not the, complex, intricate, informative, authorotative Word of God. In Mark 7 the Jews elected to "toy with" the 5th commandment in honor of the temple and the church of God. Their intent was to simply make an alteration but not break it. But Christ said "in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[grahame]

Good point Grahame -- there is only one "chronological sequence" given in Gen 1-2 -- not two.

The added detail narrative that we have in Gen 2 has no chronology and must be inserted into the chronological sequence according to the added detail it provides IF one wants to see the added details of Gen 2 expanding at their given point in the Chronology given by Gen 1-2:3.

The chronological sequence tells us about the order in which all things on earth (and the Sun and Moon) were created - and the basis for Christ the Creator's Holy day.

The narrative of Gen 2 tells us about the Garden, the conditions of paradise (the old covenant obey and live) - and the basis for marriage and family.

In Christ,

Bob

Yes, that's how I read it.

 

[grahame]

I am still more amazed that people have difficulties in Genesis as to where Cain get his wife. Here is a book that has influenced the lives of literally millions of people down the ages. Now even if this was not a book written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would still be a monumental and inspired piece of writing. Do folk not realise that any writer worth his salt would settle detailed like Cain's wife and acknowledge that his readers are not fools? Do we not suppose that he would foresee such questions as this? And therefore if it were relevent would go about writing in the details to satisfy the curiosity of the doubters?

We must realise that things do not necessarily happen consecutively in every case and that Adam and Eve also had other sons and daughters as well as Cain and Able. Now I don't know for sure. But that to me was always the obvious answer if Adam was the first man and according to the Genesis narrative he surely was. But the plain facts of the matter are that we simply are not told. Why? Because it is not essential to the story. If it were, then to be sure the writer would have told us. Sometimes it pays to be simple minded.

 

[UTEOTW]

I guess that I'll never get to hear the understanding of how earth's plates have their speed of movement ties exactly to the speed of light.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37659&page=4

(scroll down a few posts)

 

[grahame]

I guess that I'll never get to hear the understanding of how earth's plates have their speed of movement ties exactly to the speed of light.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37659&page=4

(scroll down a few posts)

Nah! the only plates I know of are dinner plates with a nice steak on them. We must all remember that God said, "Let there be light". All these discussions succeed in doing is to generate heat and very little light.

 

[Faith alone]

Faith Alone, other 'understandings' of Genesis are ALWAYS invented in order to try to fit Genesis in with secular science. And when the two are forced together, guess which loses? Genesis.

Genesis 1 presents itself as straight historical narrative, as does all of Genesis. We need to either accept it or reject it on its OWN terms, not on terms thrust upon it to make us feel better.

What has actually happened scientifically in the last ten years or so is actually showing support for the exact way Genesis describes the beginning. They have the time frame wrong, but something called the plasma model is starting to shape up to show that there was light before the sun and that the earth itself was formed before the sun lit.

But Plasma theory does not account for a universe merely 1000s of years old. I have no problem with what you presented above, at all, but billions of years old. Yet a strictly literal viewpoint does. If you hold to a young universe viewpoint, then you simply cannot use the Big Bang, Plasma or an Inflation Big Bang theories to support the existence of God. The IRC says about Plasma theory:

The plasma universe is currently enjoying success as a "Big-Bang basher." In due course, its own weaknesses will begin receiving more attention. The lesson is clear: Creationists should be especially cautious about accommodating new science ideas, even if they oppose evolutionary models like the Big Bang. The replacement may be even worse than the original problem! Steady State, Big Bang, Plasma — naturalistic theories of origins will continue to rise and fall.

By the way, Genesis 2 does not disagree with Genesis 1 in any way. It is our translations of the verb tenses which cause confusion.

Helen, Thx. I am familiar with the arguments there and hold that same position. I'm merely pointing out that for a Christian to oppose such a position is not so outrageous as many insist.

In short, Genesis -- and the rest of the Bible -- does not leave any room for Genesis to be considered allegory, mythical, or anything other than a true historical record. It is treated as such by all other biblical authors as well as our Lord when referring to it. It is presented and accepted as straightforward historical narrative.

And either it is or it isn't.

Helen,

Just a quick question then, "Which apologetist's scientific position for the existence of God do you hold?"

Thx,

FA