Christians: Does age of earth matter?

[CalvinG]

John 6:63,

Please tell me how you explain viruses and bacteria. Because the Bible doesn't specifically talk about them. Do you then believe that they don't exist? Because the Bible doesn't specify their creation?

Does the Bible give details of how God formed the brain? The teeth? The feet? Is all of this described in great detail?

Tell us, please, why one cannot simultaneously believe in evolution and that God created earth and all that is in it. Because some of us (myself and Paul included) obviously do simultaneously believe both things.

Let me show how your reasoning is faulty. God says nothing specific about how he created bacteria in His Word. Nothing! No matter how hard you try, you can't possibly force the two together. It doesn't work, so you're left with a decision. (See how faulty that is?)

Can one not evolve into that which is in the image of God if God creates by means of evolution? Is God powerful and smart enough to use evolution to create living things? I say He is.

John 6:63, if you still think we should just throw out old earth and evolution, perhaps you would care to answer the questions I directed to BobRyan.

 

[cotton]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by cotton:

REITERATE OUT OF EXPERIENCE: In a nutshell, I WAS indoctrinated in evolution, and for nearly 28 years or more it kept me from believing in the Word of God. I didn't even consider that the Bible could be true.
Now, I can't PROVE my belief in creation is correct, I simply believe it because scripture says so.

You're either sold out to God or sold out to secular humanism.

When did secular humanism get into this discussion? I think you are operating on some hidden assumptions that could be seriously questioned here.

Sorry, I was addressing the initial post; simply addressing my concerns from my experience of being indoctrinated into evolution and the difficulties it caused me. I believe that secular humanism is the "religion" of athiestic man. Perhaps that is an assumption that should be questioned.

Secular Humanism is not the same thing as evolution.

Look again. I never equated the two.

Evolution is a finding of science.

And here I thought that evolution was still a theory. My bad.

Secular Humanism is a philosophy - an entirely different thing. One doesn't have to take them as a package.

So tell me, are the majority of evolutionists athiest or Bible believing Christians? You separate philosophy, religion and science as if you can have all threeon separate terms. . I found that I must combine all three in Messiah Y'shua. Otherwise my worship is just a hobby .

One can give God the glory for creation of all things and still accept the findings of evolution, because He created evolution!

Well I don't find in scripture where he created evolution.

As for the negative results (besides doubting God's Word), its core message is: we're animals,

Ecc 3:18-19: I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity

True, though my translation has 'that God may test them , that they might see that by themselves they are just animals." The implication is that without God, we are nothing. Interestingly Eccl. 12:13 concludes: Here is the final conclusion, now that you've heard everything; fear God, and keep His mitzvot; this is what being human is all about.

survival of the fittest, and sin doesn't really exist (cultural relativism).

Huh? Science cannot discuss the subject of sin. It is a value judgement to term something a sin, and science deals in objective determination of what exists. Making value judgements is not science, but something else, like maybe philosopy or religion.

Sin is violation of Torah (God's Word) 1John 3:4 You did make a value judgement - you chose "scientific observation" over God's Word. Also what about 'survival of the fittest' which you didn't address?

Its a short step from abandoning Genesis to abadoning the Gospels.

Then don't abandon Genesis. Just don't feel obligated to interpret it in a literal fashion where it does not coincide with what science has demonstrated to have happened.

I don't believe "science" has demonstrated evolution - if it had it could repeat it by EXPERIMENTATION, which is a tool used along with statistical analysis to confirm or eliminate confidence in a theory or hypothesis.

The narratives still have much to teach you and they are profitable for instruction in righteous, doctrine, and so forth. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! But is that only until "science" decides otherwise?
Cotton

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:

Listen to you, you say God created all things and in the next breath contribute it all to evolution. What a contradiction!

Not at all, John 6:63! Did God create YOU or were you BORN to TWO HUMAN PARENTS?

Hint: it is not an either or question. Both can be true.

Same idea.

Now where in the bible does it say that God created evolution?

Genesis 1:1, the very opening verse of my bible anyway, says God in the beginning created the heavens and earth. I don’t see the word evolution, do you?

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible contains an exhaustive list of all of God's creations?

Genesis also says that God created man in HIS image. Not a monkey’s image. I don’t see evolution even hinted at.

Nor do you see a globular earth hinted at. Nor do you see the idea of earth rotating as cause of night and day. Yet you are willing to accept them, lacking though they be . . .

You either believe Genesis or you don’t, it’s Genesis and how God says He done it or it’s naturalistic (atheistic) evolution, b/c God says nothing about evolution, NOTHING. No matter how hard you try, you can’t possibly force the two together. It doesn’t work, so you’re left with a decision.

And my decision is to accept Genesis and interpret it non-literally not only in regards to the solid firmament over our heads and the moving of the sun over our heads but also the rest of what science has discovered.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Tell us, please, why one cannot simultaneously believe in evolution and that God created earth and all that is in it. Because some of us (myself and Paul included) obviously do simultaneously believe both things.

It’s apparent that neither you Calvin or PAUL has any clue to the agenda of evolution that you so promote.

There’s a book by Erik Von Keunnelt-Leddihn entitled Leftism Revisted: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot Erik is a scholar concerning questions of liberty and totalitarianism, and his book aforementioned deals with these issues. In his book he shows that apart from the belief that man is created in the image of God, the divinely derived dignity and liberty of man completely disappears. A quote from his book is as follows For the genuine materialists there’s no fundamental, only a gradual evolutionary difference between man and a pest, a noxious insect.

So basically, it boils down to, either we evolved out of some unknown slime and can be explained only in a materialistic sense, which means we are made of nothing but material, or we have been created by God in HIS image in a heavenly pattern. The real debate here isn’t about biological, it’s moral and it’s spirituality. It’s about mans dignity and his nature. Who is in control and who is sovereign? Is there a universal Judge? A universal moral law? Is there a lawgiver? Are to people to live according to God's standard? Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live? Is there a final judgment?

These are the questions that evolution was invented to avoid, because evolutionists and materialists and naturalists didn't like God as their creator, but because they didn't want God as judge. Evolution says there’s no God and it eliminates the lawgiver, to eliminate the inviolability of His law, the binding standard for human thought and conduct. Evolution was invented to do away from universal morality and universal guilt and universal accountability. Evolution was invented to eliminate the judge and leave people free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.

The materialistic view would say, "Ultimate reality is impersonal matter. No God exists."

The Christian view says, "Ultimate reality is an infinite, personal, loving God."

The materialistic view says, "The universe is created by chance, without any ultimate purpose."

The Christian view says, "The universe was lovingly created by God for a specific purpose."

The materialistic view says, "Man is the product of impersonal time, plus chance, plus matter. As a result, no man has eternal value or dignity nor any meaning other than that which is subjectively derived."

The Christian view says, "Man was created by God in His image and is loved by God. Because of this all men are endowed with eternal value and dignity. Their value is not derived ultimately from themselves, but from the source transcending themselves, God Himself."

The materialistic view of morality says, "Morality is defined by every individual according to his own views and interests. Morality is ultimately relative because every person is the final authority for his own views."

The Christian view says, "Morality is defined by God and immutable because it is based on God's unchanging, holy character."

The materialistic view says about the afterlife, "The afterlife brings eternal annihilation, or personal extinction for everyone."

The Christian view says, "The afterlife involves either eternal life with God, or eternal separation from Him. Either the glories of heaven, or the terrors of hell."

There’s a lot more to evolution than meets the eye!

An apologist named Francis Schaeffer said that if he had an hour to spend with a person on an airplane, a person who didn't know the Lord, he would spend the first 55 minutes talking about man being created in the image of God. And the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation that could restore man to that original intended image.

Christianity does not begin with accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Christianity begins in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth for purpose and destiny, which He Himself had determined. Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Please tell me how you explain viruses and bacteria. Because the Bible doesn't specifically talk about them. Do you then believe that they don't exist? Because the Bible doesn't specify their creation?

There’s a lot the bible doesn’t discuss, like why the sky is blue! Why Pluto a cartoon dog can’t speak, but Goofy a cartoon dog can speak!

But to entertain your question, Genesis 1:31 says that God created EVERYTHING, 2:1 all the HOST of them. This includes you’re little viruses and bacteria! It didn’t affect man until after the FALL.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Does the Bible give details of how God formed the brain? The teeth? The feet? Is all of this described in great detail?

My, My, My…God doesn’t explain to Calvin how He formed a brain, teeth, feet. So Calvin dismisses Genesis as hocus pocus allegory.

When God created man, than included the brain, teeth and feet.

What kind of questions are these, don’t tell me this is hindering your faith!

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Let me show how your reasoning is faulty. God says nothing specific about how he created bacteria in His Word. Nothing! No matter how hard you try, you can't possibly force the two together. It doesn't work, so you're left with a decision. (See how faulty that is?)

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Can one not evolve into that which is in the image of God if God creates by means of evolution?

Genesis 2:1, Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Key words in bold for you to meditate on.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Is God powerful and smart enough to use evolution to create living things? I say He is.

If God could’ve used millions of years, He could’ve use 6 seconds or how HE revealed to us He how He did do it. There’s a reason why He revealed to man why He done it the way He said He did.

 

[CalvinG]

Objection: Unresponsive.

John, I find your point of view interesting. And we can certainly debate what the consequences of belief in evolution are. I'm prepared to engage you on that if you like. But for me, the debate about evolution is part of the science of biology. It is about how present living organisms came to be the way they are and only about biology.

Science does not make value judgements. Belief in evolution is not inconsistent with belief that man was created in the image of God by God's use of evolution as a mechanism.

God is in control. God is sovereign. God is the universal Judge. God is the lawgiver. I believe these things. But I do not believe that they can be proved or disproved by science...until the earth's final days.

Evolution was not invented to do away with universal morality, universal guilt, or universal accountability. I have no idea where you got these notions, except perhaps from the book you quote. But I know of no biologist who believes in evolution for these purposes. I know only biologists who believe in evolution as a way to explain observations and data from the natural world. And I don't understand why certain Christians attribute to science motives that science, which does not make value judgements, does not possess.

Science as I understand it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. This hypothetical "materialist" of yours is not a scientist speaking solely on the basis of his observations of the natural world. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Even the Bible says that.

Please do not assume that evolution is about anything other than the biological sciences. At least not necessarily so. Some folks will try to form new philosophies and beliefs which they claim stem from science. In general, these beliefs are their own conclusions and not a part of the science itself.

Francis Schaeffer would have a lot more success in his evangelism, if the person seated next to him on the airplane were a biologist, if he didn't insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. By the way, I think most Christian evolutionists (if you agree that we exists) believe that Genesis 1:1 is literal.

I disagree with you to the extent that you insist that a literal understanding of Genesis is foundational to accepting that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world. I agree that believing God created the heavens and earth and that God desires a special relationship with man is foundational.

 

[CalvinG]

I posted my first response before you posted your second. So we appear to have cross-posted.

We agree that God created everything. I would go further...God created the universe and possibly dimensions we don't yet even know exist. Whatever is out there in the natural world...including the evidence for an old earth and the evidence for evolution...is there because God created it and put it there.

If God doesn't say how he created the individual parts of man, I interpret that to mean that this creation may have taken place by means of evolution. And this would be consistent with observations of the natural world.

I am not going to meditate on language in Scripture which you claim is proves, from Scripture, that scientific propositions for which overwhelming evidence exists are false.

John, I agree that God could have used 6 seconds if He had wanted to. God could also have created everything last week and made it look to us as if things had been this way for thousands of years, including creating in us memories of things that never occurred.

To say the Genesis account is literally true is, in my mind, to imply that God also created evidence that the earth has been here for billions of years and that God created in the genomes of living things evidence for an evolution that did not occur.

If you want to believe Genesis is literal fact, that is OK with me. I doubt your work forces you to know and use information from science which is contrary to a literal reading of Genesis. To me, that is the same as if I don't know the details of a spiral galaxy billions of light-years away. It won't affect day-to-day life.

But if you want to insist that I believe your interpretation of Scripture when presented a plethora of contrary data from the natural world, that is not Ok with me. If you insist that I am not a Christian because I don't share a view that goes against the best explanation of the data or if you insist that the current interpretation of data by scientists is driven by a desire to establish philosophies contrary to Christianity, this I cannot accept.

Perhaps you would care to tackle the post in which I ask questions of BobRyan?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Not at all, John 6:63! Did God create YOU or were you BORN to TWO HUMAN PARENTS?
Hint: it is not an either or question. Both can be true.

Same idea.

God say that He created man and his helpmeet and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Sounds a lot like evolution to me!

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene: Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible contains an exhaustive list of all of God's creations?

God did a pretty good job in Genesis 1:31 everything that was made; and Genesis 2:1 all the host of them. I believe God got everything covered.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene: Nor do you see a globular earth hinted at. Nor do you see the idea of earth rotating as cause of night and day. Yet you are willing to accept them, lacking though they be . . .

Isa 40:22 he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. Is good enough for me and the bible believing explorer Christopher Columbus.

The evening and morning were the first day, second day etc… confirms the fact that the earth rotates.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene: And my decision is to accept Genesis and interpret it non-literally not only in regards to the solid firmament over our heads

see the FLOOD event in GENESIS.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene: and the moving of the sun over our heads but also the rest of what science has discovered.

It’s called phenomenal language. Do YOU blast your local weather station when he says the sun rises and sets?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
John, I find your point of view interesting. And we can certainly debate what the consequences of belief in evolution are. I'm prepared to engage you on that if you like.

Good, name a few good things that have come from the philosophy of evolution.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Science does not make value judgements. Belief in evolution is not inconsistent with belief that man was created in the image of God by God's use of evolution as a mechanism.

Where in the bible do you see evolution?

Originally posted by CalvinG:
God is in control. God is sovereign. God is the universal Judge. God is the lawgiver. I believe these things. But I do not believe that they can be proved or disproved by science...until the earth's final days.

Ask your friendly neighborhood atheist who also like you believes in evolution.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Evolution was not invented to do away with universal morality, universal guilt, or universal accountability. I have no idea where you got these notions, except perhaps from the book you quote.

You need to pay more attention to the philosophy of evolution.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Science as I understand it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. This hypothetical "materialist" of yours is not a scientist speaking solely on the basis of his observations of the natural world. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Even the Bible says that.

Evolution doesn’t include God. It wouldn’t be science. For instance how did it all start? You say God. Science says hogwash, what good is science if everything starts with God. If one experiment turns out one-way…God did it and another experiment another way…God did it, no progress would ever be made.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Please do not assume that evolution is about anything other than the biological sciences. At least not necessarily so.

Huh, you just contradicted yourself. You need to look at the whole structure, not just what you feel is right and discredit the rest. You’re doing that with the bible already.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
By the way, I think most Christian evolutionists (if you agree that we exists) believe that Genesis 1:1 is literal.

Boy, you are confused with Genesis 1:1. created doesn’t mean by means of evolution….sorry.

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Perhaps you would care to tackle the post in which I ask questions of BobRyan?

When you can show me from the scriptures that evolution was used as a means of creating, I’ll take your questions a little more seriously.

I base my opinions on Gods Word, which is our FINAL AUTHORITY.

You base your opinions, not from Gods Word, but from man, who some are willingly ignorant.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Good, name a few good things that have come from the philosophy of evolution."

There is no such thing as the "philosophy of evolution." I think CalvinG already answered in quite well.

"Evolution was not invented to do away with universal morality, universal guilt, or universal accountability. I have no idea where you got these notions, except perhaps from the book you quote. But I know of no biologist who believes in evolution for these purposes. I know only biologists who believe in evolution as a way to explain observations and data from the natural world. And I don't understand why certain Christians attribute to science motives that science, which does not make value judgements, does not possess.
...
Please do not assume that evolution is about anything other than the biological sciences. At least not necessarily so. Some folks will try to form new philosophies and beliefs which they claim stem from science. In general, these beliefs are their own conclusions and not a part of the science itself."

Science only seeks to explain what we see around us. If someone makes value judgments based on that, it is their problem.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:

It's not 'my' position, Gina. It's God's. It's what HE said He did. Yes, of course He could do anything at all. But of all the possibilties He had, He chose what He did and He told us what that was in Genesis, with references to it through out the Bible.

Here's a question we all must face. Either God chose to limit His revelation to the ability of understanding of men at the time of the revelation or He gave His revelation as to be literally understood for all time. Which of these do we choose?

If we decide to go by what the literal message of Genesis is to choose, then we've chosen before we considered the question. We can't use the method we're deciding about to select the method by which we decide. That would be circular reasoning.

When I see God allowing men to describe the sun as moving and never giving them a hint that its really the earth rotating . . . I choose to believe God was accomodating His revelation to men's understanding.

If one does not believe God knows how to communicate clearly with men, then it is fine to 'reinterpret' Genesis et al. But then one is stuck with man's ideas, and where does one draw the line? Does one discount, as Thomas Jefferson and others have done, everything that does not 'make sense' or seem to fit with 'current ideas' and 'accept' the rest of the Bible?

I submit to all and sundry that is exactly what every one of us does with the Bible all the time. We have no choice. Once an idea has become clearly accepted in our minds - as, for example, the rotation of the earth - nothing the Bible says will change our minds on that notion. Not even an explicit reference in the Bible that God made sun to STOP moving for a while at Joshua's command. We'll find language to reinterpret that - maybe we'll say it is a phenomenological description of what really happened.

In your own case, I know you have expressed the idea that some stars were made on day 4 of Genesis and some stars were made on an earlier day. That's because it doesn't really mean in Genesis that stars were made on day four, where everybody thinks that what it means.

So reinterpreting what the bible says literally is indeed something you do as do we all.

If that is the way it is, then the words of Jesus, of Paul, and the entire idea of salvation itself is up for grabs -- which is exactly what we are seeing in the liberal branch of Bible study today.

God either knew what He was talking about, or He didn't. He could either communicate clearly with us, or He couldn't.

If either of those negatives apply, how can anyone trust anything else in the Bible? If God's ways have to fit into the tiny box of man's comprehension/understanding and agreement, we are in major trouble! God becomes no more than a crippled Superman.

Nothing we do will ever harm God or cause Him to be less than He is.

Not even our attempts to understand Him in the tiny box of our presently limited brains.

To properly interpret the Bible is going to take everything we've got. We've got to bring our minds to the task, our spirits to the task, our collective wisdom to the task, and we've got to pray for Divine Guidance for the task, and then we've got to admit we can still get it wrong and be a bit tolerant of our brother or sister who comes to an alternative interpretation in their pursuit of the truth.

I personally expect that when I get to heaven I'm going to learn that some of my dearly held ideas were wrong. I'm actually looking forward to that better understanding of His truth.

[ March 24, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]

 

[Gina B]

I appreciate the need for caution with regard to contradicting the Bible. Did you know that for years and years the science of geology tried as hard as it could to make everything it found fit best with the account of Genesis including a single global flood? This was true until about the 1800s. So we are talking almost two mellinia after Christ when the greatest scientific minds of the western world adopted the view of the irrefutable truth of Genesis and tried to make their observations square with that.

Then they gave up. Because they wanted to? No. Because the evidence before their eyes demanded it.

Don't you think that's quite a drastic statement?
Evidence can be proof, but the evidence is still subject to man's interpretation, which can be drastically flawed when people try to make it fit into understanding on a human level. The fact that at a certain point in time one can't force findings to fit into what the bible said has happened isn't proof that the bible is wrong. It may indicate that we are interpreting it wrong, but there's a point where you have to stop and say "this is going to far and denying the bible is true because I don't understand x".

Do I believe God could create the whole world in 6 days? Of course I do. Nothing is impossible to God. In him all things hold together.

So I am stuck asking myself...if God created all life on earth in 6 days, why did He make it look as if it took much longer than that? Could God do that? Of course He could. But I do not consider it to be in God's nature to deceive. Because nowhere in the Bible can I find a single instance of God's lying to anyone about anything. Not even to test the person. That is the province of the devil.

How in the world is it deceit if you can't make sense of it? Manna from heaven? The sea being parted? Both of these are said to have been caused by God, but have scientific explanations. So was it technically really a natural occurance that should have only been given credit for because He caused nature?
It takes how long for land to move, diamonds to be made, gold to form, mineral grains to form rock, mountains to be formed. Unless the world was created containing practically nothing, of course it would show signs of age well beyond recorded history, because it was created ready for the uses of man.
What I find more unbelievable than this being done by an all powerful creator is that man would presume to look at creation and then say he has the brains to figure out what happened exactly during times man cannot comprehend and has no history of. In a way this is man attempting creation, making up events in time to fit in with what makes sense from a man's point of view, taking a creator practically out of the picture because he doesn't make as much sense to them as what his own made-up version does. Hey, I could have fun with that and never have another question if I could make up all my own answers and prove them true by showing that they don't fit in with what the bible says!

Ok...but Satan can't create...can he? So now I have to believe that either all the scientists in the world are making up all of evolution and the age of the earth OR that God created the world in such a way that it would "lie" to people in contradiction of some interpretations of Scripture OR that some interpretations of Genesis must yield to the objective data. Please tell me where I go wrong here if you think I go wrong. If you think the Scripture of Genesis is right as you interpret it, then which of my other two scenarios do you accept? Or do you accept another that I wasn't creative or intelligent enough to come up with?

You're going wrong in assuming that something is a lie if it isn't agreed upon by scientists that agree with you.

Because I agree that these things matter. They matter so much that I'm actually reading books trying to "disprove" on a scientific basis the theory of evolution. I would like for the disproof to work. But I don't think that it will.

Let me give you an idea. I'm not smart in science, but I have figured out what is usually the best way to find out what is false.
Don't read the negative writings on it to try to prove it false.
Read the actual evidence that come from the source itself. If you want to prove mormonism wrong, read all of the writings of mormonism, of their presidents, etc., along with the bible. If you want to find out that evolution is wrong keep reading writings by evolutionists along with the bible. Your base for most any basic study is going to be the bible. It is truth.
Bankers don't learn to tell false money by being shown false money first. They are given real money. They touch it, handle it, study it intensely. Why is that? It's because once they know what the real thing is they're 10x's less likely to not recognize a false bill should it be handed to them.

Gina and BobRyan, does either of you understand molecular biology on a cellular level? If you do...you will find something amazing if you look at the natural world. And it has to do with mitochondria. These are little organelles which some think are bacterial in origin which live in and provide energy to eukaryotic cells.

Mitochondria are unlike other inheritance. Regardless of your gender, you get all your mitochondria from your mother.

Look at variations in the genetic makeup of certain mitochondrial DNA. It just so happens that these variations correspond substantially to the theory of life posited by Neo-Darwinists. Why is this so? Do you not care why this is so?

No, I do not know much about it.
How do variations prove evolution? It is undeniable that much of creation was made capable of adapting to changes in environment and that is evidenced, but it's a big leap to say that proves something happened in a time that the best man can do is simply assume might have existed.

I'm truly not qualified to come at things from a scientific point of view. For the most part I'm simply an interested reader on these topics, so just because I jump in or make a post please don't assume that I can really keep pace with most of the people that get involved in these discussions! I just can't help commenting at times. (then praying someone else answers the replies made to me )

Gina

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Gina L:
For Christians who believe in either a young or older earth, why is it so important for you to prove your position right?
What do you believe are negative results of the belief opposite yours?
Gina

My belief is that The Word of God is inspired, and inerrant.

I believe The Bible is a book about God, His creation, and His relationship to it.

I believe the age of the earth is irrelevant to the Gospel message of salvation. The primary objecton most young earthers have to a non literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is that one would have to accept animal death before the fall. If one studies the Scriptures diligently, one will be amazed at how consistently Scipture teaches that sin brought death to man. There is no verse, nor any logical conclusion that can be drawn from any verse which would compel one to believe that the animal kingdom was immortal and became subject to death because of Adam's sin. There is also no compelling verse which connects the redemptive work of our Lord and saviour to plants and animals


God works on His own timeline, how long He chose to spend creating is His pierogative . I would say in fact that because God is eternal (infinite) in all of His attributes, a week or 10 trillion years is exactly the same thing because He's not subject to time.

 

[Gina B]

If God doesn't say how he created the individual parts of man, I interpret that to mean that this creation may have taken place by means of evolution. And this would be consistent with observations of the natural world.

But He does. He says that he created man in his own image, body soul and spirit (ie the trinity). Created, not is creating. (unless you believe evolution stopped cold for our "species")
Doesn't that seem to mean that from the beginning man was formed in the image desired and has remained in that image?

Gina

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:

It's not 'my' position, Gina. It's God's. It's what HE said He did. ...

Here's a question we all must face. Either God chose to limit His revelation to the ability of understanding of men at the time of the revelation or He gave His revelation as to be literally understood for all time. Which of these do we choose? </font>[/QUOTE]That is a good question. Lets refute, deny and reject the Word of God every time it mentions any fact that would be beyond the science of the people God is speaking to.

1. Virgin birth,
2. Resurrection of Christ
3. Casting out demons
4. Instantly healing disease
5. Instante healing the blind
6. Destroying the world by flood
7. Creating the World (how many have we created?)
8. Creating the Sun (how many have we created?)
9. Traveling between heaven and earth (Dan 9)
10. Spliting the Red Sea
11. Creation of Earth, Sun, Moon in six literal days.

All this is STILL beyond our science - we can not do it, can not repeat it, can not even test it.

God would "still by lying to us" if we used the rule suggested above.

But I like the idea that Paul is willing to contrast this model of the "lying God" with God that "tells the truth".

Notice that the "gap" that some people need to insert lies into the Bible is merely the fact that mankind is not yet ready to fully comprehend every possible detail for a given Bible statement. Once that is true - then they assert "any old lie will do".

Paul --
If we decide to go by what the literal message of Genesis is to choose, then we've chosen before we considered the question.

Also true. Instead of "First considering the lying God religions" - many people just go right ahead and "believe Him" for what He said.


When I see God saying "NO scripture is a matter of one mans views but RATHER holy men of old Spoke from God" -- I find the opposite of "any old lie will do depending on the ignorance of the person writing".

But I admit - for some others -- this is a hard decision.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CalvinG:
John, I find your point of view interesting. And we can certainly debate what the consequences of belief in evolution are. I'm prepared to engage you on that if you like.

Good, name a few good things that have come from the philosophy of evolution.

</font>[/QUOTE]That is easy - the doctrines and mythologies of evolutionism have been blatant from the start.

Huxely said that they free us from the moral boundaries that God set.

Darwin's Origin of the Species gives us the "Races of men" with the "White race" more "advanced than the other races". This is in fact Darwin's explicit conclusion starting with his Origin book.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
[QB] John 6:63,

Please tell me how you explain viruses and bacteria. Because the Bible doesn't specifically talk about them. Do you then believe that they don't exist? Because the Bible doesn't specify their creation?

How do you describe them - animal, mineral vegetable?

In any case - God tells us that the plants were ALL created on the 3rd day.

Seems pretty "obvious". No life on earth prior to the 3rd day.

Calvin said --

Does the Bible give details of how God formed the brain? The teeth? The feet? Is all of this described in great detail?

Easy. God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life - and all this happened on the 6th day -- "Evening and Morning were the sixth day". Since it does not give us the cell structure of the brain in that text - then we can insert billions of years.

Of course "The Holy Spirit came over Mary and she conceived" - so "HOW exactly does SPIRIT cause the Incarnation -- with what DNA?" - since it does not say - it must have taken a billion years.

I see.

Calvin --
Tell us, please, why one cannot simultaneously believe in evolution and that God created earth and all that is in it.

Because some of us (myself and Paul included) obviously do simultaneously believe both things.

Because God's Word gives "The ACCOUNT" of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Because GOD says that it took JUST one evening and one morning for EACH of the days of creation.

Because EVEN evolutionism's mythologies have NO concept of 500 million years of evening followed by 500 million years of daylight for each of the 7 days of creation week.

Because God Hardwires the equation in Exodus 20 so that the DAY of Israel at Sinai is EQUATED to the DAY of Genesis 1.

Because Exegesis - results in ONE and ONLY ONE view of the Genesis account.

Because EVEN our evolutionist-touting Orthodox Jewish Rabbi will tell you that the syntax and context of Exodus 20 does NOT allow for the arbitrary redefintion of "yom" mid-sentence.

Because it is obvious to "the reader" that you "need to corrupt the text" to get your views of evolution. In other words - you believe in the myths of evolutionism "inspite of the text" and NOT "because of it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
BobRyan and Gina,


Did you know that for years and years the science of geology tried as hard as it could to make everything it found fit best with the account of Genesis including a single global flood? This was true until about the 1800s.

True enough. All scientists carry their bias into their work. They were doing it then - they continue to do it now.

Then they gave up. Because they wanted to? No. Because the evidence before their eyes demanded it.

There is in fact - nothing to support that.

But it is a good myth.

So I am stuck asking myself...if God created all life on earth in 6 days, why did He make it look as if it took much longer than that?

Belief in the Bible does not depend on our ability to "BE God" or to "Think like God" or to "Fully understand how to make a living system from nothing".

Be that as it may - the point is that EVEN the Hebrews standing in frong of Moses "could understand" that "Adam and Eve" were not "introduced as infants" and they ALSO understood "that Adults humans" are not the form that humanity takes when the individual is merely 6 hours old. (And "yes" I am sure they had seen miscarriages).

The "obvious" point is that the vegetation had to "old enough" to serve as food from day one.

The humans had to be "old enough" to walk, talk and manage their affairs from day one.

The story "demands" that a "mature environment" as the "starting condition".

Your "speculation" above - merely says "Yes But I don't know ALL the things that have to be Mature in a living system from Day ONE"

In other words you "argue from the void of what you don't know -- to make your case".

Don't you find that kind of shallow? It could never serve as a kind of "proof".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Calvin said --

By the way, even if one believes evolution, does there not have to be a cut off point at which a primitive hominid is or is not "man"?

BobRyan and Gina, what beliefs about the Genesis account do you two believe are essential to salvation? [/QB]

In Romans 8 we are told that Creation is ONLY subjected to decay and death because of man's sin.

In the mythologies of evolutionism we are told that death, starvation, extermination, disease was the PROCESS of creation leading to man.

In Romans 5 we are told that it was ONE and ONLY ONE man - Adam that introduced death to all mankind.

In the mythologies of evolutionism we are told that there are "many" Adam's and that ONE was not responsible for ALL mankind.

In Acts - Paul tells us that God made FROM ONE blood ALL nations of the earth.

Christ tells us that FROM THE BEGINING God created ONE man and ONE woman and that the facts of Gen 2 establish the authority of Marriage.

Paul says that Adam was created FIRST and then Even AND says that Eve was deceived and then fell into sin FIRSt.

It is the DETAILS of Genesis 1-2 that the Bible appeals to.

The Gospel says that Christ paid the debt of man - the debt we owe for breaking the LAW of God

The LAW of God in Exodus 20 explicitly draws on the DETAILS of the Genesis 1-2 account saying that IN SIX DAYS God created the heavens AND the Earth AND all that is in them and rested the 7th day. And that same law says we are to do the same.

It HARDWIRES the definition of day in doing that.

It basis its command on the FACT of the DETAILS of Genesis 1-2 the VERY details that the myths of evolutionism so reject.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I dreamed I found myself entering heaven and met my guardian angel at the pearly gates. He ushered me into a debriefing room prior to entering eternal glory. He explained where my mansion was, gave me a set of maps, issued me my wings and harp, and asked me how things were doing on earth, from my perspective of course.

"Well," I said, "I've been concerned over the dismal state of science on earth, especially in God's own churches. You know, I was a baptist, the best kind of church."

At this my angel raised a quizical eyebrow. Seeing the expression as a kind of warning, I quickly remarked "Well, as far as I knew at the time, of course". I think he was just concerned about my remnants of earthly pride, but I'm still not sure. It's not the kind of thing I felt free to ask about.

The angel took out his big book. "Hmm, I see here you were a frequent contributer to certain bulliten boards on the subject of evolution in the last part of your life . . ."

"Yes," I said, "That's true. It would appear that churchmen through the ages have been reluctant to accept the obvious scientific truth."

The angel again gave me a funny look. This time I know I had no idea what he was thinking.

"Well," he said at last, "in a way that's why we're having this little conversation. We have a special assignment for you, before you actually enter eternal glory. I suppose you noticed you were sidetracked from the usual crowds pressing on to the regions of light?"

I had noticed that. It had made me nervous. I continued to listen.

"What we would like you to do", said the angel, "Is to go back in time and talk to Martin Luthor, one of our key figures in the Great Reformation. He rejected the teachings of Copernicus, you know, and we've decided it would be ok to alter history and have him set the church on a course of being more reconciled with science. If you are in agreement, we have decided to send you down there to talk him into accepting the Copernican Heliocentric view of the solar system."

"Well," I said, "That would be a key event that might make a difference in the church's relations with science. I'm willing, if you really . . ."

Immediately heaven was lost to my view and I found myself dressed in odd clothes walking towards Martin Luthor's house, where I knew I was invited to be a dinner guest that night. I had no wrist watch, I had no keys, no money, no palm pilot, just myself.

"think I can do it" I finished, to no one in particular. Language? Probably I'm already thinking in German and don't even know it. Yes, I could tell that was the case, don't ask me how.

I walked up to the door and the servants let me in, they had been expecting me. I was one of several guests. After dinner, Martin Luthor, as was his wont, began to engage the guests in conversation.

"So tell me, Paul of Eugene;" he asked. "What do you think of the sayings of this upstart Copernicus? It seems he wants to overturn the whole world with his musings!"

I tried to word my reply very carefully, in a way that perhaps he would understand. "You know," I said, "Maybe the scriptures aren't really against him. Don't you think Joshua could have been speaking according to the ordinary interpretation of how things appear to men when He wrote that the Sun stood still?"

"NONSENSE" roared the great reformer. "You know what it plainly says. It says the Sun stood still, and not the earth. This is Divinely Inspired Scripture. Why can't you JUST ACCEPT WHAT IT SAYS?"

My heart quailed as he uttered these words. For the rest of the night Luthor was in his glory, letting pearls of wisdom drop down to eager listners. And there was a lot of truth he said, and lots of good would come of what he shared that night. But I had failed.

When we were put to bed for the night, I awoke back on earth in my own bedroom. It had all been a dream.

Still, I was left wondering. Is there anything that would have changed Luthor's historically recorded opinions, which we all know (well most of us &lt;ggg&gt turned out to be false? I sadly fear that with this notion - JUST ACCEPT WHAT IT SAYS - he made himself utterly immune to some truths that should have been plainly seen.

History is being repeated before our very eyes.