Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:
. . . The findings of science in relation to the rotation of the earth proves the astronomical fact that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. So a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:5, agrees with this astronomical fact.

????? You aren't aware of scripture after scripture that refers to the sun moving across the sky? You aren't aware of Martin Luthor's famous condemnation of Copernicus, and how he quoted Joshua's verse where the Bible says it was the sun that stopped, not that the earth stopped its movement? Just trying to be literal? Did I say it was Genesis 1:5 that literally declares the sun moves across the sky? There are many verses in the Bible that DO declare it is the sun moving across the sky that makes day and night, and those you fail to interpret literally, which is inconsistent of you.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
. . . The findings of science in relation to the rotation of the earth proves the astronomical fact that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. So a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:5, agrees with this astronomical fact.

????? You aren't aware of scripture after scripture that refers to the sun moving across the sky? You aren't aware of Martin Luthor's famous condemnation of Copernicus, and how he quoted Joshua's verse where the Bible says it was the sun that stopped, not that the earth stopped its movement? Just trying to be literal? Did I say it was Genesis 1:5 that literally declares the sun moves across the sky? There are many verses in the Bible that DO declare it is the sun moving across the sky that makes day and night, and those you fail to interpret literally, which is inconsistent of you. </font>[/QUOTE]Paul, the sun does move and so does every star, planet and satellite so far as known.

I served 4 years in the US Navy as a Quartermaster. I was in charge of safely navigating our ship, while on duty, by both GPS and celestial navigation. What I was taught in navigation school was that for simplicity of our calculations, every motion must be expressed as a relative motion using some reference point as zero motion. As relative motion of the sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion and in doing so, the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun, starts and moon we observed (weather permitting) moved relative to the earth.

Looks like Peter was right, …that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts…

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, let me post the question to you this way:

If someone says the earth rotates and that causes the phenomenon of day and night, that someone is
( ) wrong
( ) right

Are you seriously contending for ( ) wrong?


Historically, Martin Luthor declared that the literal interpretation of scripture requires we believe the rotation of the earth theory is wrong. He said that because the Bible literally says it is the Sun that moves across the sky, this precludes the Copernicon view that the earth rotates.

When you were calculating your ship's location, did you say to yourself
( ) the earth is truly stationary and the sun moon and stars are moving about it or
( ) For the sake of convenient calculation, we pretend the earth is stationary etc etc ?

I submit you actually chose the latter.

Look, my point is not that there is an error there in the Bible. My point is that following the literal implications of the wording of the Bible hindered accepting the proper scientific point of view about the rotation of the earth at the time of Gallileo and Copernicus and that history is repeating itself; hyper-literal intepretation of the Bible is again hindering the acceptance of science.

I am not scoffing our religion. I am advocating for a change in our attitudes towards science that will HELP PREVENT scoffers from having some amunition you are now freely giving them.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
My point is that following the literal implications of the wording of the Bible hindered accepting the proper scientific point of view about the rotation of the earth at the time of Gallileo and Copernicus and that history is repeating itself; hyper-literal intepretation of the Bible is again hindering the acceptance of science.

I feel I may need to re-qualify myself on the issue of taking the Bible literally. Being lazy, I’m not going to re –read all my posts to see what I’ve might have stated. I’ve more than likely have stated in the past that I take the bible literally and that may be the problem here. I’m working on my second year of reading and studying the Bible. There are metaphors, poetry and literal history, therefore I can’t logically say that I take the Bible literally. For instance in Luke 22:44 of the NKJV, the word like is a simile comparing two unlike things, Jesus’ sweat to blood.

I do however take the Bible as it is written, in a plain, straightforwardly manner. I read metaphors as metaphors, poetry as poetry, literal history as literal history and so on. The language used in Genesis strongly suggests it’s written as literal history, b/c of the words This is the book of the generations of Adam, therefore I cannot logically divorce myself from the belief in a literal Adam and Eve.

Psalm 118:8 states that it’s better to trust God than men.

Wish you and your family a safe Memorial Day weekend. God willing I’ll log back in on Tuesday.

 

[john6:63]

BTW, Luther, Spurgeon & Calvin…etc who wrote commentaries on the Bible were not inspired as the authors of the original autographs that make-up the Bible were. There are a lot of issues I don’t agree with concerning the writings of Spurgeon or Calvin. Just as there are some things AiG don’t agree with ICR on or even some evolutionist disagree with each other as well.

 

[UTEOTW]

There is a point that is being made more clearly the longer Paul asks the above direct questions and does not receive a straight answer. If you did not re-interpret the literal reading based on your outside knowledge you would insist that the sun went around the earth, just as many did before the opposite was shown. You would insist upon a flat earth. You would insist upon a fixed dome containing the stars. You have no problem re-interpreting these these things based on additional knowledge. But you do not, yet, accept the evidence for an ancient earth and re-interpret Genesis non-literally. You instead accuse us of being terribly wrong for doing the same thing you do with similar passages and deny the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and common descent.

 

[Gup20]

Another claim evolution is impossible. Nobody has ever proved evolution is impossible, you know . . . why do you say its impossible? Don't you think God could create a universe in which evolution was possible, if God wanted to do that?

In fact I do think that God could create the world and let evolution take over. However, I also think he could have created a continuum of distinct living kinds only ~6000 years ago. In fact, the bible makes it clear that this is exactly what happened. So I would ask you your own question - don't you think God could create a universe where evolution was not necessary? Don't you think he could have done things exactly as His Own Word says he did?

Look, my point is not that there is an error there in the Bible. My point is that following the literal implications of the wording of the Bible hindered accepting the proper scientific point of view about the rotation of the earth at the time of Gallileo and Copernicus and that history is repeating itself; hyper-literal intepretation of the Bible is again hindering the acceptance of science.

You confuse 'literal' interpretation with 'plain' interpretation. For example, the word YOM used for 'day' in the days of creation can literally mean 1 day... or it can mean a period of time, or an age of time. Literally, it can mean several things. However, in every situation where yom is paired with a the word 'evening' it means a ~24 hour day. Every time yom is used in conjunction with the word 'morning' it represents a ~24 hour day. So the 'plain' or 'clear' meaning of the verse in context indicates that these were literal ~24 hour days. Yes, it's a literal meaning, but as any word has more than one meaning, so any verse can have more than one literal meaning. We must take the clear or plain (read 'intended') meaning the author is trying to present.

It's like trying to argue the meaning of a Shakespearian sonnet with Shakespear himself - the one who wrote it knows exactly what they were trying to convey. In the case of the Bible, God often uses very plain and very clear and precise terminology to let us know exactly what he is trying to say. If you have a question about something go back to the original hebrew and greek - but it is always consistent and always true.

Herein lies the root of this debate, however. One question that continues to go unanswered here is 'is the Bible true'? Can we believe God's word in it's entirety? If your answer is yes, then you believe a YEC position regardless of the evidence. That's what Faith is. However, for those with little faith, fear not. Creation science is not far behind. For God gave us the ability to reason so that we could confirm Him and His Word. Science will always ultimately confirm the Bible.

Take a look, for example, at the Scopes trial. Mostly all of the 'overwhelming evidence' used to argue on behalf of evolution in that trial has since been disproven. Nearly all the questions that evolutionists posed to the creationists of the day (which they couldn't answer then) can be answered convincingly now. Many of the evidences used by evolutionists have since been abandoned (such as piltdown man) even by evolutionists.

However, the Word of God remains unchanged. It remains true. As more and more discoveries are made that confirm it's authority, science has to continually change and adapt. However, the Bible remains firm and true. Science will go through a million metamorphasis before arriving at the final conclusion that the biblical view of an issue is true - then they will be sure to remark how 'that proves nothing', but is simply a coincidence.

You see, the root of the problem and issue is a humanistic world view. That because God didn't directly create us, he doesn't own us, therefore we can make our own rules and decide our own destinies apart from what God tells us is true. It is the thought that we can decide for ourselves what is true. Evolution is a result of humanism which was born in the Garden of Eden. When the serpent tempted Eve, it started by questioning the clear word of God. Eve knew exactly what God meant. However Satan asked 'Hath God Said?'. He questioned (undermined) the word of God. Satan then followed the question with a lie that was in direct opposition to the Word of God - 'surely thou shalt NOT die'. Satan then completed the birth of humanism and the complete undermining of God's Word with the very thought that defines humanism - 'for in the day that thou eat, thou shalt be as gods knowing right from wrong'. Notice that this was not a lie. The lie was the contradiction to God's word. For when Adam sinned, he and Eve did know right and wrong - their eyes were opened - but because of that sin, death entered the world.

Finally, I would point out again that Evolution, by definition, excludes any supernatural influence (ie the Bible's version of the origin of man) on the creation or development of man. It's conclusions, again by definition, must be completely naturalistic. This is not a surprise as Darwin was a humanist. However, this does bring up an important point. Because Evolution is, by definition, completely naturalistic and exclusionary to the supernatural or the Bible, all of it's conclusions must follow unto the same. As such, evolutionary 'evidence' is unqualified to 'prove' or 'disprove' the Bible, or a Young Earth Creation view. In order to judge between the validity of the creation vs evolution argument, the judging process must be able to consider both sides. Evolution can and does not - it is exclusionary to one view and therefore cannot be used as proof against creation. It can merely be presented as an alternative. Moreoever, if you are a Christian (as everyone here claims to be) you take the Bible as truth (at least you should). If you take the Bible as truth - and evolution excludes the Bible (any part of it) - then we can surmise that Evolution excludes truth.

So, then I come back to the original question I asked POE - do we really believe the Bible to be true, and CAN we believe that creation happened as God said it did? COULD God have done it the way he said He did? Can we believe the Bible in it's plainest literal interpretation?

If we cannot, then how can we believe that Jesus dying on the cross made atonement for us - how can we believe in the virgin birth - how can we believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus? The entire Bible is based on the foundation Genesis lays and if that foundation is undermined, the entire structure is weak and cannot stand. It is like the man who built his house on the sand.

BTW - just want to point out that Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist, and the apostle paul tells us to imitate Christ.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
For example, the word YOM used for 'day' in the days of creation can literally mean 1 day... or it can mean a period of time, or an age of time. Literally, it can mean several things. However, in every situation where yom is paired with a the word 'evening' it means a ~24 hour day.

I certainly believe that the days of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days. I reject the day-age view for this very reason. In the context of the account the days are solar days, much the same way that when Jesus taught about the one sheep who went astray from the 99, he was talking about real sheep. There's no way to tell by looking at the word yom (or the Greek word for "sheep") that it is being used symbolically. For that, it is necessary to look at broader context.

I see many contextual clues that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is not a historical narrative. For one thing, it does not read at all like Kings or Acts. It is too structured: six verses, each punctuated with a repeated refrain ("and there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day"). The six days can be further broken down into two halves. The first day corresponds to the fourth, the second to the fifth, and the third to the sixth. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it poetry, it appears to be very well-ordered prose.

It seems to describe creation in a way that would make sense to people from any century and any culture. Creation of the universe is beyond human understanding, but we can relate to creating a story. A storyteller describes places or realms, and characters that live in those realms, and then weaves these components together with a narrative. Genesis 1 portrays creation in terms of creating realms and characters. The first three days describe the creation of three realms: the heavens (viewed from earth, consisting only of light and dark); the sea and sky (what you'd see around you if you were on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean); and dry land (including all the "set dressing" such as plants, trees and other vegetation).

The next three days populate the realms with their characters. The heavens are filled with sun, moon and stars (note that sun and moon are personified as "ruling" over day and night -- this makes sense since they are characters and not merely "set dressing"); the sea and sky are filled with fish and birds; and finally dry land is filled with all kinds of land animals as well as humans.

In this layout, nothing is arbitrary. Not one item could be created on a different day without causing difficulties in the order. Stars must be created after vegetation, for instance, even though it may seem more natural to us to go from making the inanimate objects to making life. Further, this explains why animals get spread over two days while humans are tacked on at the end of day six. Humans don't get a day to themselves because they inhabit the same realm as some of the animals.

When Genesis 1 is instead taken historically, it introduces absurdities -- or at least peculiarities. Why did God create light, proclaim it good, and then three days later replace that light source with the sun, moon and stars? What was wrong with the first light source that was already capable of making day and night? Why are the sun and moon personified, described as "governing" the heavens? If this is literal history, does this mean the sun and moon are alive? There's so many details that seem nonsensical or arbitrary when viewed this way.

So, I view the creation of the earth and its surroundings described in Genesis 1 as being an example of God's condescension. He revealed what we were not capable of fathoming by putting it in story form (perhaps even in a form quite familiar to the original audience, if other creation accounts were around before Genesis). The structure of the story not only explains how every aspect of our universe came from the one true God, but it also sets the pattern for our own lives by outlining six days of work and one day of rest.

The focus is not on the "when" or the "how", but rather on the "who" and "why". God created us and everything we see. Everything was created good. We are given the privilege and responsibility of having dominion over creation (although see Genesis 2:15 for a corrective in case we let that go to our head), and more importantly we are allowed to know and have relationship with our Creator. Too often, in all the controversy over the length of yoms and the limits of literalism, Christians lose sight of why God revealed his role as Creator to us in the first place.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

Why do you not give us the ten sentences before your Asimov quote and the ten sentences after your Asimov quote so that we can put the quote into perspective. Of coure thermo applies to biology, it applies to everything.

Well you have stepped in to the soup now haven't you?

It "applies to biological systems"? With the "effects" that Asimov SHOWS? The degradation of those biological systems JUST as Asimov Shows when HE concludes "THIS IS what the 2nd law is ALL about"!!

How are you going to "pretend" your way out of that?

Oh! I see - by the "mythical other statements" --

Evolutionism must "Believe in molecule to man stories" though there is nothing in science to support it.

Evolutionism must "believe" that entropy does NOT affect biological systems AS ASIMOV claimed - even though we clearly see it every day.

Evolutionism must "Believe" that Asimov followed his OWN quoted statement with something like the following


The "needed Asimov" quote

"And so in conclusion let me say... hey! Wait a minute! Did I say that biological systems suffer decay as a result of the second law??!! What was I thinking! Of course that is not true! What a great proof for Creationism if it WAS true. No! No! Nothing of the kind is true.

In fact we do NOT observe the consistent principle of decay and disorder in biological systems as is predicted by the prinicples of the 2nd law. No in fact we see just the opposite. Biological systems self-organize about as often as they suffer any symptom of decay. Yes! That's it! That is what I MEANT to say.

When I claimed biological systems suffer decay and that this IS what the 2nd law is all about - I think I was only speaking to the ignorant unlearned reader trying to show them how gullible they are. Really - and truly - I meant nothing of the kind.

Please just pretend like I never said that!"

So there you go UTEOTW - something for you to wrap around Asimov's "real" quote.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Sarcasm only shows that I am right. If you were to provide the rest of the quote then the world, or whoever may be reading this at this point, would see that your great source for why evolution is prevented by entropy, does not believe that to be true! It would prove that you have blantantly misquoted a respected and dead man. Oh, you got the specific words right. But by leaving out the context, the context that shows Asimov's opinion to be 180 degrees from what you are insisting that he says, you have deliberately misquoted him.

So your quote is worthless and you still have not been able to tell me how the chemistry of a bad mutation is different from that of a good mutation. Come on! How does the chemistry "know" that it cannot allow a single base pair substitution that might be beneficial but that it can allow one that might be harmful? The chemistry is exactly the same. Either mutations are allowed or they are not allowed. If they are allowed, they can be good, bad, or neutral. If you can have all three types, then natural selection can act to weed the bad and keep the good.

So, can your deliver the full quote or any evidence about how the chemistry of good mutations is different from that of bad mutations?

 

[BobRyan]

By now it is "obvious" to the objective reader - that the "high objective standard" of using your opponent's OWN well accepted teachings to SHOW the proofs of Creationism AND to show the inconsistencies apparent in the opposing view - is a standard to which evolutionism can not reach.

Why is that? Because evolutionism does not "allow" critical thinking.

It is incapable of evaluating truly objective approaches to the debate.

We "observe" from Asimov's own quote that the 2nd law DOES applie to complex biological systems like your own body. So much so that Asimov states "this IS what the 2nd law is ALL about" in his summary of that fact.

So how then is Asimov STILL maintains his faith and belief in evolutionism instead of the Bible account of the Creator's actions?

#1. He is essentially an atheist so the Bible is NOT an option.

#2. Clearly this "illustrates" the point that evolutionism's doctrines exist "in spite" of science - and not "because of it". It is the NEED to prop up atheism that drives it - NOT the principles seen in true science - like the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But these points of the argument - can't even be "seen" if you don't allow "critical thinking" as part of your model for evaluating facts.

UTEOTW illustrates this in his argument that is of the form evolutionists are right in spite of the contradictions - because they always SAY they are right

Notice...

UTEOTW

I do not believe that your source (Asimov) thinks that entropy is a problem for evolution

Indeed he does not - which IS my POINT in quoting him. HE is the one with the LEAST interest in supporting any view of God - or God's account of His own Creative acts. YET science compells him to ADMIT to the facts of the 2nd law AND that they DO apply to complex biological systems - even though this apparently (obviously) contradicts cherished molecule-to-man beliefs of atheist evolutionists like Asimov.

But in true red herring style you go on down this blind alley of yours with ...

UTEOTW

and I think it is very dishonest to quote him in a way that suggests that he does think so.

Still "pretending" not to see the point of the argument?

It is one thing to be opposed to my position - it is quite another to continually "pretend" not to know what it is.

=============================

UTEOTW
If you are quoting him accurately, including in context, then give us the ten sentences to either side of the quote. I bet one or the other will show your quote to be out of context

Keep on "hoping and betting". In the mean time - I have given you some good evolutionist mythology for those "mythical statements" you keep looking for -- in my previous post.

I like the last one best "pretend I never said that!".

You seem to be comfortable with that approach.

UTEOTW said of the text he has not read --
(and there Asimov) will give his reason for why entropy is not a problem for evolution.

Admit it - "any old reason" will do.

In the mean time - we DO observe the consistent principle of decay IN biological systems. (Much as that does not bode well for molecule-to-man mythologies)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

No, Bob, not any reason. You really do not see the problem is misquoting people, do you? You do not see that the dishonesty of it undermines your position in the whole subject. I have been asking you for a long time now to show how the good mutations differ from the bad ones. All you can do is to continue to throw out this same quote, you know the one that is incomplete and means exactly the opposite when placed in context. Just show me that the chemistry really is different for a good mutation and a bad mutation. Entropy is at work but only in allowing the chemical reactions to happen in the first place. That is the part you are missing about entropy. It is not about disorder in the layman's terms. This is about how energy is handled. The chemical reactions that lead to a mutation are allowed by entropy and indeed entropy plays a role in how the reactions are carried out. But there is not a hair's width difference between a good mutation and a bad mutation. The chemistry is exactly the same. Once you get a mutation, natural selection is free to operate upon it. Do you have any evidence or just your misquote and your assertions?

 

[Gup20]

For one thing, it does not read at all like Kings or Acts.

Genesis was written by Moses as a historical record. Clearly, one wouldn't put extended geneologies in poetic literature. Genesis has structure, but the structure is for clarity and accuracy. Kings was written by Jeremiah, Acts was written by Luke. They were both 1st person accounts. Genesis is historical and not written in a first person mannor. It's like the difference between reading an encycopedia verses the evening news transcript.

Why did God create light, proclaim it good, and then three days later replace that light source with the sun, moon and stars? What was wrong with the first light source that was already capable of making day and night?

It is most likely that the creation of light, and it's subsequent separation from darkness was the creation of space, time, and the laws that govern our universe. God was creating the 'canvas' that he was to paint his creation upon. We know from the Bible that God is light, and that God is eternal. So in separating light from dark, he was separating time from eternity. For example, all of einstein's theories on time and relativity are based on what? The 'constant' of the speed of light. And what is speed? It is distance over time. Gravity itself is often calculated as an acceleration speed dependent on time. We can see, then, that the creation of light and it's separation from darkness is the creation of space, time, and energy. This is evidenced by the fact that Immediately following this creation we see the first mention of time in the Bible - the evening, the morning, were the first day. Without the sun or moon, how could one percieve the passsing of time? One couldn't, but God was showing us that time had indeed begun. Also... before this event, the water that was the earth was without form. If the light created cast light on the earth at that point is unknown - but by demonstrating true solar days, we can surmise that this is when the earth began it's rotation.

As to the lights 'ruling' - God had already created day and night. It says that the SUN was created as the primary light during the period of Day and the moon was created as the primary (or cheif) light during the night. The sun and moon are not set to govern (which they do, iterestingly enough) they are set as the dominant structure in the sky during day and night. As to governing... the sun certainly 'governs' all life on earth, and it's gravity keeps the earth in it's orbit and creates our seasons as well as contribute all the energy our planet needs to sustain life. The moon plays a role also to our planet as we can see by the tides and other effects of the moon's gravity on the earth.

So, I view the creation of the earth and its surroundings described in Genesis 1 as being an example of God's condescension. He revealed what we were not capable of fathoming by putting it in story form (perhaps even in a form quite familiar to the original audience, if other creation accounts were around before Genesis).

I see it as the opposite. I think God told us exactly how he did it. He gave us the overview, knowing we were capable of filling in the details once we knew enough about the world we lived in (which he commanded us to do - He told us to have dominion over and subdue the creation). In fact, I would also go so far as to demonstrate that Adam and early man were far more intelligent that we are today. And why shouldn't they be? They were genetically far superior (as there was nearly no damaging mutations)... they lived longer... and Adam was actually endowed with all of his knowledge by God himself. From the first day Adam was created on this planet he could walk and talk... and converse intelligently with Eve and with God. That knowledge was not learned... he was created with it. Furthermore, when God told Noah to build an Ark... Noah knew how. He managed to build a ship completely out of Wood that was soo sturdy and strong it withstood the greatest cataclysmic event this world has ever seen. Imagine if every volcano on earth erruped at the same time... and every fault line on earth quaked at the same time... so much so that the earth actually split and water from within the earth gushed out... as did lava, sulfer, etc. Now you are just starting to get a picture of the cataclysm of the global flood. We can look at enineering marvels from ancient times... like the pyramids. These were built with such precision and not a single calculator or CAD computer program was used.

No, we are not evolving... we are de-evolving. At creation God declared us 'good' and men lived for 800 or 900 years. There was not originally genetic defects or any of that. Take the intelligence of a Savant - this most likely the intellectual capability of Adam and his immediate decendents. The ability to do complex calculations instantly in their head... photographic memory... if it's possible today, then the genes for it were present in Adam. Mutation is a corruption of the original specifications. So I highly doubt that it was condecension on God's part when he gave us Genesis.

Christians lose sight of why God revealed his role as Creator to us in the first place.

Quite simply we are put here as Stewards over God's creation. We are to act as his emmisaries. We are to have dominion over creation and subdue it. That is our role... that is our function... and that will continue once we are re-united with God in heaven.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

We see the same role delegated in the Beginning as in the End. We are essentially stewards of God to His Creation.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Genesis was written by Moses as a historical record. Clearly, one wouldn't put extended geneologies in poetic literature.

First, I didn't call it poetic literature, and second, I was only talking about Genesis 1:1-2:3. I don't believe all of Genesis (or all of the Pentateuch) are of the same genre. There are no genealogies in the first chapter of Genesis.

We can see, then, that the creation of light and it's separation from darkness is the creation of space, time, and energy.

Frankly, I'm not willing to depart that far from the clear meaning of the text. Once one starts reading modern science into Genesis, there's no limit to how far one can go. If you get space, time and energy from the words light, day and night then the inspired words of Scripture no longer have any meaning.

 

[Gup20]

I read an interesting article today that sheds a whole new light on Evolution.

I have pretty much always accepted that Darwin came up with evolution and I have also moderately accepted that evolution is a modern idea. However, this article sheds some new light on that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v15n2_evolution_natural.asp

This article from AiG shows that evolution was around long before Darwin. In fact, evolution comes from ancient hinduism. Ancient greeks modified the hindu belief into a more ideological form. Long and short of it... evolution stems from religion... and not the religion from the God of the Bible.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Gup20:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Look, my point is not that there is an error there in the Bible. My point is that following the literal implications of the wording of the Bible hindered accepting the proper scientific point of view about the rotation of the earth at the time of Gallileo and Copernicus and that history is repeating itself; hyper-literal intepretation of the Bible is again hindering the acceptance of science.

You confuse 'literal' interpretation with 'plain' interpretation. For example, the word YOM used for 'day' in the days of creation can literally mean 1 day... or it can mean a period of time, or an age of time. Literally, it can mean several things. However, in every situation where yom is paired with a the word 'evening' it means a ~24 hour day. Every time yom is used in conjunction with the word 'morning' it represents a ~24 hour day. So the 'plain' or 'clear' meaning of the verse in context indicates that these were literal ~24 hour days. Yes, it's a literal meaning, but as any word has more than one meaning, so any verse can have more than one literal meaning. We must take the clear or plain (read 'intended') meaning the author is trying to present. . . .
</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you, Gup20, for bringing your viewpoint to the debate! I think you have missed something here. What you have missed is the literalness of the biblical statements about the sun rising and setting as the cause of day and night. Since the Bible was written we have discovered that the literal cause of day and night is, actually, the rotation of the earth.

As a result, shall I cast out my Bible because it tells me the sun literally rises and sets? Or shall I disown modern science since it says something contrary to the Bible?

In the case of the Bible, God often uses very plain and very clear and precise terminology to let us know exactly what he is trying to say. If you have a question about something go back to the original hebrew and greek - but it is always consistent and always true. Herein lies the root of this debate, however. One question that continues to go unanswered here is 'is the Bible true'? Can we believe God's word in it's entirety? If your answer is yes, then you believe a YEC position regardless of the evidence. That's what Faith is.

Which statement is correct for you?
A. I believe the Bible is true based on evidence, both internal and external.
B. I believe the Bible is true not because of any evidence but as an arbitrary faith decision.

Before you answer, consider the case of a muslim and a christian arguing religion. Each claims to have a perfect holy book the other should accept. The muslim asks why he should consider the Bible the Word of God instead of the book of his fathers. Your answer is probably going to consist of a presentation of some reasons, isn't it? Now go ahead and answer.

IF YOU SELECT A then it is wrong for you to void all consideration of external evidence in relation to this or any other issue! I don't see how you can avoid that conclusion.

IF YOU SELECT B then you have confessed before us all that you have no reasons for your belief.

However, for those with little faith, fear not. Creation science is not far behind. For God gave us the ability to reason so that we could confirm Him and His Word. Science will always ultimately confirm the Bible.

Although the Bible literally declares over and over that the Sun moves across the heavens and sets to cause day and night, stating that it paused in its motion to prolong the day for Joshua, stating that there is a chamber for the sun to be in when it isn't out shining, Science has determined that, really, the earth rotates, causing day and night.

Historically the religious clerics condemned this teaching of science, using exactly the logic you present above. THEY WERE WRONG. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BE WRONG TODAY JUST LIKE THEM BY USING THE SAME LOGIC THAT MISLED THEM.

Take a look, for example, at the Scopes trial. Mostly all of the 'overwhelming evidence' used to argue on behalf of evolution in that trial has since been disproven.

Expert testimony on the truth of evolution was ruled out of that trial and you wound up with lawyers arguing back and forth. Why, I bet you've even got vestigal digits on your feet!

You see, the root of the problem and issue is a humanistic world view. That because God didn't directly create us, he doesn't own us, therefore we can make our own rules and decide our own destinies apart from what God tells us is true. It is the thought that we can decide for ourselves what is true. Evolution is a result of humanism which was born in the Garden of Eden.

Evolution is the result of sincere seeking after the truth according to the evidence, which showed great age of earth and common descent of life. Like all science, it is neutral in relation to philosophy and religion except in the matter of providing evidence for some statements of fact.

Finally, I would point out again that Evolution, by definition, excludes any supernatural influence (ie the Bible's version of the origin of man) on the creation or development of man.

Another false statement. Evolution, like all science, does not say there is no miracle and there is no supernatural; instead, it ignores the supernatural element and instead merely seeks to understand what it can understand from the physical. That's how all science operates.

So, then I come back to the original question I asked POE - do we really believe the Bible to be true, and CAN we believe that creation happened as God said it did? COULD God have done it the way he said He did? Can we believe the Bible in it's plainest literal interpretation?

That's not one question, that's several questions.

Do I believe the Bible is true?
I believe the Bible to be God's revelation of Himself, and when properly interpreted, it is without error in matters of faith and practice.

Do I believe that creation happened as God said it did?

I believe the creation happened as God said it did according to his writing in the earth (fossils, radioactive elements, geological strata, and so forth) and in the heavens ( all astronomical observations). I believe the record of Genesis One should be interpreted to allow God to agree with the record of the actual universe itself. I believe that the historical literal interpretation of Genesis One is not true and therefore our interpretation of Genesis One needs to be revised.

If we cannot, then how can we believe that Jesus dying on the cross made atonement for us - how can we believe in the virgin birth - how can we believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus? The entire Bible is based on the foundation Genesis lays and if that foundation is undermined, the entire structure is weak and cannot stand. It is like the man who built his house on the sand.

I feel very sorry for you if your faith is so weak you cannot accept any variation without losing it all. Since the Bible says the Sun rises and set, and its really the earth that rotates, why do you continue to keep your faith at all anyway? I accept Jesus and the Resurrecton as real for the same reason you do - credibility of witnesses as recorded in the Bible, internal spiritual guidance in that direction.

BTW - just want to point out that Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist

You can't prove that, it's only your own interpretation.

It all comes down to evidence and interpretation. It is your view that evidence doesn't matter and therefore we don't need to go beyond the literal interpretation of Genesis One. I believe the evidence matters and even though the evidence shows the universe is billions of years old and all life comes from common descent we can continue to accept the message of God from Genesis One if we simply accept it is not necessary to interpret it as literally true in the physical sense.

Now even if one of us between you and me managed to convert the other one to our point of view, the fact is there are hundreds and hundreds of others that will continue the disgreement and the debate. Perhaps it would be a good idea to figure out how we are going to procede in view of the fact that most people don't change their minds on this issue in their lifetimes.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
I have pretty much always accepted that Darwin came up with evolution and I have also moderately accepted that evolution is a modern idea.

A lot of people believe that, but if you study evolution you'll find it's not true. Evolution was indeed around before Darwin, although Darwin was the first to put many of the pieces of theory together with natural evidence in a way that was compelling enough that many other scientists took notice. He built on the work of others before him, and others since have built on his work, sometimes overturning parts of it in the process. That's the way science works.

This article from AiG shows that evolution was around long before Darwin.

It's also possible to find the idea of a round earth before Aristotle. Of course, as in the case with evolution, that has nothing to do with the validity of the idea. An idea, whether presented by an atheist, Buddhist or Christian, should be judged by how it lines up with reality, not by who first presented it.

 

[Gup20]

Frankly, I'm not willing to depart that far from the clear meaning of the text.

I think the meaning is pretty clear. It says:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The context of the 'first day' and the first mention of ANY sort of measured time is immediately after the creation of light and then the subsequent separation of light from dark. I don't think the meaning could be any more clear. God created time and space in this event, and with them all the laws that govern the universe. It is the clearest and plainest literal meaning.

I find it interesting how you statement, Mercury, would seem to enforce your paradigm that God is demonstrating condescension. Being willfully ignorant of the intended meaning doesn't demonstrate condescension... it demonstrates your willingness to ignore the intended meaning to support your condescension paradigm. [(edited from original posting)]

As I said... God gave Adam his original intellect, created man in his image, and said we were 'good'. I would imagine that Adam knew pretty much everything. So how did we get the account of creation? Did God sit Adam down and tell him how he did it? More likly, Adam was created with that knowledge and he passed it on to his children, grandchildren, etc. Keep in mind, Adam lived for over 900 years. Think about this - Noah came a little over 1000 years after Adam. Noah's Father and Grandfather would have been able to speak directly to Adam. There was about another 1000 years from Noah to Abraham. However, Shem, Noah's son, was alive for for the first 50 years of Abraham's life. From Adam to Abraham we might have as little as 3 generations. Abraham spoke to Shem, who spoke to Methusala, who spoke to Adam. Why were no books written until Moses? Why would anyone need them? Up until Noah, anyone could walk over and ask Adam directly. And remember... these people most likely had far greater mental capacity and intellect that we do today.

Check out the chart on this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0316methuselah.asp


Also, make no mistake - when Adam sinned and disobeyed God, he did so not out of ignorance, but out of willful disobedience. Notice that Eve was decieved. Adam, however, willfully disobeyed. It wasn't until Adam had eaten the fruit that they were immediately aware of the sin they committed.

[ June 02, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Gup20 ]

 

[Brett]

Bob,

Ever seen a snowflake? This, too, is a "clear" violation of the second law of thermodynamics, in that something very organized is created naturally out of something that is less organized.

The second law does not preclude complexity.

 

[Gup20]

Brett -

There is a large difference between order and complexity. A snowflake has high order, low complexity. Break a snowflake or piece of ice into smaller pieces and you simply have smaller snowflake or peice of ice. Break an organism into smaller pieces and you have a dead or dying organism.

The evolution debate has to do with 'specified complexity', and information. Many YEC assert that it is not possible for matter to spontaneously give rise to specified complexity and information.

See the follwing for more on creationist 'information theory':
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v10n2p181.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp