Does It Matter

[Havensdad]

Let us get something perfectly clear as you continually refer to anyone (scientists) who do not hold your positions on the creation events as being "athiests".
Either you are unaware of the correct definition of atheism, in which case, allow me to clarify it for you.

a·the·ist 
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Despite and inspite of your continued claims I am a theist, not an atheist.
QED

Or perhaps you are just intentionally attempting to be pejorative and smear anyone who sees things and reads the Word of God differently than do you. If so, you should rethink that attitude and spirit.

#1 Perhaps you are unaware of the term "practical atheism." One who says they believe the Bible, but then completely redefines the words, does not really believe it.

#2 Words have meaning. Those meanings cannot be changed at your whim. God said day, not millions of years. That is not "my interpretation"...that is what God SAID.

You, my friend, are a product of postmodern, reader response, deconstructionism. Jacques Derrida would be proud.

 

[kyredneck]

.....Not trying to pick a fight and I am certainly not trying to open up a debate that has happened a lot of times on this forum......

........heheh..............

 

[Havensdad]

I only wish you took John 3:16 as literal as you take the creation account.

I do. I just don't add the word "choose" into it, as some do. Adding to the Word, is just as bad as rewriting it.

 

[quantumfaith]

I only wish you took John 3:16 as literal as you take the creation account.


I agree, and Schroeder agrees in the book. Dr. Schroeder does cover quiet a bit about evolution in the book along with much of the latest views by science concerning the subject.
I assure you Dr. Schroeder is very much a creationist.
Here is an exert from the book:

[There is a popular impression that fossils have proven the validity of classical evolution. Yet most paleontologists admit this is not the case. According to the picture presented by the fossil record, bursts of morphological change occurred within startlingly brief periods of time. This staccato aspect of the fossil record had not been predicted. Its discovery has called for basic rethinking concerning the mechanisms that drive evolutions to ever greater complexity. These rapid changes cannot be explained by purely random mutations at the molecular genetic level. In light of the mounting evidence that the classical concept of evolution is flawed, the journal Science featured a peer-reviewed report titled "Did Darwin Get It All Right?" In that article we learn that "the most thorough study of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with a most un-Darwinian abruptness.]
"The Science of God" Gerald Schroeder p.87


Agreed, and Schroeder shows its absurdity through statistical mathematics.

-----
I really recommend the book, not particularly as something that I totally agree with; but as something to show where some of the best minds of science are at today concerning the whole subject.

Great post olegig. Have you read any of Schroeders other works, "The Hidden Face of God" or the newest "God according to God". The "Hidden Face of God" explores the concept of the brain and consciousness, good but not terribly interesting to me. "God according God" seems to me to be leaning to the "jewish" version of "Open Theology". Did not appreciate that one except for some limited portions. Might I aslo suggest "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" by Dr. Stephen Barr ( again not an athiest ), this one is a bit more technical in nature but still a reasonable read even for the non-science and mathematically inclined.

 

[Winman]

,

You are so far offbase Winman, that I will not even dignify a debate with you. You are taking the old adage "making a mountain out of a molehill" and exponentially increasing its intention by orders of magnitude. I forgot to cite the quotation and also did some paraphrasing though not with respect to the issue that you cite.(Life Application Bible pg.5 New Living Translation Second Editon Tyndale House Publishers.) Dont be so intellectually childish, it is not becoming of you. I see you often defending against the ardent calvinists and your argurments are often strong and well thought out, here you are way off base in attempting somehow to pigeonhole me into practically being a non-believer, of this you should not be proud of yourself.

I don't for one second believe you to be an unbeliever. But to say the word of God assumes anything is a fantastic statement. You also spoke of the worldview of scriptures. Well, whatever worldview the scriptures hold is correct, because it is the worldview of God.

That there is variation within a species is undeniable. But to teach that one species evolves into another is unscientific as it has never been observed even once.

And truth be told, if it were possible man could do it. Any person who breeds animals for a living will tell you there are set limits you cannot pass. Animals closely related within a genus can sometimes be cross-bred such as a lion and tiger, but it is impossible to breed animals that are not closely related like a cat and dog.

And this agrees with scripture. Lions and tigers are the same "kind", while a dog and cat are not.

It must be remembered that God's classification of animals is quite different than man's, thus the scriptures call a whale a fish and call a bat a fowl. Some people will ridicule the scriptures saying they must be in error calling a whale a fish, not knowing that the classification of mammal is very recent (I am absolutely not saying that about you).

 

[TC]

But this link is an excellent example of a hasty rebuttal that has no substance in it. If you read it carefully you find no substantial explanation for polystrata tree fossils. Their response boils down to: "Oh yeah, well then ...uh .. what about those rocks?" IOW they change the subject.

Uniformintarianism is the geological system by which everything is deposited in a slow, gradual process. It is usually contrasted against catastrophism, which demonstrates rapid burial. Young earth creationists think that by showing that polystrate fossils were catastrophic in origin, they must prove the Flood of Noah and disprove geological uniformitarianism. I agree with the young earth creation science theorists that polystrate fossils are an example of catastrophism. However, it does not invalidate uniformitarianism...far from it! Uniformitarianism believes that the present is the key to the past. If you want to know what happened long ago, look at how rocks are being deposited today, and draw your model from that. Yes, we can look at sediments today which are being deposited slowly, and thus would be classified as uniformitarian in their characteristics. However, we also see rapid burial today, in the form of floods, volcanic ash, hurricane deposits, and other depositional processes. So yes, uniformitarianism is the key to the past, and since we see both rapid and slow deposition today, then we had rapid and slow deposition in the past.


Sounds like he is addressing the subject directly to me. You may disagree with his conclusions, but there is some substance there.

Polystrata trees remain in my list A of evidence of a 6 day creation.
Actually I should say list B. For me, the evidence from Scripture seems pretty convincing, esp. Ex. 20:11.

Please see the separate thread (In the beginning...) I started, so as not to derail this OP.

Polystrate trees do not prove creation was a recent event or how long creation took. However, they do tell of a catastrophy that happened after the creation was finished.

 

[Winman]

#1 Perhaps you are unaware of the term "practical atheism." One who says they believe the Bible, but then completely redefines the words, does not really believe it.

#2 Words have meaning. Those meanings cannot be changed at your whim. God said day, not millions of years. That is not "my interpretation"...that is what God SAID.

You, my friend, are a product of postmodern, reader response, deconstructionism. Jacques Derrida would be proud.

I wouldn't go so far as to call someone who believes in evolution an athiest. Some people believe God is the author of evolution. I think the scriptures clearly contradict this, but there are sincere and honest persons who believe this. Problem is, people are taught evolution from the time they are a child, often by people they trust such as their parents or teachers. And many people know practically nothing about the scriptures.

And the average Joe really doesn't think about evolution much. They just believe what they are told, and then go back to worrying whether the Yankees beat the Red Sox today.

 

[Winman]

Uniformitarianism has been generally rejected by evolutionists today, and when they use the term they do not mean what Lyell meant. Today evolutionists speak of Gradualism.

Uniformitarianism has now been trimmed down to Lyell’s first two presuppositions – uniformity of Law and Process. And these are embraced by all practicing scientists both creationist and evolutionist. In general however just as Bates and Jackson state above, evolutionary geologists still tend to favor gradualism, allowing only for occasional and rare catastrophes, which may, but are not likely to, involve the entire globe. Creationary geologists, on the other hand, tend to look for natural catastrophic explanations for most of the geologic record in keeping with a global cataclysm denominated as Noah’s Flood.

 

[TC]

Here is a page from your link completely debunking the global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html


This site seems to be nothing more than an attempt to prove the bible untrue.



From the page on your link:



You cannot believe in evolution and the bible at the same time.

You asked about polystrate fossils, so I posted an article that addresses the issue. I did not follow every page the guy linked to his, nor do I agree with most of what they say. Polystrate fossils do not tell how old the earth is or how long it took to create. They just tell us that a catastrophe happened after the creation was complete.

 

[Havensdad]

Uniformintarianism is the geological system by which everything is deposited in a slow, gradual process. It is usually contrasted against catastrophism, which demonstrates rapid burial. Young earth creationists think that by showing that polystrate fossils were catastrophic in origin, they must prove the Flood of Noah and disprove geological uniformitarianism. I agree with the young earth creation science theorists that polystrate fossils are an example of catastrophism. However, it does not invalidate uniformitarianism...far from it! Uniformitarianism believes that the present is the key to the past. If you want to know what happened long ago, look at how rocks are being deposited today, and draw your model from that. Yes, we can look at sediments today which are being deposited slowly, and thus would be classified as uniformitarian in their characteristics. However, we also see rapid burial today, in the form of floods, volcanic ash, hurricane deposits, and other depositional processes. So yes, uniformitarianism is the key to the past, and since we see both rapid and slow deposition today, then we had rapid and slow deposition in the past.


Sounds like he is addressing the subject directly to me. You may disagree with his conclusions, but there is some substance there.

Polystrate trees do not prove creation was a recent event or how long creation took. However, they do tell of a catastrophy that happened after the creation was finished.

No, he is NOT addressing the issue. The issue is not just that these polystrata fossils exist. The issue is that they span what the evolutionary geologists say is several million years of layers. The polystrata fossils prove, beyond any doubt, several points which evolutionists deny..

#1 They prove that layers WERE NOT laid down over millions of years.

#2 They prove that rapid, hydologically deposited sediments, form layers consistent with what we find throughout the world.

#3 This, then, gives GREAT evidence for the flood recorded by the Bible, which in turn invalidates both the geologic timescale and radiometric dating techniques, in one fell swoop.

 

[quantumfaith]

I wouldn't go so far as to call someone who believes in evolution an athiest. Some people believe God is the author of evolution. I think the scriptures clearly contradict this, but there are sincere and honest persons who believe this. Problem is, people are taught evolution from the time they are a child, often by people they trust such as their parents or teachers. And many people know practically nothing about the scriptures.

And the average Joe really doesn't think about evolution much. They just believe what they are told, and then go back to worrying whether the Yankees beat the Red Sox today.

One issue is that many do not seem to know, or perhaps ignore, the differences between Darsinism (Neo-Dariwinism) and Theistic Evolution. Havensdad so often refers to those "athiest" scientists, many of them are in fact either agnostic and in some cases militant athiests. But there numerous scientists in all branches of science who are committed and faithful followers of Christ. To the Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists, all forms and morphologies of life "developed" completely within the domain of random natural processes guided only by the completely oblivious principle of natural selection. The thesitic evolution proponent, while acknowledging that "evidence" for evolution is strong, holds to a designer and tweaker in the system, one who has set all parameters and guides creation along its path.

Again, the "worldview" quote, to which you took such an affront, comes from the "Life Application Bible", while I completely understand the meaning and intent of the writer, you almost seem to want to assign something theologically nefarious to that statement. I hope you can at sometime read it differently and more clearly as I think the "author" intended.

 

[quantumfaith]

#1 Perhaps you are unaware of the term "practical atheism." One who says they believe the Bible, but then completely redefines the words, does not really believe it.

#2 Words have meaning. Those meanings cannot be changed at your whim. God said day, not millions of years. That is not "my interpretation"...that is what God SAID.

You, my friend, are a product of postmodern, reader response, deconstructionism. Jacques Derrida would be proud.

Do you still not understand, the six days (24 hour days) and the approximate 15 billion year age of the universe are equivalent within the realm of quantum physics and relativity. You are so stuck on your own, sometimes bordering on being sanctimonious.

 

[Havensdad]

One issue is that many do not seem to know, or perhaps ignore, the differences between Darsinism (Neo-Dariwinism) and Theistic Evolution. Havensdad so often refers to those "athiest" scientists, many of them are in fact either agnostic and in some cases militant athiests. But there numerous scientists in all branches of science who are committed and faithful followers of Christ. To the Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists, all forms and morphologies of life "developed" completely within the domain of random natural processes guided only by the completely oblivious principle of natural selection. The thesitic evolution proponent, while acknowledging that "evidence" for evolution is strong, holds to a designer and tweaker in the system, one who has set all parameters and guides creation along its path.

Again, the "worldview" quote, to which you took such an affront, comes from the "Life Application Bible", while I completely understand the meaning and intent of the writer, you almost seem to want to assign something theologically nefarious to that statement. I hope you can at sometime read it differently and more clearly as I think the "author" intended.

Tell me: how much of a biology background do you have? I would bet "none." Why? Because there IS no evidence for evolution. Everything in Biology tells us that evolution (molecules to man) could not happen.

Also: while their may be self professed Christians, who are scientists that believe in evolution, this comes from secular university brainwashing. Organizations such as the "National Science Foundation" who have a stated purpose to keep creation scientists out of universities and schools, are the "gate keepers." They assure that their little apple cart is not upset.

You can believe in evolution, or you can have a deep understanding of God's word, and theology. You cannot do both.

 

[Havensdad]

Do you still not understand, the six days (24 hour days) and the approximate 15 billion year age of the universe are equivalent within the realm of quantum physics and relativity. You are so stuck on your own, sometimes bordering on being sanctimonious.

No, they are not. It is possible that the earth could experience 6 days of time, while the universe could experience billions of years, due to time dilation (Relativity in relation to density, speed, etc.). But it is not possible for 6 days, and 15 billion years, to happen in the same relative area, and the same time.

Because I have studied physics to some degree(since I was 5: I used to want to work at NASA.), I am perfectly willing to accept an old universe. The Bible, after all, is written from the perspective of the Earth. God made the earth, in Six days, as measured from the earth. But while this was happening, (if we accept that the localized presence of God created a Euclidean zone in the vicinity of the earth), it could certainly be that long periods of time were passing outside of that area.

This would be in keeping with scripture, and I have no problem with it (and would explain why light from stars millions of light years away have reached us). Saying that the earth is millions of years old, from our perspective, and that we "evolved," not only goes against the Bible, however, but the scientific facts.

 

[quantumfaith]

I am not a biologist, I am a mathematician. But I am at least aware enough to know that biology does not exclude evolution, quite the contrary. What, are you going to give the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument? And to end our little "hoorah" for the evening. You charge me with "redefining" or misdefining the words and then you do into some "postmodern" mumbo jumbo defining me. I guess you dont see any irony in that. Oh well. Peace to you brother in Christ. If you are still holding this grudge when we get to heaven, look me up and tell me either;

1. See I told you so
2. or, Sorry brother I was wrong

 

[Iconoclast]

Ken Ham

Take a listen to this;
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11606144316

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11606144316

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11606131423

 

[Havensdad]

I am not a biologist, I am a mathematician. But I am at least aware enough to know that biology does not exclude evolution, quite the contrary. What, are you going to give the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument?

No,

The interbreeding barrier, including chromosomal barriers, the irreducible complexity of cell structure, including the structures in so-called cells of increasing complexity, the law of bio-genesis, the proven decrease in complexity of DNA structure over time (taking all life forms in the OPPOSITE direction from evolution), the proven decrease in genetic diversity over time (flipping the so-called evolutionary tree upside down), etc....

Shall I go on? NOTHING in Biology supports increasing complexity in organisms over time.

 

[Winman]

quantumfaith

I have always believed the scriptures, however I also believe in "true" science. I have had a great interest in astronomy from my youth and to this day own a fairly nice telescope. At one time I could name every bright star in the sky, today only a few.

The greatest problem I ever had with the six day creation account was the fact that we can see starlight from stars many millions of light years away. Now, I have seen theories on this such as the argument for the "appearance of age". In other words, the day Adam and Eve were created they appeared as adults, probably at least 25 years old when they were only one day old. This actually must be true, but it is not the best argument to explain starlight, because it tends to argue that God is misleading, that is, he would provide evidence that actually seems to contradict his word.

There are other theories, such as, if the earth is the center of the universe, then the universe is much smaller than science believes ( I can't remember the exact figure, but something like 17,000 times smaller). But even this is not satisfactory, as the universe still appears much too large for light to arrive here within 6-7,000 years.

When the Christian physicist Barry Setterfield published findings in the 80's that the speed of light has slowed, it explained away a lot of these problems. Barry was not the first man to notice that light had slowed, many had and had documented this, but he was the first to do an in-depth study of it and publish his findings. Since that time several secular astronomers and physicts have confirmed his findings. Of course there is still much opposition to this theory, but every day more and more scientists are giving this theory serious consideration as evidence for it grows.

According to some physicists, the speed of light was millions, even billions of times faster in the recent past. This could explain how light arrived here almost instantaneously from the most distant regions of the universe. It also solves many other problems that the Big Bang and other theories could not explain.

http://www.setterfield.org/essays/speedo.html

Go to the home page for many interesting articles.

The reason I point this out, is because this explains science such as radiometric dating (which also slowed) which gives old ages for the universe.

Here is a portion of questions Barry answered on this you can find at his website.

The link between radiometric dating and lightspeed

Question: Is there a direct link between radiometric dating and the speed of light?

Setterfield: Yes, there is. 'c', the speed of light, is in the numerator of every reduced radio decay rate equation.



Question: Could you please explain to me in simple terms why the rate of atomic decay depends upon the speed of light?

Setterfield: The simplest way is to say that the equations describing atomic decay contain a number of atomic constants, including the speed of light. If energy is conserved in a varying light speed process, these constants are changing so there is effectively a light speed term in the numerator of each equation. Thus, the higher the light speed, the faster the decay rate, in the same proportion.



Question: Is there a direct link between c-dependent radioactive decay rates and geological processes?

Setterfield: Yes there is. Importantly, the original short half-life elements were also a contributor and they have gone now. This also made for rapid heating of the earth interior (cool to start with). Furthermore, there is evidence that the main radioactive elements were concentrated in a layer low in the mantle and came to the surface progressively after that.

Now, know what? Even if Barry is wrong and the speed of light hasn't decayed, I still believe the scriptures. I may never learn in this world how light arrived here from the furthest reaches of space, but maybe I will. But either way I believe God's word.

 

[quantumfaith]

Allow me to be as clear as possible. I do not cast dispersions or look down upon any who claim the YE Creationist postion. I am not a pseudo intellectual wannabe. I am a fellow human being, created in the image of God, seeking to understand and make sense of God's word and His creation. I do show and have little respect for any who seek to define and pigeonhole anyone who does not share their respective biblical and theological postions, that is my only grist in this matter. Signing off for now.

Mercy, peace and Love in abundance.

 

[olegig]

I feel a little respondsible for the arguments and ill feelings between members in the above post because I was the one who first mentioned the book by Dr. Schroeder.

Although I cannot say I agree with the things discussed in Dr. Schroeder's book, or even fully understand them, I certainly do not wish to misrepresent Dr. Schroeder or his thoughts.
There seems to be 2 things on the table in question, how time passed and was/is measured, and evolution.
I will attempt to explain how Dr. Schroeder handles both so his position is truthfully represented.
Since quantumfaith has also read the book I hope he will correct me if I do not describe Dr. Schroeder's position accurately.

As Havensdad touched on in #114 there is the Law of Relativity which states time is dependant upon gravity and velocity with time slowing as gravity or velocity increases.
This has been proven by measuring the difference in the light waves from the sun as compared to light waves generated here on earth.

It seems Dr. Schroeder's position is that time as we know it being based on the earth system began at the creation of man thus we see:

Genesis 5:1 (King James Version)
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

It also seems Dr. Schroeder's position is that time which measured the formation of the whole universe was based on a system of gravity and velocity other than that of the earth's, he calls it cosmic time and thus we see:

Genesis 2:4 (King James Version)
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Therefore through the measurement of time as we know it based on the earth system gives us 6,000yrs since the creation of man, while granting a different measurement of time for the period preceeding the creation of man.

Concerning evolution, IMO Dr. Schroeder's position would be one of supporting micro evolution while disagreeing with macro evolution.
As Havensdad pointed out in post #117 there are many problems with macro evolution and in the book Dr. Schroeder points to the same problems both through biology and statistical mathematics.
I think Dr. Schroeder would agree with Havensdad's post #117.

However Dr. Schroeder does show several examples of micro evolution and in all honesty I also see these examples in the world around us.
In my lifetime I have seen genetically sound breeds of cattle and wheat changed from one breed or variety to another.
I have never seen cattle changed into horses, or wheat changed into roses.
Dr. Schroeder gives the example of the evolution of man as changing from living to be hundreds of years old to only living less than a century as we see today.
This is the result of selection from the gene pool which is already in each individual and only brought to surface because of environmental surroundings.

I have tried to briefly explan the positions of Dr. Schroeder and hope quantumfaith will correct me where I have missed the mark.