Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
It is on that basis that I soberly and reflectively conclude that evolutionists are not Christians in the Biblical sense of the word.

I'm proof positive that your conclusion is incorrect. When I first became a Christian, I was a staunch YEC person, and have since changed my stance, which is that a non-literal interpretation of Gen1 and 2 does not compromise biblical truth. It's no great stretch. I know the difference between truth and fact. Nonliteral writings not intneded to be factual accounts are 100% truth nonetheless.

Additionally, if you believe in salvation that is OSAS, then I haven't lost my salvation simply becaise I've changed my formerly hyperliteral view on Genesis.

 

[Major B]

Nonliteral writings not intneded to be factual accounts are 100% truth nonetheless.

Not factual, but truth; that is called existentialism. I wonder if the IRS would buy that; "Yes, the details of my tax return are not factual nor are they intended to be, but they are true."

Jesus' treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 also brings to the fore the issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve. It is difficult to get away from the fact that Jesus was treating Adam and Eve as truly the first human pair in space and time...Romans 5:12, for example contains a strong testimony that Adam andEve were in fact space-time people...Thus, there was a first man, one man. Paul continues in verse 14, "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses..." Adam, it is obvious, is viewed as being just as historic as Moses. If this were not the case, Paul's argument would be meaningless. Verse 15 strengthens this:...Here, therefore is a parallel bwetween the historicity of Adam...and two others--Christ and then ourselves....We have therefore a strong testimony to the unityh of Genesis 1 and 2 and to the historicity of Adam and Eve..."

"

Excerpts from "Genesis in Space and Time," by Francis Schaeffer.

I am sort of YEC; though I don't think Genesis is necessarily a time-keeper, the things written there must have happened in that order and in that way. Since Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Luke, among others, took them as literal AND BASED THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION ON THAT LITERALITY, I fail to see how one can hold to evangelical views of salvation without this literality. If there was no Fall, there is no need for salvation. If this is not literal, Jesus, Paul, and Luke were ignorant primitives and they were definitely not inspired.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Major B:
I wonder if the IRS would buy that; "Yes, the details of my tax return are not factual nor are they intended to be, but they are true."

I don't think comparing the tax code to the Bible is a fair comparison. After all, everything in the tax code is fiction

Jesus' treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 also brings to the fore the issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve.

I don't think anyone questions the existence of Adam and Eve (actually, in Genesis, Adam didn't have a name, and Eve's name was "Lifegiver).

Since Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Luke, among others, took them as literal AND BASED THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION ON THAT LITERALITY

Salvation is not based this. It's based on Jesus paying the price for all of our sins individually.

If there was no Fall, there is no need for salvation.

No one questions that Man fell.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Mark, what evidence do you have that the day before the flood was exactly 24 hours?

"The evening and the morning were the first day."

What evidence do you have that Moses intended to convey any other concept of a "day" in this passage than what we define as a "24 hour" period?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Look at the definition of a day in scripture. It is not at all defined by a 24 hour period. It is defined by the cycle of light and dark.

You are making the assumption that a day before the flood was exactly 24 hours. Due to the conservation of angular momemtum it could have easily been slightly a longer period of time because the radius of the water in the heavens was at a greater distance from the center of the earth than it is now. Thereby causing the distribution of matter to be slightly diferent than it is now which could have caused the earth to rotate at a slightly lower rate.

To prove my point sometime sit on a revolving stool and hold one weight in each hand with each arm outstrectched. Then have someone spin you slowly and then while you are slowly spinning pull in the woeghts and notice how the rate at which you will now spin. That is due to the conservation of momentum.

 

[HankD]

that doesn't really make sense, such as that one of the pairs of the legs aren't really legs, or something silly like that.

But Paul that is exactly what the Scripture teaches. Not as a scientific statement but simply put in the language of the common man.

Insects have 4 appendages for "going" and two for some other specialty such as "leaping" or as a kind of functional "hands" for holding food, etc.

This is plain in that the Hebrew for these "other" appendages are in the dual number (ending in "YIM" rather in "IM") while the "going" appendages are in the regular plural with the cardinal number 4. Four plus two equals six even in Hebrew.

As to the six 24 hour days of creation, we don't know how God did this but that is not important, what is important is that God portrayed it with very literal language and carried the creation event through the Scriptures under a six solar day paradigm.

Jesus made water into wine in an instant.
Wine implies a much longer time than an instant:
Cultivation and preparation of the land, planting, nurturing, pruning, harvesting, squeezing the grapes, aging, etc... All these things emulated in an instant of time.

I am sure that during those six days the present laws of physics had not yet been fully initiated and dynamics were happening that no technology on earth could have measured (such as stretching light rays out "millions of light years" in an instant).

However, God knows the speed of light and how to alter it, He knows "evening" from "morning" whether there is a sun in the sky or not and doesn't need a Timex to know how to measure 24 hours.

As the "devil's advocate" I personally don't feel that "theistic evolution" is a deadly error as long as the personality and holy character of God is not compromised.

But I'm not God.
People are on their own with their conscience on this on.

The RCC holds to or allows for one theory that at some point in time Adam (the end product of theistic evolution) at a specific point in time was infused by God with a human soul (and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul).

Of course the RCC is reknown for allegorization of the Scriptures.

As a former Catholic (and part of the "educated" crowd) I ran with this theory but even before I left the RCC early on I had to deal with those other related issues such as sin and death. If evolution is true then there had been a lot of dying before Adam contrary to the Scripture.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If epic evolution is true, how could God have looked upon a universe at the end of the final epic filled with death (the result of sin according to Scripture) and called it "very good"? Mind you this "very good" Word of God was after the creation of Adam but before his transgression.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

If Adam is not real as identified in the Scripture how then can we justify saying that Christ is/was a real person.

When one thinks this through to the end (Romans 5) you have to choose or put one's head in the proverbial sand (IMO).

HankD

[ November 02, 2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Look at the definition of a day in scripture. It is not at all defined by a 24 hour period. It is defined by the cycle of light and dark.

You are making the assumption that a day before the flood was exactly 24 hours. Due to the conservation of angular momemtum it could have easily been slightly a longer period of time because the radius of the water in the heavens was at a greater distance from the center of the earth than it is now. Thereby causing the distribution of matter to be slightly diferent than it is now which could have caused the earth to rotate at a slightly lower rate.

To prove my point sometime sit on a revolving stool and hold one weight in each hand with each arm outstrectched. Then have someone spin you slowly and then while you are slowly spinning pull in the woeghts and notice how the rate at which you will now spin. That is due to the conservation of momentum.

a. This is all speculation.

b. If this speculation is true, so what? What bearing would the days of Genesis being "slightly longer" than our days have on this discussion? Evolution does not require "slightly longer" days. Evolution requires eons of time.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Look at the definition of a day in scripture. It is not at all defined by a 24 hour period. It is defined by the cycle of light and dark.

You are making the assumption that a day before the flood was exactly 24 hours. Due to the conservation of angular momemtum it could have easily been slightly a longer period of time because the radius of the water in the heavens was at a greater distance from the center of the earth than it is now. Thereby causing the distribution of matter to be slightly diferent than it is now which could have caused the earth to rotate at a slightly lower rate.

To prove my point sometime sit on a revolving stool and hold one weight in each hand with each arm outstrectched. Then have someone spin you slowly and then while you are slowly spinning pull in the woeghts and notice how the rate at which you will now spin. That is due to the conservation of momentum.

a. This is all speculation.

b. If this speculation is true, so what? What bearing would the days of Genesis being "slightly longer" than our days have on this discussion? Evolution does not require "slightly longer" days. Evolution requires eons of time.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]The point I am making is that your assumption is that the day has always been 24 hours. Pehaps, but perhaps not.

When you consider the historical context of one part of Genesis the point is that God is creator, nothing else. We can try to speculate about a number of things and we too often get ourselves into trouble. There are too many Christians simply reciting what someone else has written calling it truth. They are still ignorant and their ignorance can be easily challenged.

In my first few years of college I majored in Physics and taught some clasees in it. I heard some of the things Christians said in their ignorance. I worte them off as ignorant. Too often in our ignorance we can sidetrack people from hearing the true message of the good news. We need to be careful to listen and reach them where they are. Jesus told what reached the heart. Remember what he told the man who asked about what he needed to do to obtain eternal life; sell all you have. Jesus knew his heart.

Evolution is an attempt to explain creation without God. You cannot explain God's creation without God. It is impossible. God created, period!

Henry Morris wrote a book called, "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them." He used the words of the evolutionists against them. We can do the ame thing by carefully listening and asking some strategic questions. I have yet to find an evoultionist ever explain to me how creation came about with its diversity from nothing into something over billions of years.

 

[Helen]

gb93433, If the day was not 24 hours, give or take a few minutes, from the beginning, and yet there was morning and evening, as Genesis 1 states, then the plants of day three and the animals of days five and six would have either burnt to a crisp or frozen solid during the very long days and nights a slowly revolving earth would bring about.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
gb93433, If the day was not 24 hours, give or take a few minutes, from the beginning, and yet there was morning and evening, as Genesis 1 states, then the plants of day three and the animals of days five and six would have either burnt to a crisp or frozen solid during the very long days and nights a slowly revolving earth would bring about.

I agree the days of Genesis 1 are 24 hour days. I don't feel we need to take them literally, but the things we don't need to take literally are, literally, 24 hour days. And there's no problem for lack of light before the sun in the creation narrative; God Himself is pictured as supplying the light. If you want to look for problems in the narrative, I propose the firmament as the outstanding problem to solve.

 

[doug_mmm]

People,
Re 24 hour days.
From what I can discern in scientific articles scientists can examine coral growth patterns and ancient coral -

From one site -
Some fossils of rugose corals have been found which show both daily and yearly growth patterns. They indicate that when the coral was alive, there were about 400 days in the year; i.e. each day was about 22 hours long. Scientists assume that the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is more or less constant; there really is no obvious way in which it could accelerate or decelerate. They can estimate that about 350 to 400 million years ago, the day would have been only about 22 hours long. Thus, the corals are approximately of that age.
That poses reasonable free thinking Christians with a dilema ( not that it invalidates sin or Jesus's resurrection ) but with regard to the age issue.
Sure the fanatical YEC lobby will say "ignore it" but most reasonable observers cannot deny reality.
The other dilema is that there should be no coral older than Noah's Flood ( if one takes the view that it was universal ) the big problem is exactly that THERE IS !
Again the fanatical YEC lobby will say "ignore it" but most reasonable observers cannot readily dismiss such evidence. For the latter to do so would be to bear false witness.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by gb93433:
When you consider the historical context of one part of Genesis the point is that God is creator, nothing else.

This is simply not the case. The point is that God created, when God created and how God created. The point is how man got here and how he got to be a sinner and how God first promised redemption. The point is that God put man over the woman. And that is all just within the first three chapters.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[post-it]

So why do you think it took God 6 whole days to make everything instead of just 1 second? If I were God, I would have just done the whole thing in an instant or I would have created it over time... like a painting so I could enjoy the creation of it.

Can we really believe that God was tired after only 6 days of working on existance? Did he really need to rest? Was he physically tired or spiritually tired from his work.

This God described in Genesis seems to be a weaker God with limited abilities than my God found in the NT and also one that is now unemployed since he doesn't seem to be working on any more tiring projects. Of course I can't speak for other dimensions he may be busy creating in. But this one seems to be on auto pilot. Maybe the OT God just retired after the 6 days of work. He must have great unemployment benefits.

Or maybe he is getting a good laugh at us trying to piece it all together.
"I'll make the world in 6 days, then leave just enough evidence so that both sides can stay confused about it in the latter 20th century. He He."

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
The point is that God created...

Agreed.

...when God created and how God created.

What is the relevancy of when God created? Furthermore, Scripture goes into no more detail on the how of creation other than to say God spoke and all that is came to be.

The point is how man got here and how he got to be a sinner and how God first promised redemption.

Man was created in the image of God period. Man became a sinner through the root sin of all sins, pride. As for redemption, the whole Bible is concerned with it, as it is concerned with addressing the natural condition of man as a result of the fall. Nowhere is it ever suggested in Scripture that redemption is connected to the age of the earth.

 

[HankD]

God rested or ceased from His creative activity on the 7th day, focus on the cessation of work, it has something to say to us about works and salvation.

He could have taken whatever time He pleased but He chose 6/24 hour days.

Obviously (in my mind) there were things happening that we can not understand or which simply cannot be explained by us living here in the maintenance mode of the universe as opposed to the creation mode of the universe.

Driving and maintaining an automobile is completely different than building it.
Two completely different sets of rules and procedures.

Trust Him about the 6/24 hour days.
Somehow He made a bridge between creation and maintenance using the 6/24 hour day paradigm.

What have you to lose but the praise of men?

HankD

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by post-it:
So why do you think it took God 6 whole days to make everything instead of just 1 second? If I were God, I would have just done the whole thing in an instant or I would have created it over time... like a painting so I could enjoy the creation of it.

Post-It,

But you are not God (thank God!).

God did it like He did it because He wanted to. Your challenge of God's wisdom exposes the root cause of infidelism - the idea that somehow man's knows better than God.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Trotter]

Mark,

Even though you and I have not always seen eye-to-eye on some issues, I stand with you on this. AMEN!!!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Brett]

God did it like He did it because He wanted to. Your challenge of God's wisdom exposes the root cause of infidelism - the idea that somehow man's knows better than God.

This is NOT the root cause of infidelism. Saying as such is a common miconception among Christians. I was an atheist once, and I know many atheists now. The single reason that I had - and they some of the still have - is belief that God doesn't exist. Think about this - do you actually know of anyone who acknowledges the existence of God, but is still an infidel because s/he refuses to worship Him and acknowledge his Perfection? Nope - atheists are atheists and Buddhists are Buddhists and Muslims are Muslims for the precise reason that they do not believe in the God of Jesus Christ, not because they think man "knows better".

 

[post-it]

In the following verses from Genesis 1: it does say that the "Earth" brought forth these forms of life. Yes, God was the source of their creation, but the earth was what brought them forth (they came from the earth). So scripture does imply that the earth itself was capable of bringing these life forms into existence.

Granted it even clarifies that a "day" consists of a "morning and evening", thus making it almost impossible to claim a day longer than 24 hours in length. But given the fact that the sun didn't even get made until day four, it is hard to understand how day and night even existed during the first 3 days.


24. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind''; and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Here again, God has commanded the earth (land) to bring forth the grass, fruits and plants. It is clear that God commanded these things into existence by his Word, but through what means other than the earth bring them forth is man's interpretation of these poetic verses.

11. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth''; and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Having looked up and read these verses in Strong's Hebrew version, verifies at least to me that this is a correct interpretation of the words and meaning it intended to convey. There is a distinction between what God created from the unknown... such as the sun and moon, and what he created via the earth as the source.

[ November 04, 2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

As further support for my last observations on Genesis 1, man was also spoken into existence with no reference to the earth as his source in Chapter 1 however, we find that later he was formed from the earth.

So a valid argument can be made that all life form was evolved from the earth itself, as spoken into creation by God. It further supports that the earth, moon, sun, and stars could have also had a source outside just coming into existence from nothingness, since it was not explained in Genesis 1 as was the creation of man.

Therefore, man's theory of Evolution is a more viable explanation than man's theory of Creationism, as long as God is still the source of creation.

[ November 04, 2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[doug_mmm]

Post-it,

How do we Christians address the problem that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 million light years away ?
( The light created in transit theory is not a valid explanation, nor is the its all an illusion theory )

The Universe cannot possibly be 6-10K years young.

best wishes

Doug_mmm