Evolutionism vs the Gospel

BobRyan · Jul 31, 2004

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Bob and Gup,

Here's another way of putting it:

We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!

Lets be honest -- we ALREADY have it. AS shown on the thread dedicated to Evolution's appeal to junk science.

Charles said --
But as of today I can HONESTLY say, as a Christian AND a scientist, that the weight of evidence greatly favors an old earth.

You can still disagree with my assertions that the earth is old - but do it on scriptural grounds. Believe me when you put forth some of this stuff about entropy and lysozyme you make all of us (Christians) look idiots to those in the scientific field. [/QB]

Is this the part where Atheist evolutionists like Asimov are "idiots" to other evolutionists???

Is this the part where Richard Dawkings is an "idiot" to other evolutionists when HE observes that evolutionism has replaced the need for God??

Do you even know what you are saying??

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 31, 2004

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

3 Then God said, ""Let there be light''; and there was light.
…
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 Then God said, ""Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.'' ...8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said, "" Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear''; and it was so. …11 Then God said, ""Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them''; and it was so…. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 Then God said, ""Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens[/b] to separate the day from the night, …
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; (He made the stars also). … 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 Then God said, ""Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly …
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature[/b] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
.. 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, ""Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind''; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, ""Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; …
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
...
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

Exodus 20

11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;

The Bible really DOES use the creationist model that the evolutionist here ACCUSE it of using!

They are right!!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 31, 2004

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

Biblical evidence is not scientific evidence. Like I keep saying - if you believe the bible because of what it says then fine.

And HENCE - the very POINT of this thread. Evolutionism's whacky claims vs the truths of the Gospel.

Charles said

What I am speaking of is the science - not the biblical passages.

Correction - you are only speaking of junk science.

And your "not the Bible" statement is "soooo true".

Junk science is NOT the Bible. Nor is it compatible with the Gospel.

In Christ,

Bob

Charles Meadows · Jul 31, 2004

Bob,

"Lets be honest -- we ALREADY have it. AS shown on the thread dedicated to Evolution's appeal to junk science."

I don't know where you get your facts brother - well I'm glad you're at least satisfied with them!

Gina B · Jul 31, 2004

Guys, is keeping this thread open going to be fruitful or not? There's already a number of people who would like to see these CvE threads stopped. I'm not one of them, but drawing negative attention to the threads by useless bickering isn't going to help convince people that they should continue.
Gina

Mercury · Jul 31, 2004

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Exodus 20
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;

The Bible really DOES use the creationist model that the evolutionist here ACCUSE it of using![/QUOTE]BobRyan, are you willing to affirm the literal, plain meaning of this passage? It says everything in the heavens, earth and sea were made in six days. The stars are in the heavens (see Genesis 15:5, Nehemiah 9:6 and Psalm 8:3 for just three passages among many that confirm this). They are mentioned on day four of Genesis 1 after the creation of the two great lights.

So, can you come out and say, without dodging, that you believe Exodus 20:11 when it says that "all that is in" the heavens, including the stars, were created in six days? I know Gup and most other YECs would have no trouble agreeing with this, but so far you've seemed to skirt this issue, or to redefine the verse to be only talking about the creation of living things.

Charles Meadows · Jul 31, 2004

Gina,

The bickering here is less than in the "versions" forum. It's a viable topic!

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2004

Originally posted by Gina L:
Guys, is keeping this thread open going to be fruitful or not? There's already a number of people who would like to see these CvE threads stopped. I'm not one of them, but drawing negative attention to the threads by useless bickering isn't going to help convince people that they should continue.
Gina

Well we do get crossways now and then. But I have to tell you - I have yet to see a negative ad hominem retort as explicit and loaded as the ones I have been getting from pinoybaptist on the Calvinist vs Arminian subject area.

And the evolutionists keep making the point that they feel that Bible believing children are at risk when they go to public universities and are exposed to the stories of evolutionism. They have a valid point.

Will the youth be able to master critical thinking and distinguish between junk science and good science?

Will they "Assume the marriage" between Dawkings evolutionism and Christ's gospel is "possible"?

Threads like this one are a good place to evaluate the stress and damage done to the gospel by inserting evolutionism into it (if only we can keep our evolutionist bretheren on a bible topic on this Bible thread).

The evolutionists are correct that without informing our youth of the details - they certainly are at risk.

I don't know that adults here will change their minds - but perhaps the creationists will be better equipped to inform their children and perhaps the evolutionists will be better able to see the "trade" they have made.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2004

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Exodus 20
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;

The Bible really DOES use the creationist model that the evolutionist here ACCUSE it of using!
[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Mercury:

BobRyan, are you willing to affirm the literal, plain meaning of this passage?

Sure!

Are you willing to defend the notion that God only uses this creationist model in scripture because the people of Bible times were too stupid (and by that I mean "ignorant about evolutionism") to be told the truth? You know the "Truth being evolutionism".

I await your answer. (Some ducking and dodging been going on recently so it would be nice to get on track).

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2004

Mercury --

It says everything in the heavens, earth and sea were made in six days.

True enough. And as Paul tells us in 2Cor 12:2 there are THREE heavens and the THIRD one is where God's throne and the angels are.

So "to the reader" -- to Moses' reader "The heavens" where birds fly "in the midst of the heavens" and the Sun and Moon are the "TWO lights" created on the 4th day In those heavens -- becomes the "context" that shows the precise meaning that the people of Bible times would have.

Easy and simple isn't it!

But the "Task" of evolutionism is to make the obvious "obfuscated" and the "rediculous" preferred.

Mercury said
The stars are in the heavens (see Genesis 15:5, Nehemiah 9:6 and Psalm 8:3 for just three passages among many that confirm this).

Which heavens?

Mercury
So, can you come out and say, without dodging, that you believe Exodus 20:11

Yes.

And can you also finally admit that you "Do NOT bewlieve Exodus 20:11"?

"FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth and the sea AND ALL that is in them"?

The answer to this "Should" be easy for you - since you are an evolutionist.

Come on now - admit your position here.

In Christ,

Bob

Mercury · Aug 1, 2004

BobRyan, with all that dodging I didn't quite catch that. Did you just say that you don't think the stars are part of God's creation that he made in six literal days, contrary to Exodus 20:11?

Out of curiosity, what kind of gap theory do you espouse, and what do you think was all included in God's first creation?

Charles Meadows · Aug 1, 2004

Bob,

"I don't know that adults here will change their minds - but perhaps the creationists will be better equipped to inform their children and perhaps the evolutionists will be better able to see the "trade" they have made."

Hopefully so. That's reasonable. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt someone's faith.

I would say also that I am not a professed "evolutionist" Evolution is a theoretical system which, if true, would accomodate alot of what we see. Based on science it seems likely but not proved. I am however an "old earth" advocate.

Your last post seems like you at least seem to see what I'm saying, even if you disagree with it. I'll put it another way. I've always been analytically minded - this is probably part of why I gravitated towards the sciences.

I am concerned, based on my own experiences and those of many people I know that the YEC case will be unsatisfying for many with a mindset similar to my own. I understand that to you evolution and old earth science seems like junk science - believe me I wish it did to me as well! ( Consider yourself blessed that God has given you such strong faith.) But even as a new zealous Christian years ago I could not make myself believe the YEC arguments.

I recall my ex-brother in law, a very bright man, who attended Liberty U and graduated first in his class with a degree in undergraduate biblical studies. When he went for graduate studies later he realized that the science and philosophy he had been taught were not exactly correct. He said he realized that it was just all built on lies.

Of course that's his fault. But I'm concerned that those with similar science-friendly minds might be troubled by many of the same questions. By my estimation, and that of 99+% of biologists and chemists, the evidence favors an old earth. And a young student with similar mental faculties will (I believe) likely come to the same conclusion. This is why I assert that we must be honest in addressing what science shows us. I personally feel that an appeal to scripture as a higher authority is a more consistent stance for opposing OECism - because (I think) labelling it junk science will hurt your credibility in the eyes of those students who may tend to think otherwise.

Gina B · Aug 1, 2004

I agree that it's a very viable topic, and everyone generally behaves in a very commendable way. My point is to not let the naysayers have any excuse, nothing to point to and say "this is part of why this topic shouldn't be allowed on the board."

Otay, continue on.

It's looking better already anyhow.

Gina

Gup20 · Aug 1, 2004

Biblical evidence is not scientific evidence. Like I keep saying - if you believe the bible because of what it says then fine. What I am speaking of is the science - not the biblical passages.

You are correct. Biblical evidence is FAR more valuable and true, and revealing than anything I have ever seen in scientific evidence. Scientific evidence changes from day to day, but the Word of God never changes.

Keep in mind that while I do advocate the position that a purely secular science will lead unequivocally to evolution, we do not live in a purely secular or purely natural world. Therefore it is INCORRECT (albeit natually logical) to arrive at the conclusion of evolution. Science has made the mistake of ignoring evidence that does not seem to be entirely naturalistic. Therefore science alone is unable to arrive at the truth. Science MUST be mixed with, and measured by, scripture in order to become accurate. Otherwise it's like trying someone in court without hearing one side of the argument. If you only look at the NATURAL evidence, and ignore the spritual and supernatural, your conclusions will all be wrong, and you will have built your model, in this case evolution, upon an incomplete examination of the facts.

Actually, Barbarian pointed out to you that the text itself says that it cannot be six literal days (something first pointed out by Augustine nearly 1600 years ago)

Actually, all you did was point out a naturalistic perception of the text. No where did you show me where the Bible calls itself allegorical... no where did you show me where the Bible says that it's words weren't true. No where did you present any BIBLICAL evidence to back up your claims or your case whatsoever. In fact, all you did is point at a supernaturally influenced "actual event" and say "this even could not have happened naturally". Well, we agree... it was not a natural event. It was an event that was directly influenced by the Supernatural, therefore your science hasn't got the ability to judge it's probability. Moreover, we have shown you repeatedly how the whole of scripture supports the supernatural event as having literally happened. You come, yet again, without a single piece of evidence on your side and expect us to throw away an entire Bible full of evidence against you. It's not going to happen. You have zero evidence... we have an insurmountable cache of evidence... this has been demonstrated time and time again in this discussion, yet you continue to hold to your position on the hopes that we will ignore the Biblical evidence and do as you do and focus, not on the scripture, but on the world and on a humanistic interpretation of the natural.

Would you now like to tell us either why the authors of the paper are wrong or withdraw the assertion?

The smoller/temple paper is not intended to be a support of Humphrey's cosmology, but in fact it does support the very theories Humphreys has been talking about for a decade. The main poits of such is that the universe has a center and an edge... current thought on the "Big Bang" is the opposite. Unwittingly (perhaps), this paper lends much credibility to Humphrey's model. Yet again, we see science being lead by creationists science toward truth. Your call for me to withdraw my assertion is from ignorance. However, your ability to search the internet to find any instance where atheists and non-christians argued with me is commendable. By the way - ... the guy I was arguing with on the YouDebate forum didn't believe the Bible either - so it seems you guys have something in common beyond the fact that you are arguing with me.

So, you cannot find anyone who argues for a young earth without already having that bias? Planty of OEers are Christians.

No, I cannot find anyone who hates God and disagrees with evolution.... imagine that. Everyone who hates God agrees with evolution. Interesting how we have found those who claim to love God on this board, yet disbelieve the scirpture. I guess it's true what they say - one bad apple will spoil the whole barrel, but one good apple in barrel of rotten ones has no effect.

You have demonstrated a distinct misunderstanding of entropy but maybe you can try again to tell us how it is relevent.

In another thread perhaps, but in this thread the WORD OF GOD is supreme. Therefore the onus is upton you to show us from scripture - something no evolutionist here has yet done - evidence that suggests otherwise. I have shown you, for example, how Genesis 1 is literal and true. How Noah's Flood is literal and true. How Jesus and Paul quote them as such. Yet you still do not believe.

For example, I showed you how the bible supports our view of entropy -

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

We showed how death entered the world because of Sin in Genesis 3, Romans 5, and 1Cor 15. Yet you still do not believe the Word of God is true. We showed you how the days in Genesis 1 are literal, and can mean nothing else both by the context and by grammatical rules... yet you do not the Bible is true.

Here's another way of putting it:

We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!

Trust me, Charles - I hear this and uderstand what you are saying completely. Now hear me -

The major discovery you make next week in the natural is insignificant in comparrision to the SCRIPTURE we have right now here today. The SCRIPTURE tells us that it was a literal six day creation ~ 6000 years ago. We have repeatedly demonstrated that. Yet, our critics have yet to show us even one verse that denies it.

Irrespective of the discovery you make a week or a year or ten years from now, the scripture remains the same. It is ultimate and absolute truth. I would recommend that you discover what IT says before you are swayed by what the world says. What the world has to say changes on a daily basis. What the Bible says is true now and forevermore. In 10,000 years when we have advanced so far beyond our current imaginations, the Bible will still be true. God's Word can never fail. It is pure in it's entirety.

What you are communicating by saying that "
We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!" is that you choose to believe the physical evidence of science ABOVE the Bible, and if that physical evidence allows me to, I will believe the Word... but if it doesn't I am ok with believing only the portions of the Word that effect my salvation.

But as of today I can HONESTLY say, as a Christian AND a scientist, that the weight of evidence greatly favors an old earth.

I am also a christian, and I tell you today that the EVIDENCE much more greatly favors a young earth. There is physical evidence to support it (who's interpretation is admittedly in it's infancy) however the GREATER and MORE SUBSTANCIAL evidence is in the Bible. The entire Bible supports a young earth, and this evidence FAR EXCEEDS any evidence we can naturally observe here on earth. I have shown you this evidence... do you believe what the Bible says or do you not?

Because the Bible shows us this evidence clearly and overwhelmingly, then, regardless of the appearant nature of our physical, natural evidence, our interpretation of such evidence must be flawed. Therefore, we need to re-examine our interpretation of the PHYSICAL evidence in light of what the overwhelming Biblical evidence demonstrates clearly - that the earth is young. Therefore, when science presents data that contradicts the Word, it is not the Word of God that must be questioned, but the scientific interpretation of the evidence that is in jeopardy.

Bob,
"Lets be honest -- we ALREADY have it. AS shown on the thread dedicated to Evolution's appeal to junk science."
I don't know where you get your facts brother - well I'm glad you're at least satisfied with them!

I think Bob's objection to evolution as "Junk Science" is analogus to what our view would be of a Judge who convicts a person without hearing their case.

The 'junk' part of the science is that it is wholisticly natural and does not take all variables into consideration. It only takes those variables that can produce the outcome it desires. For example, you can't take all naturalistic variables and expect the result to pronounce a supernatural conclusion. This is what is meant by "Junk Science". It specifically ignores any evidence that disagrees with it's pre-determined conclusions and pre-suppositions.

It is interesting to note that this is also EXACTLY what YEC do. We take the Bible and what it says as our pre-supposition and our 'predetermined conclusion' and work the science backward from THE ANSWER (God's Word).

The ironic thing is that we recognize that we are working from pre-suppositions (from what the Bible - absolute truth - has to say), and evolutionists... especially christian evolutionists... refuse to acknowledge that fact. Indeed you are working from a pre-supporition, it's just that it's someone else's presupposition. It is the pre-supposition of humanism... that the world evolved naturally without supernatural influence.

The purpose of this thread and the science thread is to get you folks to see that. There are OTHER possibilities out there... including the ones the Bible says are true.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Mercury: BobRyan, are you willing to affirm the literal, plain meaning of this passage?

BobRyan: Sure!

Mercury: It says everything in the heavens, earth and sea were made in six days.

BobRyan: True enough.

BobRyan, with all that dodging I didn't quite catch that. Did you just say that you don't think the stars are part of God's creation that he made in six literal days, contrary to Exodus 20:11?

[/QUOTE]I think he gave you a pretty direct answer there.

Moreover, lets look at Genesis 1:

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Clearly God created the stars as well.

I would say also that I am not a professed "evolutionist" Evolution is a theoretical system which, if true, would accomodate alot of what we see. Based on science it seems likely but not proved. I am however an "old earth" advocate.

That has to be the fairest, most even way of approaching the situation I have seen yet of an Old Earther. In the society of the USA, this balanced approach of Tolerance for both positions is valued. While both sides may certainly appriciate your kindness, and unwillingness to offend, (which we should all do) I would submit that God has not called us to be a people of tolerance for untruth.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Tolerance for people is one thing... but tolerance for 'ideas' is another. We are not to be tolerant of evil or unrighteousness, or of false doctrine.

Your last post seems like you at least seem to see what I'm saying, even if you disagree with it. I'll put it another way. I've always been analytically minded - this is probably part of why I gravitated towards the sciences.

And who do you think created your mind to be analytical? Would that you were given a gift by God so that you could draw nearer to him and glorify HIM instead of those who hate Him. If God did give you an analytical mind, and God did create the world in six days as His Word says He did, then shouldn't you be using that analytical mind to defend the Word, rather than man's ideas?

But even as a new zealous Christian years ago I could not make myself believe the YEC arguments.

I have tried to show you in this conversation how your focus has not been the word. Even in this last statement, you continue to focus on the science of creationism. Let me tell you something... believing the science is far easier when you FIRST AND FOREMOST believe the Word. Once you realize this, you will naturally gravitate towards the science... HOWEVER - KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. IT IS ABOUT THE SCRIPTURE. YOU MUST FIRST BELIEVE THAT. You don't have to believe YEC arguments... but I do emplore you that you believe the scripture with entirety and sincerity. Once you do this, the rest will fall into place.

You see, you continue to look at the evidence with your evolutionary googles on. With these glasses, things are distored. Your statement makes clear that you look at YEC evidence with the same glasses on. However, it is my intention that you not focus on changing what you believe about what you see... but change the way you look at what you see to begin with!! If you put on your Bible Glasses, you will see the world as God intended you to see it... not as natural man and natural science sees it.

You MUST realize that YEC SCIENCE is evangelism more than it is strict science. We are in the business of showing how the physical evidence confirms scripture. We are in the business of changing people's "perscriptions" for their eyeware. While we are extremely concerned with the Truth, and our science is what the Bible says is true... those who are not christians cannot see this until they take off the blinders and put on the Bible's glasses.

You see, we have to take a fallen, corrupt world that no longer demonstrates the beauty of majesty of God's creation and show how it is a result of the marvelous creation described in Genesis and the FALL of Adam. In doing this, we not only show the truth regarding science and the origin of man... but we also show people the truth of Jesus... how he came to save us from this corrupted and dying world full of sin and death.

Our science is true... but you must be able to assume (by faith) that the Bible is true and that "secular humanism" is not true in order to see that. You must be able to factor the supernatural with the natural in your science to arrive at the correct conclusion.

One point of YEC is to show that there is enough physical evidence supporting the YEC position to at least consider it as a possibility. However in oder to fully consider it as a possibility, you must entertain the idea that the Bible is absolute and true... because this is the foundational principle of YEC.

Once you do become convinced that the Bible is true, and that YEC evidence makes sense in the physical world as well as with the Bible, then you get pretty excited. Suddenly, the world opens up to you and things you were sure weren't possible before suddenly are not only possible, but you can't believe that you ever thought anything else.

Let me setup this hypothetical situation. Lets say that a math professor at university gave his students a very very complex problem work out. He told the class that he himself had solved this problem and he would be very pleased if any of his students could do the same.

So some of the students get together and start working on this problem. However, lets say the professor goes over to a couple of students and tells them something about the answer. Lets say he tells them that the answer has to be in a certain range.

The students working on the problem, knowing it's in a certain range start eliminating variables that do not cause the answer to fall within that range. Other students come over to check their progress and tell them that they are WAY off... that they believe they have arrived at the solution and that it is very different from the direction they are heading. The students who had heard from the professor the range in which to look would indeed hold to their method regardless of what everyone else thought because of ONE THING - they believed the professor when he told them about the answer! Maybe it doesn't make sense to them... maybe they don't know WHY.... but they know that they ARE on the right track regardless of what the other groups tell them. Why? Because the ONE WHO KNOWS THE ANSWER told them something and they believed him.

In the same way, God gave us information about our world in the scripture. Through science, we are working on discovering all the answers. We know that we are on the right track because we believe THE CREATOR's words and work to arrive at an answer that co-incides with the information He has given us about the answer. We may not always know exactly what or why... but were know we are headed in the right direction. When all is said and done, we will have come closer to the truth... closer to RIGHT answer. Others may have more logical explainations for their work... but we will be right.

Gup20 · Aug 1, 2004

Biblical evidence is not scientific evidence. Like I keep saying - if you believe the bible because of what it says then fine. What I am speaking of is the science - not the biblical passages.

You are correct. Biblical evidence is FAR more valuable and true, and revealing than anything I have ever seen in scientific evidence. Scientific evidence changes from day to day, but the Word of God never changes.

Keep in mind that while I do advocate the position that a purely secular science will lead unequivocally to evolution, we do not live in a purely secular or purely natural world. Therefore it is INCORRECT (albeit natually logical) to arrive at the conclusion of evolution. Science has made the mistake of ignoring evidence that does not seem to be entirely naturalistic. Therefore science alone is unable to arrive at the truth. Science MUST be mixed with, and measured by, scripture in order to become accurate. Otherwise it's like trying someone in court without hearing one side of the argument. If you only look at the NATURAL evidence, and ignore the spritual and supernatural, your conclusions will all be wrong, and you will have built your model, in this case evolution, upon an incomplete examination of the facts.

Actually, Barbarian pointed out to you that the text itself says that it cannot be six literal days (something first pointed out by Augustine nearly 1600 years ago)

Actually, all you did was point out a naturalistic perception of the text. No where did you show me where the Bible calls itself allegorical... no where did you show me where the Bible says that it's words weren't true. No where did you present any BIBLICAL evidence to back up your claims or your case whatsoever. In fact, all you did is point at a supernaturally influenced "actual event" and say "this even could not have happened naturally". Well, we agree... it was not a natural event. It was an event that was directly influenced by the Supernatural, therefore your science hasn't got the ability to judge it's probability. Moreover, we have shown you repeatedly how the whole of scripture supports the supernatural event as having literally happened. You come, yet again, without a single piece of evidence on your side and expect us to throw away an entire Bible full of evidence against you. It's not going to happen. You have zero evidence... we have an insurmountable cache of evidence... this has been demonstrated time and time again in this discussion, yet you continue to hold to your position on the hopes that we will ignore the Biblical evidence and do as you do and focus, not on the scripture, but on the world and on a humanistic interpretation of the natural.

Would you now like to tell us either why the authors of the paper are wrong or withdraw the assertion?

The smoller/temple paper is not intended to be a support of Humphrey's cosmology, but in fact it does support the very theories Humphreys has been talking about for a decade. The main poits of such is that the universe has a center and an edge... current thought on the "Big Bang" is the opposite. Unwittingly (perhaps), this paper lends much credibility to Humphrey's model. Yet again, we see science being lead by creationists science toward truth. Your call for me to withdraw my assertion is from ignorance. However, your ability to search the internet to find any instance where atheists and non-christians argued with me is commendable. By the way - ... the guy I was arguing with on the YouDebate forum didn't believe the Bible either - so it seems you guys have something in common beyond the fact that you are arguing with me.

So, you cannot find anyone who argues for a young earth without already having that bias? Planty of OEers are Christians.

No, I cannot find anyone who hates God and disagrees with evolution.... imagine that. Everyone who hates God agrees with evolution. Interesting how we have found those who claim to love God on this board, yet disbelieve the scirpture. I guess it's true what they say - one bad apple will spoil the whole barrel, but one good apple in barrel of rotten ones has no effect.

You have demonstrated a distinct misunderstanding of entropy but maybe you can try again to tell us how it is relevent.

In another thread perhaps, but in this thread the WORD OF GOD is supreme. Therefore the onus is upton you to show us from scripture - something no evolutionist here has yet done - evidence that suggests otherwise. I have shown you, for example, how Genesis 1 is literal and true. How Noah's Flood is literal and true. How Jesus and Paul quote them as such. Yet you still do not believe.

For example, I showed you how the bible supports our view of entropy -

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

We showed how death entered the world because of Sin in Genesis 3, Romans 5, and 1Cor 15. Yet you still do not believe the Word of God is true. We showed you how the days in Genesis 1 are literal, and can mean nothing else both by the context and by grammatical rules... yet you do not the Bible is true.

Here's another way of putting it:

We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!

Trust me, Charles - I hear this and uderstand what you are saying completely. Now hear me -

The major discovery you make next week in the natural is insignificant in comparrision to the SCRIPTURE we have right now here today. The SCRIPTURE tells us that it was a literal six day creation ~ 6000 years ago. We have repeatedly demonstrated that. Yet, our critics have yet to show us even one verse that denies it.

Irrespective of the discovery you make a week or a year or ten years from now, the scripture remains the same. It is ultimate and absolute truth. I would recommend that you discover what IT says before you are swayed by what the world says. What the world has to say changes on a daily basis. What the Bible says is true now and forevermore. In 10,000 years when we have advanced so far beyond our current imaginations, the Bible will still be true. God's Word can never fail. It is pure in it's entirety.

What you are communicating by saying that "
We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!" is that you choose to believe the physical evidence of science ABOVE the Bible, and if that physical evidence allows me to, I will believe the Word... but if it doesn't I am ok with believing only the portions of the Word that effect my salvation.

But as of today I can HONESTLY say, as a Christian AND a scientist, that the weight of evidence greatly favors an old earth.

I am also a christian, and I tell you today that the EVIDENCE much more greatly favors a young earth. There is physical evidence to support it (who's interpretation is admittedly in it's infancy) however the GREATER and MORE SUBSTANCIAL evidence is in the Bible. The entire Bible supports a young earth, and this evidence FAR EXCEEDS any evidence we can naturally observe here on earth. I have shown you this evidence... do you believe what the Bible says or do you not?

Because the Bible shows us this evidence clearly and overwhelmingly, then, regardless of the appearant nature of our physical, natural evidence, our interpretation of such evidence must be flawed. Therefore, we need to re-examine our interpretation of the PHYSICAL evidence in light of what the overwhelming Biblical evidence demonstrates clearly - that the earth is young. Therefore, when science presents data that contradicts the Word, it is not the Word of God that must be questioned, but the scientific interpretation of the evidence that is in jeopardy.

Bob,
"Lets be honest -- we ALREADY have it. AS shown on the thread dedicated to Evolution's appeal to junk science."
I don't know where you get your facts brother - well I'm glad you're at least satisfied with them!

I think Bob's objection to evolution as "Junk Science" is analogus to what our view would be of a Judge who convicts a person without hearing their case.

The 'junk' part of the science is that it is wholisticly natural and does not take all variables into consideration. It only takes those variables that can produce the outcome it desires. For example, you can't take all naturalistic variables and expect the result to pronounce a supernatural conclusion. This is what is meant by "Junk Science". It specifically ignores any evidence that disagrees with it's pre-determined conclusions and pre-suppositions.

It is interesting to note that this is also EXACTLY what YEC do. We take the Bible and what it says as our pre-supposition and our 'predetermined conclusion' and work the science backward from THE ANSWER (God's Word).

The ironic thing is that we recognize that we are working from pre-suppositions (from what the Bible - absolute truth - has to say), and evolutionists... especially christian evolutionists... refuse to acknowledge that fact. Indeed you are working from a pre-supporition, it's just that it's someone else's presupposition. It is the pre-supposition of humanism... that the world evolved naturally without supernatural influence.

The purpose of this thread and the science thread is to get you folks to see that. There are OTHER possibilities out there... including the ones the Bible says are true.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Mercury: BobRyan, are you willing to affirm the literal, plain meaning of this passage?

BobRyan: Sure!

Mercury: It says everything in the heavens, earth and sea were made in six days.

BobRyan: True enough.

BobRyan, with all that dodging I didn't quite catch that. Did you just say that you don't think the stars are part of God's creation that he made in six literal days, contrary to Exodus 20:11?

[/QUOTE]I think he gave you a pretty direct answer there.

Moreover, lets look at Genesis 1:

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Clearly God created the stars as well.

Gup20 · Aug 1, 2004

I would say also that I am not a professed "evolutionist" Evolution is a theoretical system which, if true, would accomodate alot of what we see. Based on science it seems likely but not proved. I am however an "old earth" advocate.

That has to be the fairest, most even way of approaching the situation I have seen yet of an Old Earther. In the society of the USA, this balanced approach of Tolerance for both positions is valued. While both sides may certainly appriciate your kindness, and unwillingness to offend, (which we should all do) I would submit that God has not called us to be a people of tolerance for untruth.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Tolerance for people is one thing... but tolerance for 'ideas' is another. We are not to be tolerant of evil or unrighteousness, or of false doctrine.

Your last post seems like you at least seem to see what I'm saying, even if you disagree with it. I'll put it another way. I've always been analytically minded - this is probably part of why I gravitated towards the sciences.

And who do you think created your mind to be analytical? Would that you were given a gift by God so that you could draw nearer to him and glorify HIM instead of those who hate Him. If God did give you an analytical mind, and God did create the world in six days as His Word says He did, then shouldn't you be using that analytical mind to defend the Word, rather than man's ideas?

But even as a new zealous Christian years ago I could not make myself believe the YEC arguments.

I have tried to show you in this conversation how your focus has not been the word. Even in this last statement, you continue to focus on the science of creationism. Let me tell you something... believing the science is far easier when you FIRST AND FOREMOST believe the Word. Once you realize this, you will naturally gravitate towards the science... HOWEVER - KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. IT IS ABOUT THE SCRIPTURE. YOU MUST FIRST BELIEVE THAT. You don't have to believe YEC arguments... but I do emplore you that you believe the scripture with entirety and sincerity. Once you do this, the rest will fall into place.

You see, you continue to look at the evidence with your evolutionary googles on. With these glasses, things are distored. Your statement makes clear that you look at YEC evidence with the same glasses on. However, it is my intention that you not focus on changing what you believe about what you see... but change the way you look at what you see to begin with!! If you put on your Bible Glasses, you will see the world as God intended you to see it... not as natural man and natural science sees it.

You MUST realize that YEC SCIENCE is evangelism more than it is strict science. We are in the business of showing how the physical evidence confirms scripture. We are in the business of changing people's "perscriptions" for their eyeware. While we are extremely concerned with the Truth, and our science is what the Bible says is true... those who are not christians cannot see this until they take off the blinders and put on the Bible's glasses.

You see, we have to take a fallen, corrupt world that no longer demonstrates the beauty of majesty of God's creation and show how it is a result of the marvelous creation described in Genesis and the FALL of Adam. In doing this, we not only show the truth regarding science and the origin of man... but we also show people the truth of Jesus... how he came to save us from this corrupted and dying world full of sin and death.

Our science is true... but you must be able to assume (by faith) that the Bible is true and that "secular humanism" is not true in order to see that. You must be able to factor the supernatural with the natural in your science to arrive at the correct conclusion.

One point of YEC is to show that there is enough physical evidence supporting the YEC position to at least consider it as a possibility. However in oder to fully consider it as a possibility, you must entertain the idea that the Bible is absolute and true... because this is the foundational principle of YEC.

Once you do become convinced that the Bible is true, and that YEC evidence makes sense in the physical world as well as with the Bible, then you get pretty excited. Suddenly, the world opens up to you and things you were sure weren't possible before suddenly are not only possible, but you can't believe that you ever thought anything else.

Let me setup this hypothetical situation. Lets say that a math professor at university gave his students a very very complex problem work out. He told the class that he himself had solved this problem and he would be very pleased if any of his students could do the same.

So some of the students get together and start working on this problem. However, lets say the professor goes over to a couple of students and tells them something about the answer. Lets say he tells them that the answer has to be in a certain range.

The students working on the problem, knowing it's in a certain range start eliminating variables that do not cause the answer to fall within that range. Other students come over to check their progress and tell them that they are WAY off... that they believe they have arrived at the solution and that it is very different from the direction they are heading. The students who had heard from the professor the range in which to look would indeed hold to their method regardless of what everyone else thought because of ONE THING - they believed the professor when he told them about the answer! Maybe it doesn't make sense to them... maybe they don't know WHY.... but they know that they ARE on the right track regardless of what the other groups tell them. Why? Because the ONE WHO KNOWS THE ANSWER told them something and they believed him.

In the same way, God gave us information about our world in the scripture. Through science, we are working on discovering all the answers. We know that we are on the right track because we believe THE CREATOR's words and work to arrive at an answer that co-incides with the information He has given us about the answer. We may not always know exactly what or why... but were know we are headed in the right direction. When all is said and done, we will have come closer to the truth... closer to RIGHT answer. Others may have more logical explainations for their work... but we will be right.

Gup20 · Aug 1, 2004

Out of curiosity, what kind of gap theory do you espouse, and what do you think was all included in God's first creation?

Merc, you have been remarkably silent in all this. I know that you are one of the primary proponents of the idea that God did not find us intelligent enough to tell us the truth in the Bible... perhaps you will answer Bob's question -

Are you willing to defend the notion that God only uses this creationist model in scripture because the people of Bible times were too stupid (and by that I mean "ignorant about evolutionism") to be told the truth? You know the "Truth being evolutionism".

Gup20 · Aug 1, 2004

sorry for the duplicate posting of that long one... I am trying out a new browser (firefox mozilla) and it didn't appear to go through the first time... so I broke it in half and re-posted.

The Galatian · Aug 1, 2004

Actually, Barbarian pointed out to you that the text itself says that it cannot be six literal days (something first pointed out by Augustine nearly 1600 years ago)

Actually, all you did was point out a naturalistic perception of the text.

Wrong. Augustine, who was entirely convinced of God and the supremacy of scripture over science, pointed out that the text was inconsistent with literal days.

No where did you show me where the Bible calls itself allegorical...

Nowhere did you show us where it says it is in all parts literal. So that argument crashes, too.

no where did you show me where the Bible says that it's words weren't true.

Neither did you. Fortunately no one here is arguing that they aren't true.

No where did you present any BIBLICAL evidence to back up your claims or your case whatsoever.

Nonsense. You've been shown a number of instances where the text itself tells you that it cannot be literal.

There's no point in denying what everyone has seen.

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2004

Originally posted by The Galatian:
*Actually, Barbarian pointed out to you that the text itself says that it cannot be six literal days (something first pointed out by Augustine nearly 1600 years ago)

unfortunately he could not prove the assertion. Poor theology was never something foreign to Augustine.

In the meantime - we actually "have" the text of scripture and unlike the ignorant masses in Augustine's day - "we" can read.

Notice the “evening and morning were the N-Day” formula.

Notice the “THEN God said” sequence.

Notice the “God Created” and “God Made” statements made about “Specific” life and attributes of earth IN that “Sequence” that is time-boxed within “evening and morning were the N-Day” formula.

Impossible for a Bible believing Christian to miss.

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

3 Then God said, ""Let there be light''; and there was light.
…
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 Then God said, ""Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.'' ...8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said, "" Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear''; and it was so. …11 Then God said, ""Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them''; and it was so…. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 Then God said, ""Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens[/b] to separate the day from the night, …
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; (He made the stars also). … 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 Then God said, ""Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly …
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature[/b] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
.. 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, ""Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind''; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, ""Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; …
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
...
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

Notice the consistent language in Exodus 20 – where we find God’s own summary statement on the Gen 1-2:3 “account”

Exodus 20

11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;

DETAILS

Exodus 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

Notice that God says mankind is to “labor SIX days” just as “in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth”.

Same context, same author, same time box, -- exegesis demands we recognize exactly what the scripture says.

In Christ,

Bob

Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member