Part 3, Earth Millions of Years Old?

[Ed Edwards]

// No one on this Forum has indicated that a belief in a 24 hour day in Genesis 1 is required for salvation. //

Nor did I claim that for anybody on this Forum.

Your problem may be thinking I have a bad motive?
I have shown my motive over and over (remember, this is part 3 of the topic). I'd like some responsibility of others who are ruining my witness to science minded folks. Unfortunately most science minded folks didn't study the history of science. They are not taught the Logical Basis of Science

BTW, OldRegular, I use my handiest Bible which is an electronic copy from e-sword.com Parallel:

Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition (some say 1587 Edition)
KJV1611 Edition (actually a KJV1613, but close)
KJV1769-ish type Edition with Strong's Numbers.

Would you mind going to the Version/Translation Forum and start a topic complaining about my choise of versions? seriously, I need some good press.

 

[Marcia]

I'm sure you'll cop out on this like you did before, but "the people in Moses' day" [ and how long was his "day;" 24 hours, 120 years or 4 billion years?], had "no reason to have thought otherwise" than Abraham's descendants-- the receivers of God's promise-- meant anything besides his physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob. "God would not tell them something that was not true." Not through Moses, but He would through Paul?

There are things that were not revealed in the OT about the plan of salvation that were revealed in the new -- such as the church, the gospel going to the Gentiles, etc. This has nothing to do with changing the meaning of God creating the world in 6 days, which is something that is never addressed in the NT as the other issues were.

It would be illogical to say that because God revealed that descendants of Abraham in the NT are through faith, that therefore the 6 days of creation are not 6 days. One does not have to do with the other, especially since the former was revealed in the NT. If these were connected or parallel, then the NT would reveal that the 6 days of creation were not really 6 days.

Your argument is a red herring.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are things that were not revealed in the OT about the plan of salvation that were revealed in the new -- such as the church, the gospel going to the Gentiles, etc. This has nothing to do with changing the meaning of God creating the world in 6 days, which is something that is never addressed in the NT as the other issues were.

It would be illogical to say that because God revealed that descendants of Abraham in the NT are through faith, that therefore the 6 days of creation are not 6 days. One does not have to do with the other, especially since the former was revealed in the NT. If these were connected or parallel, then the NT would reveal that the 6 days of creation were not really 6 days.

Your argument is a red herring.

It would be a red herring only if you believe that everything that could be known about Christianity the apostles knew. However, do you believe things are being revealed even now?

 

[Alcott]

Your argument is a red herring.

So which color would you prefer?

 

[Marcia]

It would be a red herring only if you believe that everything that could be known about Christianity the apostles knew. However, do you believe things are being revealed even now?

No, not anything that contradicts the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, not anything that contradicts the Bible.

You put a qualifier. Is progressive revelation occuring now or not? In the Old Testiment we go from "I am that I am" to "Jehovah Jireh". Is something like that occuring now?

 

[Marcia]

You put a qualifier. Is progressive revelation occuring now or not? In the Old Testiment we go from "I am that I am" to "Jehovah Jireh". Is something like that occuring now?

I thought about that after I posted but I'm too busy to go back and edit stuff now as often as I used to.

No, I do not think there is progressive revelation because the canon is closed.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Which came first, the Chicken or the egg?

If God created the egg, He would have to sit on it until it hatched. Now the Bible does tells us that God created a sexually mature chicken to do what chickens do to make more chickens.

Likewise God created a fully mature world in 6 days to allow His whole creation to thrive.

Well said. That is my conclusion as well. On the 10th day of creation we could have walked up to Adam and weighed and measured and poked and prodded (as scientists are want to do) and we would have determined that Adam showed evidence of maturity that required approximately 30 years to achieve in normal human growth, therefore, is Adam 30 years old? And that same scientist would walk up to the mighty oak tree, and he would measure and calculate and determine that it requires some 100 years for an oak tree to grow to this mature state so therefore the oak tree must be 100 years old. Based on the physical evidence, the scientist would conclude that the earth must be at least 100 years old.

The only thing science can prove is that the earth and the cosmos have the appearance of great antiquity.

I look out on the universe and have no problem believing that God created all this in 6 days. My God could have done that in an instant, in one heartbeat, but instead, God took his time to mold and shape and fashion the world leaving his fingerprints everywhere.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Marcia]

Here's the testimony of a man who used to be an evolutionist and became a creationist. He says that evolution is a belief system, like a religion.

Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged. As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation.....In my early years of teaching at the high school and college levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had some creationist students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution....

At first, when he became a Christian, he still stuck to evolution:

I simply combined my new-found faith with the 'facts' of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created, and that evolution told me how. But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part.

But then...

At the end of each creation period in Genesis chapter one (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all the works of His creation were very good. Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including myself at one time, try to fit 'geologic time' and the fossil record into the creation periods. But regardless of how old it is, the fossil record shows the effects of the same things that we have on earth today – famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods and earthquakes. So, if fossils represent stages in God's creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine, or help preserve endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.

He was studying science further as a Christian:

One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods used for estimating the age of the earth. I felt sure that all the silly creationistic arguments would be shot down, but just the opposite happened.

In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far from certain and riddled with contradictions. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, "If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith." I was shocked! If it was a matter of keeping faith, I had another faith I preferred to keep.

All this and more at
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php

I've been saying evoluton is a belief system - it is!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Marcia, I don't think anyone has argued against aspects of evolution being a belief system. Certainly evolution has been proven on a micro level (beyond a shadow of a doubt). The Macro level that is in question. Evolution on the whole is scientifically based. I agree with Sproul with regard to where the faith issue is regarding evolution. That Chance becomes God rather than a random set of circumstances. This is where the faith aspect in evolution comes into play not the processes in which things evolve. Remember I said that I don't buy into all aspects of evolution but I'm not convinced of a young earth either. I believe there are processes we don't understand as yet. But I'm not confining God either to a literal view of creation in 6 days.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I don't think anyone has argued against aspects of evolution being a belief system. Certainly evolution has been proven on a micro level (beyond a shadow of a doubt). The Macro level that is in question. Evolution on the whole is scientifically based. I agree with Sproul with regard to where the faith issue is regarding evolution. That Chance becomes God rather than a random set of circumstances. This is where the faith aspect in evolution comes into play not the processes in which things evolve. Remember I said that I don't buy into all aspects of evolution but I'm not convinced of a young earth either. I believe there are processes we don't understand as yet. But I'm not confining God either to a literal view of creation in 6 days.

But did you read the guy's testimony? At first, he held to a theistic evolution.

But this view allows for death before sin, which contradicts the Bible.

 

[OldRegular]

All this and more at
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php

I visited the above web site and found an article about Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith. I have had a book written by him for for about 40 years entitled Man's Origin, Man's Destiny. I would recommend it to anyone who is tempted to believe that science establishes evolution as a viable system. The article talks about the conversion of Dr. Wilder-Smith and also his education which I believe far exceeds that of anyone posting on this Forum.

A.E. Wilder-Smith F.R.S.C., Ph.D was a Countess Lisburne Memorial Fellow in cancer research for London University and a member of the British Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the New York Academy of Science. He held the Chair of Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, where he was elected 'Best Teacher' four times and won the 'Golden Apple' award three times.

<snip>

After his conversion, Wilder-Smith earned a PhD in organic chemistry at Reading University, followed by another doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Geneva and one in biology and natural sciences from E.T.H. in Zurich. Ultimately it was through his own scientific investigation, rather than discussions with Christians, that he came to reject Darwin's theory of evolution and began to promote creationism. He eventually became the Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and his work led him all over the world, speaking about creation and other issues in hundreds of lectures in many famous universities. Fluent in German, he was particularly effective in reaching many thousands of German POWs during and after the Second World War. He was also a big hit with students who appreciated his boundless patience when they barraged him with questions.

"Today in Europe and the USA, the teaching of evolution in the schools and universities is a great problem," he said. "It is taken today as an incontrovertible fact of science that Darwin has made the idea of a divine Creator superfluous for the educated person. If God is scientifically superfluous to creation, then Christ who called Himself One with the Creator God, automatically becomes superfluous too. Thus, since Darwin, the preaching of Christ, particularly in academic circles, has become increasingly lacking in urgency."

It is worth noting at this time that only about 4% of Western Europe are professing Christians and they are in danger of being dominated by Islam.

 

[OldRegular]

Another interesting quote from the above web site [Superb Design by Dr David H. Stone].

Evolution would be a sickening and destructive method of creation for a loving God. Bloody competition, extinction of millions of species of animals and plants – survival of the fittest and destruction of the unfit. That's not the God of the Bible who provides for the birds of the air (Matthew 6:26) and praises those who are kind to animals (Proverbs 12:10)!

One particular quotation from an evolutionist affirms the conflict between the two views. Jacques Monod wrote:

"[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms ... The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. [An] ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."

I have used the above quotation by evolutionist Monod in discussions with theistic evolutionists.

 

[Alcott]

Evolution would be a sickening and destructive method of creation for a loving God. ... That's not the God of the Bible who provides for the birds of the air (Matthew 6:26) and praises those who are kind to animals

He doesn't provide for the birds of the air in regard to keeping bigger carnivorous birds and shotgun blasts from killing them. And it's hard to see how "kind" it is to chop an animals jugular vein according to the kosher method of slaughter.

The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. [An] ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."

Evolution or not, that is precisely the case. Predators look for the young and old and sick and injured [slower; more defenseless] among their targets of prey. You're not arguing that God "set this up" are you?

 

[OldRegular]

[/I]

He doesn't provide for the birds of the air in regard to keeping bigger carnivorous birds and shotgun blasts from killing them. And it's hard to see how "kind" it is to chop an animals jugular vein according to the kosher method of slaughter.



Evolution or not, that is precisely the case. Predators look for the young and old and sick and injured [slower; more defenseless] among their targets of prey. You're not arguing that God "set this up" are you?

You are obviously ignoring or ignorant of the results of the Fall!

 

[Marcia]

[/i]

He doesn't provide for the birds of the air in regard to keeping bigger carnivorous birds and shotgun blasts from killing them. And it's hard to see how "kind" it is to chop an animals jugular vein according to the kosher method of slaughter.



Evolution or not, that is precisely the case. Predators look for the young and old and sick and injured [slower; more defenseless] among their targets of prey. You're not arguing that God "set this up" are you?

The quote was about life before the Fall! The Bible teaches there is no death before man's sin, but evolution has death happening for I guess billions of years, or at least millions of years before man supposedly came on the scene.

You misunderstood the point of the quote. Predators and killing birds came after the Fall. All this horrible death is a result of the Fall - I have God's word on it!

 

[Alcott]

You are obviously ignoring or ignorant of the results of the Fall!

<<Not really; that season only ended 4 months ago.>>

In your citation of Proverbs 12:10, is that in present tense, or does it refer only to 'before the fall?'

And explain how, if preying on the weakest is such a "cruel horrible process," how is it not cruel now? And while at it, explain why animals suffering cruelty was one of God's chosen effects of man's sin.

 

[Marcia]

And explain how, if preying on the weakest is such a "cruel horrible process," how is it not cruel now? And while at it, explain why animals suffering cruelty was one of God's chosen effects of man's sin.

I know you are asking OR, but here is my response:

Preying on the weakest is cruel now!

Animals suffering cruelty, as well as devastation through storms, earthquakes, etc. are all the result of man's sin, which ruptured the peace of earth. The eath was cursed (Gen 3.17) and creation groans in pain, anticipating redemption.

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.


For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope

that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Rom 8.19-22

 

[OldRegular]

<<Not really; that season only ended 4 months ago.>>

In your citation of Proverbs 12:10, is that in present tense, or does it refer only to 'before the fall?'

And explain how, if preying on the weakest is such a "cruel horrible process," how is it not cruel now? And while at it, explain why animals suffering cruelty was one of God's chosen effects of man's sin.

You are apparently too obstinate to recognize the effects of the Fall. Marcia has already explained the effect of the fall so I need not. By the way I did not quote Proverbs 12:10 Dr David H. Stone did.