Stunning victory of Creation

Many are geologists and many others are not necessarily astronomers, although that was their PHD work, they are working in the space field (not necessarily civilian--a lot of science takes place that you and the rest of the world are not privy to).

An evolutionary biologist would naturally have to believe in evolution since that is all he studied. So, DUH, let's leave out the "evolutionary" biologist and maybe just include the "biologist" whether "micro" or other specialization.

 

Oh, I have no doubt about that and I agree 100% with you here. YEAAAHHHHH we agree. One step forward....

Yes, you are right. Basically, I was categorizing primarily what I was seeing on this particular debate. It was my understanding that most of you who believe in evolution did not believe in a real Adam and Eve (as real individual people). If I am wrong, then please correct me about your own belief so that I know where our debate actually lies. The more we believe in together the better off we will be in the long-run as far as the debate goes. IMHO

 

Charles, I have very little seminary schooling. But, what little I do have is mostly Old Testament studies. (about 30 college hours)--the rest in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. These were taken AFTER I became an engineer.

I am NOT simply sitting in a comfort zone and your statements about me not wishing to disturb it could not be further from the truth.

In the past -- I HAVE been full-evolutionist (NO GOD), full-evolution (theistic), and finally Old Earth (no evolution) for years and years until I finally kept studying and studying and came to the conclusion that both the "evidence" and the "Bible" point towards a six day creation.

So, please, lets drop the personal insults and focus on the SUBJECT.

Why don't you start by telling me EXACTLY what you believe as far as creation goes. Was there any supernatural intervention?

Did Adam and Eve REALLY exist? etc. etc. I think you know very well, where I stand.

Then lets redirect and go from there debating the issues where we disagree; period. Okie-dokie?

 

I too am sorry if I misunderstood you. I often have to read these threads in a rush and I have mistaken an intended statement, particularly by taking it out of context. I appologize to you for accusing you of something that you obviously did not intend nor actully did.

Although I do disagree with you on many issues I don't think they are insurmountable. Your theory was very similar to the theory that I had just before I finally took the YEC theory.

If I understand your beliefs correctly, I can accept it much easier than I can accept the fact that humans evolved from one celled life.

I cn also agree with you on your question of HOW God heals or makes "good wine".

Personally, I believe in a literal six day because of my studies of the Old Testament have led me to believe that it is very literal and discussing a six day creation period. If you disagree due to gaps or the use of the word "Yom" as "ages"; I cannot for certain say that you are wrong. I will admit that right up front. And, no i do not have all of the answers as to why much evidence points towards an old universe, but it is my opinion tht lot of new evidence and explanations of older evidence has begun to point towards young Earth. I will not, cram this down your throat; however, because I did believe that way.

Now, as far as evolution to the point that man becomes an evolved being, I will fight that argument tooth and nail. The main reason is partially the fact that I cannot reinterpret Genesis to become a "complete" myth that means nothing more than God had a hand or control in the creation process. There is simply too much specific information there for it to be allegorical.

Another problem that I have with evolution is that scientists who cannot accept any supernatural creative activity (100% naturalistic) is a theory that was developed because it was the only real explanation of where life came from if God does not exist.

By accepting evolution as the the full "life" creation makes for real problems not only based on my personal studies of the entire bible, but also of science (believe it or not).

Since you have been fair and open with me I will be the same with you. Most of the scientists that I know have and many still are working on very high-tech military projects that require very solid understandings of space physics (linking them together with many astrophysicists with NASA, etc.). It is hard for many people to understand, but launching a missile in the middle of the ocean and targeting it to hit a ten foot location entirely by internal control requires an awfully good scientist who understands astrophysics, minute and almost imperceptable perterbations in the orbit of the Earth and other planets (Yes, they do effect the travel of a missile. Especially the Sun and moon.) So, therefore, many of these scientists are extremely capable. Biologists are used for projects of which many are black, but you can probably figure out some of them. DNA and genetic scientists have often shared knowledge learned years back with scientists in the medical field to bring them up to speed to help cure cancer and other things that help out humanity.

Many of these scientists have provided Nasa with technology for technology used in the Hubble (obviously from spy technology). ..many working with radiometric data, many studying the universes background radiation long before it became a major target of secular scientists (I worked with this project). All I am saying is that although most of these people are not published and cannot be, many are on the leading edge in their technology and because they may not carry the title of "evolutionary biologist" does not mean that they are incapable of studying and understanding the data of those who do publish and certainly they are capable of understanding what many of us do not understand. I too have to take the words of many scientists, but many of these who are Christians have seen fit to take me under their wing and help me understand the difficult parts and based on this and my studies of the Old Testament, you know my conclusions.

Many of these scientists are accepted Christ and many of those are YEC believers (most of the Christains I know are, and none are macro-evolution believers) and they did NOT obtain their information based on a guess. They studied it like I did and talked to cohorts in the specific fields they had questions in. Some even teach Sunday School.

Okay, there is part of my story and the reason for my beliefs. I hope you can better appreciate my position, whether or not you can accept it.

But, I cannot accept the argument of others on this thread who claim that a physicist is not capable of studying the results of a biologist and making their own conclusions.

I know of at least one former NASA geologist who is now a Christian and is young earth. His main reasoning for young earth? The old YEC argument about the amount of dust on the moon. Many scientists today claim that is bogus, but he claims it is not and really expected a very deep layer of powder. When it was not found he was stunned.

It is also these same scientists that keep telling me that in 100 years we will view all of the evidence that we see today in an entirely different light and will look back at today's brilliant men and realize just how much they misinterpreted their data. Just as in the days of Capernaum.

In answer to another person's question on does the dat point to old earth. Some seems to and more and more seems to point to young earth. Some of that data, not even I can be told about, but someday we will find that we view everything through our own filters of preconceived ideas.

Just some thoughts. I think between the two sides of the debate, that we may be the closest to undertanding each other, this is the reason I am being so open with you and I hope you can appreciate that and if nothing else we cn agree that we can disagree, but both of us know that God created the universe.

 

On my laptop tonight. Some of the keys don't hit everytime, sorry about the misprints in the novel above.

 

Thank you for the understanding Charles. I do not disagree with you either and I too have a problem with a lot of YEC scientists who have twisted data to fit their theory. I feel this does more damage to their own theory than just being honest and saying "We don't know, but God can do it."

Yes, the scientists I talk to admit there are many questions and actually today there are questions on BOTH sides that do not have answers.

I still like to say that we have just barely scratched the surface in science and it is very possible we will never get answers to many of the questions until we are standing before God. I think all of us might be suprised at the answers.

Although a lot here may jump me for saying this, I CAN accept your Old Earth creation as a legitimate interpretation of Genesis. But, as I said, my limit is a completely allegorical Genesis and macro-evolution from a single cell to humans. I can't handle that one and I will debate that with vengence. To me it is but one step from complete "naturalism" and the loss of God's omnipotency.

Have a great week Charles.

 

You have an excellent point.

This is the point that Carl Sagan kept trying to make. If intelligent life is found on other planets it would cause a rift in the Christian religion. I do not think it would cause the collapse of religion as Sagan predicted, but it does show a problem with pre-conceived ideas.

The actual constant teaching and preaching of the YEC groups could cause the same problem.

I like to study these issues, (and debate); but I guess that we should certainly be careful about what we try to cram down the new Christian's throat as being "factual".

 

How does this verse fit with billions of years of evolution? Are we going to start making the gospels allegorical?

Mar 10:6

(ALT) "But from [the] beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' [Gen 1:27]

(ASV) But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.

(CEV) But in the beginning God made a man and a woman.

(Darby) but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(DRB) But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

(EMTV) But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'

(ESV) But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

(GB) But at the beginning of the creation God made them male and female:

(GNT) ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς ὁ Θεός·

(KJV+) But1161 from575 the beginning746 of the creation2937 God2316 made4160 them846 male730 and2532 female.2338

(KJVA) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(UPDV) But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female he made them.

 

Join us on "Impossible evolutionary steps" and see if you can come up with steps required have an organ "evolve" which would not survive the evolutionary rule of survival of the fittest.

The question is, can we show organs or body parts that require multiple things to fit together that could not evolve and would have to be "designed" together.

 

By the way, please do not misunderstand my post above to say that I am compromising my belief in YEC theory. I am simply stating that if there is proven to be an "old earth" I could accept it if there were a gap or "yom" actually was intended to mean "age".

I used to believe this way, but have since started believing in the YEC.

My limitations would be:
1) No death before sin.
2) Genesis is still literal and not allegorical.
3) There is no macro-evolution from one species to another. (Each reproduced after its own kind).

So, Charles, I guess my big gotcha is the death before sin does not correspond with what I would believe that God would accept as a creation that is pronounced to be "very good".

Does this boil down to how much each verse of Genesis is taken literally?

Just throwing out for discussion. . . . . .