Stunning victory of Creation

[Plain Old Bill]

Hank,
Well I spent the day ourside shoveling snow, making paths for the cars and the dog.
Do I ski? Not since I was young.But I suppose I could our farm is on a fairly steep hillside.

Hey guys I'm outa here the Grandkids just showed up.Gotta keep my priorities straight.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

When Copernicus was driven by his love of truth to publish his solar-centric theory of the universe, wherein all the planets move around the sun instead of the sun moving around the earth, he sure could have saved a lot of time by just checking with the church folks and listening to them when they insisted its the sun that moves instead of the earth . . . .

How come he knew something the church folks, reading their bible as they did to find it out, decided was untrue? The answer is simple; he was able to follow the evidence regardless of previous theological misinterpretations.

And the same thing is happening today before our eyes - history repeats itself!

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Well Paul if you have absolute incontrovertablw proof, go ahead and present it.We are willing to listen.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

And I won't be able to prove anything until I can get my computer to spell better.

 

[HankD]

when they insisted its the sun that moves instead of the earth . . . .

1) It does move.
2) It's all relative anyway.

HankD

 

[Plain Old Bill]

There is a site which like Talk.origen discusses evolution and creation it is called True.Origen and it rebuts the arguements on talk.origens very well.
I just thought we should have access to this site in the interest of having balanced resources for our discussions.

 

[UTEOTW]

That is a site I have spent much time at. I find it to be one of the best young earth websites.

One of the best things I can recommend, and something I love to do for different topics, is to read all that two opposing sources have to say on a topic. Contrasting Talk.Origins with True.Origins for example.

I'll give one example. Talk.Origins makes this easy because they often give links to YE web sites along with their discussion. Look at this page on entropy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

You will see links to True.Origins, ChristianAnswers.net, AnswersInGenesis.com, and ICR.com (Institute for Creation Research).

You will also find a long list of young earth resources there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-cre.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#creationism

So even if you are against the things that Talk.Origins have to say, you can still use it as a valuable resource. Use the search function for a given topic and I can almost guarantee that you will find links to things with which you will agree. You can then read both sides and decide for yourself.

 

[lchemist]

Originally posted by Phillip:

Can you tell me exactly WHY it would be a false choice to rely on the inspired Words of God, rather than the theories of man? You honestly do not think it is smarter to pick up your Bible first, before you read secular books? If you were going to be locked in a cell for life and could only take a Bible or five-thousand biology books of your choice, what would your choice be?

It is a false choice in this subject,because the dichotomy is not berween the Word of God and tha word of the scientists, but between a scientific theory and your particular interpretation of the bible.

I don't see anything to interpret. It is pretty clear on what it says about creation. Why would it make up a story that isn't true?

The mere fact you are reading and understnding a tet, any text, is in itself interpretation of that text. I never talked about a "story that isn't true"[/QUOTE][/qb]

If you cannot see their agenda, then you need to go back and read their posts again.

I do not have any hidden agenda.

If you, personally don't, then I appologize. I will say; however, that many people like Carl Sagan were on a crusade of religion. A crusade to destroy the belief in God. If you do not believe me, read all of his books and notice how many times he brings up the issue.

But this is a Baptist forum, we debate among believers.

They have YET to answer my question as to whether or not hell is real or whether or not the miracles of Jesus were real.

I do consider it "inside" this subject. If for no other reason that it shows me how you interpret THAT part of the Bible. Otherwise, you seem to be evading the answer. I don't think the moderator would mind you giving me a quick answer.

Probably this is a catch 22 kind of question, if I say they are literal you will say I am not consistant in my biblical interpretation, if I say they are allegorical you will dismiss me a "liberal". But for your information, yes I believe that hell and Jesus' miracles are real.

As a person who has made some of my living writing, your statement makes no sense to me. For example. What are the dynamic "keys" that indicate that the "genre" (as you put it) changes? If I were to write a book of fiction followed by fact, what would I do in that book to allow you to know when the fiction ended and the fact began?

But this is not how ancient sacred literature works, the issue of literary genres in the bible have been studied for many decades, a survey of the literature on this topic may help.

Again, I ask, WHY does God even need to include all of that allegory? Does it make us FEEL better? Does it help get us into heaven? Does it make us believe in the Son of God? Why? and again, obviously we are relying on YOUR interpretation to tell us exactly where to change from allegory to fact.

If for "that allegory" you mean Genesis, God doesn't need to include anything, but he decided to include it as part of his revelation to mankind. It helps us understand our relationship to our creator, the entrance of sin to the world, and our need for a redeemer.

Blessings.

Luis

 

[Phillip]

Thanks for answering my questions Ichemist. It was getting a little lonely tonight. It seems as though Sunday night is always that way.

I can accept your belief in Jesus' miracles and literal hell and it would not be correct logic, so I will spare you of that.

I do say I disagree with reading biological books first. Why? Assumptions have been made by scientists and evolution is just such a theory.

Remember, that science today says that things must be described as having been formed by no supernatural effect. It is not allowed. BUT, this is simply a restriction placed on it by scientists. It could just as easily be removed and supernatural explanations could be accepted.

Evolution is the ONLY choice for development of life, if there is no God. Therefore, its tight relationship with atheism. (I'm not accusing you, just making a comment.)

Since I cannot seem to point to the Bible as a debating option, maybe we can discuss some science.

For example, ever since sin entered the world, the excellent creation made by God has deteriorated. Information has been lost not gained.

Take for instance the bacteria that is immune to Penicillin. Certain bacteria do not have immunity, some do. The bacteria that isn't, dies and therefore its DNA is LOST, nothing is gained. Even ancient bacteria found in Antartica shows resistance to Penicillin without having to have exposure to it.

The same thing with bugs that become immune to insectide and rats that are immune to warfarin. At NO TIME has there been any proof of added or modified DNA. Accidental or mutations seem to take care of themselves.

No matter how the Bible explains the creation; why would God repeatedly mentions how good the creation is. Why would God have to go through trial and error to create something good? It just doesn't make sense. More later, I won't overload you. We hould stick to a few items at a time in order to keep from confusing issues. IMHO.

Thank you for being civil in our discussion.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Philip,

I would agree with Lchemist that it really isn't a choice between the words and the words of men (science).

The main reason that, while being a conservative Christian, I do not feel compelled to see Genesis 1-11 as literal is that the account has alot of features of ancient near eastern epic writing. Stories about creation, flood, towers, and people all speaking in one language are all represented in the literature of several other ancient near eastern societies. These parts of the Bible bear the marks that suggest that they are theological, and not literal, in their significance. On this point Marcia and I disagree significantly. Furthermore I think that the NT and most of the OT are fundamentally different in scope. The point about "why believe the gospels if you don't believe Genesis" is irrelevant because the Gospels WERE intended to be factual accounts and Genesis 1-11 was likely not.

It would be different if Genesis had said, "be ye not decieved, for God hath made the world in six days only, not little by little over the ages as man sayeth". But it didn't - largely because (I think) the particulars of how God did it are not the thrust of Genesis 1-11.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

It also does not say"As a prelude to the chapters 1-1 that they are for entertainment value only".There is no disclaimer or qualifier.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Phillip:
In a stunning victory of Creationism vs. evolution...

It's neither a victory nor a defeat for either side of the debate, or, for that matter, any positions in between. It's simply a sampling of opinion. Just like a poll on calvinism vs arminianism, or on divorce and remarriage, or dating polcies at BJU.

The main problem with the topic is not peoples' opinions. Healthy and respectful discussion is what the board is all about. The main problem is the copious amount of questioning peoples' faith, salvation, and commitment to scripture based on varying views on the topic. You find the same thing on topics on election and KJVOism. It's certainly the main reason why I tend to steer clear of these topics as a rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Philip,

I would agree with Lchemist that it really isn't a choice between the words and the words of men (science).

The main reason that, while being a conservative Christian, I do not feel compelled to see Genesis 1-11 as literal is that the account has alot of features of ancient near eastern epic writing. Stories about creation, flood, towers, and people all speaking in one language are all represented in the literature of several other ancient near eastern societies. These parts of the Bible bear the marks that suggest that they are theological, and not literal, in their significance. On this point Marcia and I disagree significantly. Furthermore I think that the NT and most of the OT are fundamentally different in scope. The point about "why believe the gospels if you don't believe Genesis" is irrelevant because the Gospels WERE intended to be factual accounts and Genesis 1-11 was likely not.

It would be different if Genesis had said, "be ye not decieved, for God hath made the world in six days only, not little by little over the ages as man sayeth". But it didn't - largely because (I think) the particulars of how God did it are not the thrust of Genesis 1-11.

Charles,
Have you ever given it any thought that a real creation that occurred the way it is described in Genesis would have the same account in many different ancient writings?

If you are going to argue that the Bible is "God breathed" then you are saying that he used some old myths for the first and then decided to "get real" later on.

It makes a lot more sense to believe that the creation story is true and other ancient documents are retelling the same story, probably based on the "oldest writings" which I would say came fro Moses.

The liberalness in interpretation of God's Word is even more stunning the the KJVo crowd.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
In a stunning victory of Creationism vs. evolution...

It's neither a victory nor a defeat for either side of the debate, or, for that matter, any positions in between. It's simply a sampling of opinion. Just like a poll on calvinism vs arminianism, or on divorce and remarriage, or dating polcies at BJU.

The main problem with the topic is not peoples' opinions. Healthy and respectful discussion is what the board is all about. The main problem is the copious amount of questioning peoples' faith, salvation, and commitment to scripture based on varying views on the topic. You find the same thing on topics on election and KJVOism. It's certainly the main reason why I tend to steer clear of these topics as a rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv, you ought to know me by now and know that my statement was intended to be humorous and not an attack on anybody.

All of you guys need to not get so uptight. Lighten up a little and have some fun.

My only point was that over 70% of the people have any common-horse-sense and the rest of you think the first half of the Bible came from the Chaldeans instead of God.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Were the Chaldeans a football team or what?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Phillip:
My only point was that over 70% of the people have any common-horse-sense and the rest of you think the first half of the Bible came from the Chaldeans instead of God.

My comment about the questioning of peoples' faith, salvation, and commitment to scripture based on varying views on the topic has just been proven. DOesn't matter what side of the debate that kind of comment comes from.

 

[lchemist]

Originally posted by Phillip:

I do say I disagree with reading biological books first. Why? Assumptions have been made by scientists and evolution is just such a theory.

I don't think it is a matter of reading biology first, but how do we deal with the data and theories and our interpretatiuo of nature and scripture. We are always making assumptions, but we should be aware of them and critically analyze them from time to time.

Remember, that science today says that things must be described as having been formed by no supernatural effect. It is not allowed. BUT, this is simply a restriction placed on it by scientists. It could just as easily be removed and supernatural explanations could be accepted.

There is not a ruling "Science" in the abstract, but a community of scientists, and as such we do not have the tools to deal with the "supernatural"

Evolution is the ONLY choice for development of life, if there is no God. Therefore, its tight relationship with atheism. (I'm not accusing you, just making a comment.)

If you are atheist you would probably support evolution, but the opposite is not true, the relationship between atheism and evolution is one way, and does not bear weight in our debate.

Since I cannot seem to point to the Bible as a debating option, maybe we can discuss some science.

But I insist that the issue is overall, one of biblical interpretation

For example, ever since sin entered the world, the excellent creation made by God has deteriorated. Information has been lost not gained.

You are assuming a lot here.

Take for instance the bacteria that is immune to Penicillin. Certain bacteria do not have immunity, some do. The bacteria that isn't, dies and therefore its DNA is LOST, nothing is gained. Even ancient bacteria found in Antartica shows resistance to Penicillin without having to have exposure to it.

The same thing with bugs that become immune to insectide and rats that are immune to warfarin. At NO TIME has there been any proof of added or modified DNA. Accidental or mutations seem to take care of themselves.

But those observations don't prove anything about the origins.

No matter how the Bible explains the creation; why would God repeatedly mentions how good the creation is. Why would God have to go through trial and error to create something good? It just doesn't make sense.

God mentions it because it is true, He does what he does because he is Lord, and He wishes so.

Blessings,

Luis

 

[lchemist]

Originally posted by Phillip:
My only point was that over 70% of the people have any common-horse-sense and the rest of you think the first half of the Bible came from the Chaldeans instead of God.

But as Christians we nelieve that God inspired people to write his Word, it did not came straight from heaven as is the claim of the Quran.

Luis

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Maybe I am wrong UTEOTW, but this sounds like you are arguing my point that a designer must be behind this..??"

That is a much more complex question than it seems. I'll try and be succinct. My opinion is that for the most part natural processes are able to account for the things we see.

There is the first assumption and the first problem. Saying something is "able to account" is no basis for saying that it did or that it excludes any other possibility... even those based on other presuppositions like a Creator.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


"What are you beliefs in the miracles of Jesus? Do you feel they were real? Just curious."

Absolutely real. God is not limited in His power. He certainly could create the world in 6 days. It just seems strange to me that He would have done so and made it look like He used long periods and natural processes.

Stranger than that He made a record of creation that He made to "look" as if it recorded actual events and people with significant detail that was apparently accepted by all subsequent biblical writers and characters as literal... but instead the proper interpretation was not possible until Darwin and Huxley attempted to propose a means for explaining creation without God? It was not possible until human wisdom overcame God's inability to express Himself clearly and factually to His people?

General revelation is completely subject to interpretation. Special revelation is much more direct and self-interpretting.

I asked a question before: Is scripture self-interpretting? If it is, what is the biblical case that Genesis is allegorical? What cross-references support this?

But I trust that God would not deceive us and if His creation shows common descent,...

But you do not trust that God would not deceive believers for more than 4000 years by letting them believe that creation was a direct act by Him? Whether Genesis is allegorical or not, there is no indication that I know of that believers prior to the 20th century did not accept its events and characters as literal.

To answer your last response on the other thread, I don't have all the answers either... nor do I have control of billions of research dollars to have people with technical expertise come up with ideas of how to make everything within the framework I propose function... nor am I the beneficiary (or victim) of billions spent by someone else to support alternatives to evolution.

Things I am relatively certain of however include the fact that adaption does occur commonly by the loss of information, ie. a whale that perhaps used to have fully functional back legs wouldn't be left with internal stumps by the accumulation of new information.

I am certain that no creature acquires anything beyond the capabilities it inherited from its parents. We see animals adapt but not by becoming more complex than their ancestors.

From this, I believe it to be a completely reasonable conclusion that speciation occurred by the specialization of original animals with greater genetic flexibility than by the accumulation of new information and genetic capabilities from simple forms.