-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Stunning victory of Creation
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
The Big Bang is a cosmological theory that has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological theory. It is not a denial of Genesis. Obviously no one saw it but we have plenty of evidence pointing to irs reality.
By the way if you think that the Big Bang is hard to swallow, wait to read about String Theory.</font>[/QUOTE]Evolution, as you well know, does not just affect the science of Biology. It crosses almost every realm of science: cosmology, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, anthropology, etc. What branch of science hasn't it affected??
Evolution is not science by the very definition of science--knowledge gained by observation. Science needs an observer. Without observation there is no science. This is very basic. Any chemist would understand this principle.
The Big Bang theory is basic to evolution. Where did it all begin? It all began with a denial of God. It is an alternative religion. A relgion with no scientific basis, no observable facts to stand upon.
Ridiculous. What evidence does any man have for the Big Bang hypothesis, if it be deemed worthy of being called a hypothesis yet? Was anyone around to observe this taking place? NO. This is not science, but scientism, "science falsely so called."
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
DHK
"Nice job evading my whole post. If you don't want to deal with the reality of the fact that God created things mature, then just say so. Say you don't want to deal with it, but your being perplexed doesn't change anything. It just shows you are unwilling to consider this possibility."
No, I think you misunderstand my post.
Most of the things that are used as indications of great age of the earth or for biological evolution or for the history of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with making the earth functional.
That is what I find perplexing. You seem to think that a "mature" universe should show signs of billions of years of change even though few of those things are actually needed to make the earth habitable.
Appearance of age is a worthless explanation for most of what we see unless you want to say that God arbitrarily made the whole earth, the whole universe and all of life on earth appear to have formed over billions of years when it really did not. That makes no sense to me. God is not the author of confusion and would not do such. In a literal, recent six day creation you would expect the apparent maturity to be limited to those things that are needed to prepare the earth for life.
No, I think you misunderstand my post.
Most of the things that are used as indications of great age of the earth or for biological evolution or for the history of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with making the earth functional.
That is what I find perplexing. You seem to think that a "mature" universe should show signs of billions of years of change even though few of those things are actually needed to make the earth habitable.
Appearance of age is a worthless explanation for most of what we see unless you want to say that God arbitrarily made the whole earth, the whole universe and all of life on earth appear to have formed over billions of years when it really did not. That makes no sense to me. God is not the author of confusion and would not do such. In a literal, recent six day creation you would expect the apparent maturity to be limited to those things that are needed to prepare the earth for life.
"That is why I gave you a quote from Huxley."
Could you please give us a citation for your Huxley "quote?" I tried Googling the quote and various parts of it and I could only find you making the quote. If it is a paraphrase, you may want to indicate such.
Besides, you do realize you are dealing with fellow Christians here don't you. We have no such desire to get rid of God. We only search for the truth. So even though Huxley has said things along those lines, they do not apply.
"Evolution, as you well know, does not just affect the science of Biology. It crosses almost every realm of science: cosmology, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, anthropology, etc. What branch of science hasn't it affected??"
Let's see... Evolution has not affected chemistry, cosmology, physics, geology, general relativity, astronomy, thermodynamics... Need I go on?
Evolution is purely a biological theory. Astronomers take no care with biological theory when analyzing the heavens. It is preposterous to suggest so.
"Evolution is not science by the very definition of science--knowledge gained by observation. Science needs an observer. Without observation there is no science. This is very basic."
So when a genesticists sequences DNA and looks at the sequence she is not an observer? So when a paleontologists examines a fossil he is not an observer? So when a molecular biologists compares proteins from different species he is not an observer? Other scientists are unable to independently carry out similar observations to see if they reach the same conclusions? This data cannot be used to make predictions which are confirmed or rejected by future observations? One of us may have a major misunderstanding of how science works.
"Ridiculous. What evidence does any man have for the Big Bang hypothesis, if it be deemed worthy of being called a hypothesis yet?"
There is much evidence. Perhaps you have not examined any of it.
Inflation predicts that the geometry of the universe should be flat. This is a major problem since it has long been known that the universe only contains less than 5% of the mass needed for such a geometry in the entire visible universe. However, recent observations using different methods and different techniques have all come to the same conclusion. The mass of the universe is made up of 4.4% oridinary matter, 22.4% dark matter and 73% dark energy. Suddenly the predictions of inflation are seen to agree with the universe in astounding detail. What do you think the geometry of the universe should be and why?
According to inflation, in the early universe the inflaton field got "stuck" at a value other than zero for a brief period. During this moment, the size of the visible universe increased enormously as space expanded at much greater than the speed of light. The field returned to an average value of zero at slightly different moment throughout the universe. This meant that small quantum flucuations were blown up to macro scales by the inflaton field. If infaltion is true, then the large scale structure of the universe should follow this very specific pattern of how variations in the size of structures are spread across the sky. It is a very detailed and specific prediction. Recent observations have shown that the large scale structures of the universe are indeed distributed according to how inflation predicts. How do you think that large scale structures of the universe should be distributed and why?
Infaltion predicts that the nucleosynthesis of the early universe should lead to specific ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium. We find thses ratios to be true. What ratios of the primary elements would you expect to find and why?
As the universe expanded, it should have cooled. After some amount of cooling, a temperature would be reached when the particles could combine to form neutral atoms. Before this moment, light was scattered. After this, the light could travel freely. However, if you look far enough back in time, you can se this surface of last scattering. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background. It is the left over heat of the Big Bang. It exists. And patterns in the CMB confirm many theories from inflation. Where do you think the CMB originates and what sort of patterns would you expect to see?
We see that the universe today continues to expand in every direction. This expansion is measured through something very close to the Doppler effect. Why do you think the universe is expanding?
The universe is found to look identical (when considering large scales) in every direction. Inflation predicts and explains this smoothness. Why do you think the universe is so smooth?
We can look back in time and see that the early universe is made up of generally smaller galaxies and is lacking in heavy elements. In an old universe, this is explained. For the most part, smaller galaxies merge to form larger galaxies. Elements heavier than lithium require production in stars; early on, these elements would not have been produced yet in abundance. How do you explain this?
That is enough for now.
Could you please give us a citation for your Huxley "quote?" I tried Googling the quote and various parts of it and I could only find you making the quote. If it is a paraphrase, you may want to indicate such.
Besides, you do realize you are dealing with fellow Christians here don't you. We have no such desire to get rid of God. We only search for the truth. So even though Huxley has said things along those lines, they do not apply.
"Evolution, as you well know, does not just affect the science of Biology. It crosses almost every realm of science: cosmology, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, anthropology, etc. What branch of science hasn't it affected??"
Let's see... Evolution has not affected chemistry, cosmology, physics, geology, general relativity, astronomy, thermodynamics... Need I go on?
Evolution is purely a biological theory. Astronomers take no care with biological theory when analyzing the heavens. It is preposterous to suggest so.
"Evolution is not science by the very definition of science--knowledge gained by observation. Science needs an observer. Without observation there is no science. This is very basic."
So when a genesticists sequences DNA and looks at the sequence she is not an observer? So when a paleontologists examines a fossil he is not an observer? So when a molecular biologists compares proteins from different species he is not an observer? Other scientists are unable to independently carry out similar observations to see if they reach the same conclusions? This data cannot be used to make predictions which are confirmed or rejected by future observations? One of us may have a major misunderstanding of how science works.
"Ridiculous. What evidence does any man have for the Big Bang hypothesis, if it be deemed worthy of being called a hypothesis yet?"
There is much evidence. Perhaps you have not examined any of it.
Inflation predicts that the geometry of the universe should be flat. This is a major problem since it has long been known that the universe only contains less than 5% of the mass needed for such a geometry in the entire visible universe. However, recent observations using different methods and different techniques have all come to the same conclusion. The mass of the universe is made up of 4.4% oridinary matter, 22.4% dark matter and 73% dark energy. Suddenly the predictions of inflation are seen to agree with the universe in astounding detail. What do you think the geometry of the universe should be and why?
According to inflation, in the early universe the inflaton field got "stuck" at a value other than zero for a brief period. During this moment, the size of the visible universe increased enormously as space expanded at much greater than the speed of light. The field returned to an average value of zero at slightly different moment throughout the universe. This meant that small quantum flucuations were blown up to macro scales by the inflaton field. If infaltion is true, then the large scale structure of the universe should follow this very specific pattern of how variations in the size of structures are spread across the sky. It is a very detailed and specific prediction. Recent observations have shown that the large scale structures of the universe are indeed distributed according to how inflation predicts. How do you think that large scale structures of the universe should be distributed and why?
Infaltion predicts that the nucleosynthesis of the early universe should lead to specific ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium. We find thses ratios to be true. What ratios of the primary elements would you expect to find and why?
As the universe expanded, it should have cooled. After some amount of cooling, a temperature would be reached when the particles could combine to form neutral atoms. Before this moment, light was scattered. After this, the light could travel freely. However, if you look far enough back in time, you can se this surface of last scattering. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background. It is the left over heat of the Big Bang. It exists. And patterns in the CMB confirm many theories from inflation. Where do you think the CMB originates and what sort of patterns would you expect to see?
We see that the universe today continues to expand in every direction. This expansion is measured through something very close to the Doppler effect. Why do you think the universe is expanding?
The universe is found to look identical (when considering large scales) in every direction. Inflation predicts and explains this smoothness. Why do you think the universe is so smooth?
We can look back in time and see that the early universe is made up of generally smaller galaxies and is lacking in heavy elements. In an old universe, this is explained. For the most part, smaller galaxies merge to form larger galaxies. Elements heavier than lithium require production in stars; early on, these elements would not have been produced yet in abundance. How do you explain this?
That is enough for now.
"So you acknowledge that if God in His sovereignty decided to create the world fully fitted for His purposes including what would appear to natural, fallible, carnal men to be an appearance of age in 6 days- there is no reason why He couldn't?"
Yes. But most of what serves as indication of age and of evolution serves no purpose in forming a functional planet. You would have to suppose that God then deliberately chose to make His creation look as though He used long term means even though He did not and that these indications serve no functional purpose.
"I have identifed my standard. I do not believe that species arose over millions of years by accumulated genetic complexity for two reasons. One, we don't observe that in nature- changes and adaptation but no increased complexity resulting in the formation of new species."
Wrong. We observe increasing complexity. We observe new genes. We observe new pathways. We observe new functions. We observe speciation. What we cannot observe in our lifetimes are the larger changes. New genera. New families. These simply take too long. But we can observe the processes that lead to such and we do have fossil records of such change taking place.
But, if we cannot accept anything that we cannot live long enough to directly observe, then how do you convince me of the life cycle of a redwood tree? No one has ever observed the complete life cycle!
"This was miraculous event and we have absolutely no idea what the mechanics were. Poor example. "
Of course it was miraculous. That does not change the fact that the sun literally standing still would not accomplish what happened! The earth standing still would. But it was written for the people of the time to understand! It is true, an actual event and not literal!
I see ou snipped the other examples of the waters being divided and the storehouses for the hail and for the snow and so on. More examples of God using non-literal wording to decscribe actual occurances. Or do you think that rain in the OT was literally caused by windows opening in the sky?
"Or environmental conditions on land were much more effective in purging these things out... or they don't all go back to the same ancestor."
So for one path, the changes were accomplished thorugh changes in developmental genes while in another path, whole genes were neatly excised and removed? Specualtion without a shred of evidence. At least I can and have pointed to numerous lines of evidence that independently support my conclusions.
"Or immature animals were taken, or only the best examples of the "kinds" were taken on board and many species perished completely."
Babies require even more food! And much behavior is learned from parents. A bunch of immature animals would be hard pressed to later survive.
But that's not all. So there was some speciation before the flood. So now you move away from your insisted upon literal view and say that instead of two of everything it was only really two representatives. We'll let that departure go for now.
So the flood would fossilize these initial species. (Ignoring again the fact that fossils do not show evidence of having been formed in such an event. Minor detail, I know, but one more where your story falls short.) So as these "examples" came off the ark, they again speciated to give us the diversity we see.
Problems.
First, we are back to the initial problems I gave you with this scenario. Was you go through your bottleneck of two, you have no population diversity with which to speciate. And since you have already gone through speciation, whatever rich genome (again, though there is no indication of how this would work or genetic evidence of such richness) would have already been at least partially depleted.
But your idea raises another problem. The fossil species would then bear no relationship to the species we see today. Take the doggy kind for example. We ee numerous fossil canines and can trace those fossils to todays species. But, according to your idea, from these fossil species, one uber kind would have been selected for the ark and today's species would have then descended from the pair. So there would be no connection between the species in the fossil record and the extant species.
"Just gave you a way."
A flawed way inconsistent with observations...
"Did you know that all of these capabilities were inherited and that none of them arose spontaneously? Did you know that the result of all of these duplications and mutations was never the evolution of a new species or anything like such a transition?[/]"
Assertions without evidence.
New capabilities have been observed to arise spontaneously. Mutation. And we have numerous examples of transistions.
"Is a literal reading of Genesis possibly true? If you say it is not, in what way is God not able to create everything according to the outline and timeframe detailed there? "
God is capable of doing anything He wishes. If He did create recently, then He went through a lot of trouble to make it look like He used other means.
Yes. But most of what serves as indication of age and of evolution serves no purpose in forming a functional planet. You would have to suppose that God then deliberately chose to make His creation look as though He used long term means even though He did not and that these indications serve no functional purpose.
"I have identifed my standard. I do not believe that species arose over millions of years by accumulated genetic complexity for two reasons. One, we don't observe that in nature- changes and adaptation but no increased complexity resulting in the formation of new species."
Wrong. We observe increasing complexity. We observe new genes. We observe new pathways. We observe new functions. We observe speciation. What we cannot observe in our lifetimes are the larger changes. New genera. New families. These simply take too long. But we can observe the processes that lead to such and we do have fossil records of such change taking place.
But, if we cannot accept anything that we cannot live long enough to directly observe, then how do you convince me of the life cycle of a redwood tree? No one has ever observed the complete life cycle!
"This was miraculous event and we have absolutely no idea what the mechanics were. Poor example. "
Of course it was miraculous. That does not change the fact that the sun literally standing still would not accomplish what happened! The earth standing still would. But it was written for the people of the time to understand! It is true, an actual event and not literal!
I see ou snipped the other examples of the waters being divided and the storehouses for the hail and for the snow and so on. More examples of God using non-literal wording to decscribe actual occurances. Or do you think that rain in the OT was literally caused by windows opening in the sky?
"Or environmental conditions on land were much more effective in purging these things out... or they don't all go back to the same ancestor."
So for one path, the changes were accomplished thorugh changes in developmental genes while in another path, whole genes were neatly excised and removed? Specualtion without a shred of evidence. At least I can and have pointed to numerous lines of evidence that independently support my conclusions.
"Or immature animals were taken, or only the best examples of the "kinds" were taken on board and many species perished completely."
Babies require even more food! And much behavior is learned from parents. A bunch of immature animals would be hard pressed to later survive.
But that's not all. So there was some speciation before the flood. So now you move away from your insisted upon literal view and say that instead of two of everything it was only really two representatives. We'll let that departure go for now.
So the flood would fossilize these initial species. (Ignoring again the fact that fossils do not show evidence of having been formed in such an event. Minor detail, I know, but one more where your story falls short.) So as these "examples" came off the ark, they again speciated to give us the diversity we see.
Problems.
First, we are back to the initial problems I gave you with this scenario. Was you go through your bottleneck of two, you have no population diversity with which to speciate. And since you have already gone through speciation, whatever rich genome (again, though there is no indication of how this would work or genetic evidence of such richness) would have already been at least partially depleted.
But your idea raises another problem. The fossil species would then bear no relationship to the species we see today. Take the doggy kind for example. We ee numerous fossil canines and can trace those fossils to todays species. But, according to your idea, from these fossil species, one uber kind would have been selected for the ark and today's species would have then descended from the pair. So there would be no connection between the species in the fossil record and the extant species.
"Just gave you a way."
A flawed way inconsistent with observations...
"Did you know that all of these capabilities were inherited and that none of them arose spontaneously? Did you know that the result of all of these duplications and mutations was never the evolution of a new species or anything like such a transition?[/]"
Assertions without evidence.
New capabilities have been observed to arise spontaneously. Mutation. And we have numerous examples of transistions.
"Is a literal reading of Genesis possibly true? If you say it is not, in what way is God not able to create everything according to the outline and timeframe detailed there? "
God is capable of doing anything He wishes. If He did create recently, then He went through a lot of trouble to make it look like He used other means.
Charles Meadows
New Member
DHK,
If you had any knowledge of the Hebrew language and the precise words that are used in the first chapter on Genesis one, then you would know that God didn't leave any disagreement for the method of creation. He told us exactly how he created the world in six literal days. There is no other interpretation. There is no allegory here, and no proof of one. The Hebrew does not allow for one; only man's wishful thinking and his unbelief.
If you had knowledge of the "other side's" actual argument you would realize that no one suggests an "allegorical" interpretation of Genesis 1-11 - well no one with any knowledge of hebrew syntax AND near eastern writing.
What most evolutionists and old earthers suggest is that Genesis 1 was written as theological epic, not intending to literally describe creation and notintending to be directly symbolic of anything. The point would be that Moses was showing that YHWH was THE creator God; and he was doing so using mythic type language with which the ancient Hebrews would identify.
If you had any knowledge of the Hebrew language and the precise words that are used in the first chapter on Genesis one, then you would know that God didn't leave any disagreement for the method of creation. He told us exactly how he created the world in six literal days. There is no other interpretation. There is no allegory here, and no proof of one. The Hebrew does not allow for one; only man's wishful thinking and his unbelief.
If you had knowledge of the "other side's" actual argument you would realize that no one suggests an "allegorical" interpretation of Genesis 1-11 - well no one with any knowledge of hebrew syntax AND near eastern writing.
What most evolutionists and old earthers suggest is that Genesis 1 was written as theological epic, not intending to literally describe creation and notintending to be directly symbolic of anything. The point would be that Moses was showing that YHWH was THE creator God; and he was doing so using mythic type language with which the ancient Hebrews would identify.
Charles Meadows
New Member
Oops - I used a split infinitive! I should have said "to describe literally" 
I agree, although I don't think it was "a lot of trouble".
I like to use the example of the wine Jesus "made" at the wedding at Cana.
It was the "best" wine. This indicates a lot of time, care and concern was taken in the planting, growing, pruning, culturing, harvesting, squeezing and aging of the grapes/grape juice/wine.
Fully developed wine also indicates certain historical conditions beyond the control of man must have ocurred such as sunshine, rain, etc.
Yet Jesus "made" it in an instant.
HankD
Glory Bound
New Member
I have a problem with the idea that God would be deceptive if he created matter with all of the attributes of age. If the Bible stated that man could deternine the age of the Earth by measuring certain elements then yes, God would be deceptive in creating things that we would measure as older.
But this concept of dating things is something man has come up with. So it may be accurate completely - pointing to a true age of millions of years. Or it may only be accurate up to the point where God created it 6-10 thousand years ago. I don't know which is true.
Let's just not accuse God of trying to trick us, okay?
Technically evolution is just a biological theory, we can talk about the evolution of the universe, but that is an extension of the concept of “Evolution of the Species”
As a biological theory it has not affected for example Chemistry, to name a subject familiar to me.
We may talk about chemical evolution to explain how molecules such as ADN may change, and we use chemistry as a tool in biology, that’s why Chemistry is called the central science, but no chemical theory has been affected by the evolution of the species.
Your definition that Science requires always an observer is not accurate, it would leave whole branches of physics outside the realm of science, since, for example, many findings in particle physics cannot be directly observed. As the Philosopher of Chemistry Erick Scerri has pointed out, no one has really observed an atomic orbital, but we use that model every day in our work.
When the Big Bang was proposed, it was resisted by many who assumed an eternal universe, because if the Big bang actually happened, that would indicate a beginning. It was accepted because the astronomical evidence was very strong.
Currently a group of physicists are working in String (M) Theory, if it could be proven right, it may imply that the Big bang is just one of multiple origins of possible multiple universes.
You are missusing that verse, the word gnosis in this verse cannot be applied to modern science, which was developed in the seventeenth century, but to heretics teachings threatening the church.
As we see:
“1Ti 6:20 - KJV wording: science gnosis; - alternative translation: knowledge (or: Gnosis)
o Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles, translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, page 92) comment:
"Knowledge" (gnosis) is used here in the technical sense as the self-designation of the false teachers. The question as to what kind of Gnosis is represented by these people is not answered by this designation. But it certainly was a particular teaching which could be differentiated from that of the church.
o Daniel C. Arichea and Howard A. Hatton (A Handbook on Paul's Letters to Timothy and to Titus, New York: United Bible Societies, 1995, page 164) comment:
The expression what is falsely called knowledge has given rise to some problems of interpretation. Some interpreters have claimed that what is being referred to here is a certain Gnostic movement, since the Gnostics claim to possess a certain kind of knowledge that enables them to have communion with the divine. Others maintain that it is not Gnosticism that is being referred to here but the teachings of the false teachers that are described in various ways in the letters (see especially 1.3-7 and 4.1-4).
It is difficult to be sure, but the use of the word knowledge seems to indicate that some form of Gnosticism was present at that time; it is even possible that some of the false teachers were influenced in some way by Gnostic teaching, as for instance the emphasis on genealogies...
Another way to express this clause is "that some people say is 'knowledge,' but it really isn't."
An alternative translation model for this verse is:
Timothy, you must keep safe what God has given you to look after. Don't listen to people who incessantly say stupid (or, empty) words that show no reverence for God, and argue stupidly. They call this "knowledge," but it really isn't.”
[ January 12, 2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: lchemist ]
"I agree, although I don't think it was "a lot of trouble". "
Yes, a poor choice of wording. I should have said something more like meticulous or careful.
"I like to use the example of the wine Jesus "made" at the wedding at Cana.
It was the "best" wine. This indicates a lot of time, care and concern was taken in the planting, growing, pruning, culturing, harvesting, squeezing and aging of the grapes/grape juice/wine.
Fully developed wine also indicates certain historical conditions beyond the control of man must have ocurred such as sunshine, rain, etc.
Yet Jesus "made" it in an instant."
Yes. But again look at the difference. Jesus made the wine. It was the best wine. That certainly does imply things about the wine that in this case to assume would have been incorrect.
However, all that was part of the functionality. Jesus made the best wine. The things you would assume to have happened would be part of what goes into making a great wine.
By the same token, I can accept an appearance of age where it related to making the earth functional. Fertile soil, established rivers, mature plants, mature animals, etc.
But then we get to the difference. I don't think that because Jesus turned water to wine that some vintner then remembered making or selling this perfect wine that he neither made nor sold. People's memories of the past weather did not change to match that which would produce the best wine.
By the same token, most of the things which indicate great age and let us know about the history of the creation have nothing to do with making the earth habitable for humans. Giving humans and the other apes a pattern of shared retroviral insertions that matches the fossil record of common descent does not make the earth functional for God's creation.
Giving whales olfactory genes that do not work that are just like those of land dwelling relatives do nothing to make the whales a more perfect creation or make the biosphere more habitable.
Making the ratios of elements in the universe match predictions of the Big Bang do not make it more habitable.
Making the large scale distribution of matter in the universe match the predictions of inflation do not make it more habitable.
Making the geometry and total amount of matter in the universe match the predictions of inflation do not make it more habitable.
Let's give another example. Look at this picture.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2002/11/images/d/formats/web_print.jpg
The arrangement of these galaxies show that the gravitational disruption is the result of repeated passes, the last being about 160 million years ago. These features could not have formed in a few thousand years even if the stars were moving at the speed of light. So God found it necessary to make these galaxies, 300 million light years away, appear just as they would if they had been gravitationally interacting for hundreds of millions of years?!? This adds what functionality?
You accept that the natural state, what a "mature" earth and universe should look like, is one in which forces have been shaping them for billions of years?
So, yes, if the creation was recent then God was very meticulous about ensuring that all of creation looks like He took billions of years to accomplish His will.
Yes, a poor choice of wording. I should have said something more like meticulous or careful.
"I like to use the example of the wine Jesus "made" at the wedding at Cana.
It was the "best" wine. This indicates a lot of time, care and concern was taken in the planting, growing, pruning, culturing, harvesting, squeezing and aging of the grapes/grape juice/wine.
Fully developed wine also indicates certain historical conditions beyond the control of man must have ocurred such as sunshine, rain, etc.
Yet Jesus "made" it in an instant."
Yes. But again look at the difference. Jesus made the wine. It was the best wine. That certainly does imply things about the wine that in this case to assume would have been incorrect.
However, all that was part of the functionality. Jesus made the best wine. The things you would assume to have happened would be part of what goes into making a great wine.
By the same token, I can accept an appearance of age where it related to making the earth functional. Fertile soil, established rivers, mature plants, mature animals, etc.
But then we get to the difference. I don't think that because Jesus turned water to wine that some vintner then remembered making or selling this perfect wine that he neither made nor sold. People's memories of the past weather did not change to match that which would produce the best wine.
By the same token, most of the things which indicate great age and let us know about the history of the creation have nothing to do with making the earth habitable for humans. Giving humans and the other apes a pattern of shared retroviral insertions that matches the fossil record of common descent does not make the earth functional for God's creation.
Giving whales olfactory genes that do not work that are just like those of land dwelling relatives do nothing to make the whales a more perfect creation or make the biosphere more habitable.
Making the ratios of elements in the universe match predictions of the Big Bang do not make it more habitable.
Making the large scale distribution of matter in the universe match the predictions of inflation do not make it more habitable.
Making the geometry and total amount of matter in the universe match the predictions of inflation do not make it more habitable.
Let's give another example. Look at this picture.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2002/11/images/d/formats/web_print.jpg
The arrangement of these galaxies show that the gravitational disruption is the result of repeated passes, the last being about 160 million years ago. These features could not have formed in a few thousand years even if the stars were moving at the speed of light. So God found it necessary to make these galaxies, 300 million light years away, appear just as they would if they had been gravitationally interacting for hundreds of millions of years?!? This adds what functionality?
You accept that the natural state, what a "mature" earth and universe should look like, is one in which forces have been shaping them for billions of years?
So, yes, if the creation was recent then God was very meticulous about ensuring that all of creation looks like He took billions of years to accomplish His will.
"If the Bible stated that man could deternine the age of the Earth by measuring certain elements then yes, God would be deceptive in creating things that we would measure as older."
Is it wrong (or not possible) for me to measure the component gasses leaving a reactor using the absorption of specific frequencies of infrared light because it is not mentioned as possible in the Bible?
"Let's just not accuse God of trying to trick us, okay?"
I do not believe that He did so. The creation is a testament to His creation. I believe it is possible to learn something of the methods of creation by studying the creation. I believe that God gave us the intellect and the drive to do so. I believe He wants us to learn just how awesome the universe is from the tiniest living organism to the largest animals and from grand scale of the universe right down to the small strings that may make up all matter in the universe. I do not think that there is a reasonable rationale to say why God would have created the universe recently only to make every scrap fit together as if it were created over long periods of time.
Is it wrong (or not possible) for me to measure the component gasses leaving a reactor using the absorption of specific frequencies of infrared light because it is not mentioned as possible in the Bible?
"Let's just not accuse God of trying to trick us, okay?"
I do not believe that He did so. The creation is a testament to His creation. I believe it is possible to learn something of the methods of creation by studying the creation. I believe that God gave us the intellect and the drive to do so. I believe He wants us to learn just how awesome the universe is from the tiniest living organism to the largest animals and from grand scale of the universe right down to the small strings that may make up all matter in the universe. I do not think that there is a reasonable rationale to say why God would have created the universe recently only to make every scrap fit together as if it were created over long periods of time.
Macroevolution is not supported by the evidence. It is an extrapolation of the evidence at best. </font>[/QUOTE]May be, but the weight of the evidence points towards evolution rather than to YES, specially regarding the idea of a very young earth, which is ridiculous in view of the geological data.
Luis </font>[/QUOTE]That is only true if you do not accept what God said as evidence but rather limit "evidence" to observations made of nature governed by materialistic presuppositions.
What "gap" do you think is too big for God to fill?
Evolutionists scoff at "God in the gaps."
Tell me, who would scoff at "carpenter in the gaps" to explain a wall?
Once you accept God with the power and intelligence attributed to Him in the scripture, your contention that the evidence points toward evolution no longer holds water.
Let me illustrate with a real world example:
In Bolingbrook IL where I used to live, there is a mfg plant in an industrial park with interesting landscaping. Whoever planned the building wanted the property to resemble a wetland. So, in less than a month, a bull dozer had scraped out a shallow pond, the proper grasses were seeded, fish were stocked, etc. Soon the landscaping had the appearance of a natural "mature" marsh complete with waterfowl.
This is done on a larger scale in efforts to reconstruct wetlands to preserve/restore animal habitats. These kinds of marshes can, did, and do form on their own naturally in many, many years. But with the application of intelligence and construction abilities, they can be constructed in only months. We know that certain aspects of "maturity" are necessary for the system to work and not only put them in place at the start but prompt/accelerate their development so that the system will work to support the desired species.
My point is that an intelligent designer/builder negates the limitations of "natural processes only"... especially concerning time.
This also goes to answer UT's objections about some "appearance of age" things not being required. The natural order fits together in a way that is sustaining and self-correcting. The fact that we may not have the ability to discern the importance of interdependencies does not mean that it is not there now, will not be required in the future, or was not required in the past.
No problem so far.
I do not believe that God would have told us that He created the world in 6 days if He had not done so.
As many have pointed out, even we as humans see the value in building things with traits that might be construed as an appearance of age. Furniture mfrs try to cause an appearance of age just because people like the way it looks.
In this last phrase, you seem to be making yourself the judge of God's motives.
Does God owe us a "reasonable rationale" for the things He chooses to do? Do you presume that man has the ability to even discern what God's "reasonable rationale" is in every case unless He reveals it to us in scripture?
The simplest answer might be the best: God made an "apperance of age" because it suited a divine purpose that He chose not to reveal to you and me.
We cannot exalt the mind of man to the point of saying that if it doesn't make sense to us then God must not have done it or could not have had a reason to do it.
"This also goes to answer UT's objections about some "appearance of age" things not being required. The natural order fits together in a way that is sustaining and self-correcting. The fact that we may not have the ability to discern the importance of interdependencies does not mean that it is not there now, will not be required in the future, or was not required in the past."
You think it was necessary for the "Mice" galaxies, 300 million light years away, to have been formed in a way that makes them appear to have been gravitationally interacting for hundreds of millions of years so that the earth would be "sustaining and self-correcting?"
You think that it was necessary for the large scale structure of the universe to match the predictions of inflation for the earth to be "sustaining and self-correcting?"
You think it was necessary for hundreds of different genes in your own body, from psuedogenes to Y-linked noncoding regions to autosomal intergenic regions to X-linked noncoding regions to synonymous sitesto introns to nonsynonymous sites to chimeric genes to transposons to retorviral inserts (most of these non-functional DNA) to all give the same evolutionary tree, independent from each other, as what the fossil record shows for us to be "sustaining and self-correcting?" Those people who suffer from scurvy being helped by that shared mutation among all the primates that prevents us from making vitamin C?
If was necessary to sort the rocks in the earth according to their ratios of radioactive elements to make the earth "sustaining and self-correcting?"
You think it was necessary for the "Mice" galaxies, 300 million light years away, to have been formed in a way that makes them appear to have been gravitationally interacting for hundreds of millions of years so that the earth would be "sustaining and self-correcting?"
You think that it was necessary for the large scale structure of the universe to match the predictions of inflation for the earth to be "sustaining and self-correcting?"
You think it was necessary for hundreds of different genes in your own body, from psuedogenes to Y-linked noncoding regions to autosomal intergenic regions to X-linked noncoding regions to synonymous sitesto introns to nonsynonymous sites to chimeric genes to transposons to retorviral inserts (most of these non-functional DNA) to all give the same evolutionary tree, independent from each other, as what the fossil record shows for us to be "sustaining and self-correcting?" Those people who suffer from scurvy being helped by that shared mutation among all the primates that prevents us from making vitamin C?
If was necessary to sort the rocks in the earth according to their ratios of radioactive elements to make the earth "sustaining and self-correcting?"
It is able, that is not the question. How he did it is.</font>[/QUOTE] If you are going to undertake a serious inquiry into how God might have done it, the last thing you should want to do is limit a supernatural Being to natural presuppositions.
As I said before and you never adequately answered, you can't start a discussion of how God did something by assuming that He didn't do it.
Evolution attempts to explain what exists absent a creating God. It does not intend to deny Him but rather the necessity of Him in creation.
There is no more merit in ignoring God than in denying Him.
Then can you explain why in 4500 years, N
NE interpretted Genesis in such a way? Why did God keep faithful people in the dark until someone came along and developed a theory based on the willful decision to disclude God from creation?"Does God owe us a "reasonable rationale" for the things He chooses to do? Do you presume that man has the ability to even discern what God's "reasonable rationale" is in every case unless He reveals it to us in scripture?
The simplest answer might be the best: God made an "apperance of age" because it suited a divine purpose that He chose not to reveal to you and me."
No. But if that is the case then we lose the ability to determine the truth about the world around us. If God would arbitrarily do such things then there is no rhyme or reason to the world. If we can never trust that things are as they seem then we lose the logic behind much of our existance. But in reality we see that God does not seem so arbitrary. Our observations of the universe reveal constantly that cause and effect work and do so in repeatable ways. It allows us to do all the things that we do.
"Then can you explain why in 4500 years, NNE interpretted Genesis in such a way? Why did God keep faithful people in the dark until someone came along and developed a theory based on the willful decision to disclude God from creation?"
Why did we go on so long think the earth stood still and it was the sun that moved? Why was that interpretation of scripture wrong for so long without anyone noticing?
"Why did God keep faithful people in the dark until someone came along and developed a theory based on the willful decision to disclude God from creation?"
Is chemistry wrong because it assumes that its results are the product of natural processes and not divine intervention? What about high energy physics? What about thermodynamics? What about aeronautics?
[ January 12, 2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]
The simplest answer might be the best: God made an "apperance of age" because it suited a divine purpose that He chose not to reveal to you and me."
No. But if that is the case then we lose the ability to determine the truth about the world around us. If God would arbitrarily do such things then there is no rhyme or reason to the world. If we can never trust that things are as they seem then we lose the logic behind much of our existance. But in reality we see that God does not seem so arbitrary. Our observations of the universe reveal constantly that cause and effect work and do so in repeatable ways. It allows us to do all the things that we do.
"Then can you explain why in 4500 years, N
NE interpretted Genesis in such a way? Why did God keep faithful people in the dark until someone came along and developed a theory based on the willful decision to disclude God from creation?"Why did we go on so long think the earth stood still and it was the sun that moved? Why was that interpretation of scripture wrong for so long without anyone noticing?
"Why did God keep faithful people in the dark until someone came along and developed a theory based on the willful decision to disclude God from creation?"
Is chemistry wrong because it assumes that its results are the product of natural processes and not divine intervention? What about high energy physics? What about thermodynamics? What about aeronautics?
[ January 12, 2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]
Yes. There is a balance in the universe that is interdependent.
Probably. I think these calculations are well beyond you or me.
I deny that the assumptions involved in the above classification according to the framework provided by the theory of evolution are necessarily true.
You recently pointed out that there were parallel duplications going on with the human race. Yet here you deny that genetic similarities between men and various animals could have produced a similar result. You aren't being consistent. You only consider how the evidence works to your favor. You are limiting God.
We discussed this at length. All this proves is a similarity in construction, not a common ancestor.
Please tell me the possible reasons you can imagine that God might have done this over the course of millions of years... and you will have answers as to why He might have done it in less than 10K years. I am not asking for the "how" here but the "why". God could have done it any "how" He chose.
Perhaps it is nothing more than to see if men would believe His Word or their own mind. Before you go into it, this is no more deceptive than the test (allegorical or not) that God put into the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
God gave man the intellect to see that the tree was "good for food", "pleasant to the eyes" (interesting it had an appearance that led to a wrong conclusion), and "a tree to be desired to make one wise" but forbad them from eating it.
Why? Why would He give them something with such an attractive appearance then tell them it was undesirable? Was His will that they have this fruit not revealed in His "making it appear" a certain way?
No Sir, I hang my hope on the Word-of-God. Not what I see or think I see. It just HAPPENS that the Word-Of-God says that the world was created in 6 days. This is not only repeated, but confirmed in other books of the Bible. Personally, I do not care what ancient man thought about the way the Bible was written. It was written for ALL generations and I clearly read a six day creation, period. This is not a matter of interpretation unless you simply want to change fact to fiction or reality to fairy-tales.
You tend to pull my statements apart from the context with which we were talking at the time. Am I going to have to start re-writing everything I said before so that you quit pulling me out of context?
You brought up all of the "evidence" we see. I simply made mention that in 200 years, it was very possible that the evidence may not even LOOK the same to us, because of advances in science. I am not hanging my hat on anything, because why or how God did it is described in Genesis and He did it in six days.
I could discuss background microwave radiation with you until we were both blue in the face. I could show you things that you have no idea about, but I'm not turning this thread into a debate on one specific scientific subject. we can open a new thread if you wish to debate background radiation and if that is what you want to discuss, that is GREAT because that is something I know a LOT about.
Back to the point of this whole thing. I could care less why God made something LOOK old. In reality, we will probably find scientific evidence in the future that will show a reason, but at this point in time, our science is just scratching the surface of this universe. We don't hardly know anything and if you take the stance that we do, you are even going beyond what most research scientists will tell you. Unless they just happen to be very egotistical and the god complex has overshadowed their view of the truth.
Yes, I HANG MY HAT on the Word-Of-God. You obviously say that the Word-of-God is okay to hang your hat on, but it has to fit the evidence. So, you MUST say that the genesis account of creation is false. There is a big difference between saying the Word-of-God that we hold in our hands is not interpreted properly and should be interpreted exactly opposite of what it really says, and questioning why God would make background radiation make the universe appear old. Have you ever considered that there just MIGHT be a reason that it appears old that we have not yet discovered? You are taking all scientific evidence as "written in stone". Having worked many cases with attorneys, you case would be thrown out for circumstantial evidence with no review.
No it doesn't. God doesn't have to reveal "all" or "any" truth we want for us to be able to determine the truth He does want us to know.
God is never arbitrary... however we usually cannot discern the whole of His purpose and sometimes none of it.
You are way, way over generalizing. We have reason to doubt that things are the way "they seem" when God says differently.
Cause: "God created...". Effect: Things are what they are regardless of whether interpretive "appearances" about age are accurate or not.
Can you cite scripture that specifically says that the sun orbits the earth? I can cite scripture that says that "God created... morning and evening... a day"."Then can you explain why in 4500 years, N
Why did we go on so long think the earth stood still and it was the sun that moved? Why was that interpretation of scripture wrong for so long without anyone noticing?
Oranges and apples.
I don't think that either of us doubt that God created the natural laws that are now in operation. That isn't the question. The question is how much supernatural involvement did God actually have in creation and when did it occur.