Theistic evolution

[HankD]

With creation, we have the documentation of that history written in beams of light and layers of rock.

They do give that appearance and I accept it as such, an appearance, but even at that we may not have all of the facts and/or we may not be interpreting this "history" which is "written" in beams of light and rocks correctly.

Also we don't know that the wine or the loaves or the fishes did not have these similar appearances of "histories" "written" into their rna-dna etc, they certainly may have and I believe that they did.


HankD

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
They do give that appearance and I accept it as such, an appearance, but even at that we may not have all of the facts and/or we may not be interpreting this "history" which is "written" in beams of light and rocks correctly.

Aren't you now disputing the appearance of age that your argument assumes to exist? If the apparent age of the beams of light is acknowledged, as I thought you were doing before (at least for the sake of argument), then the apparent history is there as well. I don't see how one could claim that the beams of light were created old but the history recorded along them is recent. (God knows better than to put "new wine in old wineskins"! ) Similarly, it is not only the rocks that are dated old, but also the fossils within them.

If the appearance of age does exist, then we should use it for scientific purposes, because the apparent age will be more useful for equations and projections than any other age. That's why old-earth geology allows companies to find oil while young-earth geology isn't used. It doesn't work. If it did work, they would use it, because their commitment to the dollar is far higher than any zeal they have to spite creationists. If God wanted to make the universe look old, it would take considerable hubris to think that scientific methods would be able to see through his disguise. On the other hand, if the appearance of age does not exist, why do virtually all scientists in applicable fields see it?

Also we don't know that the wine or the loaves or the fishes did not have these similar appearances of "histories" "written" into their rna-dna etc, they certainly may have and I believe that they did.

In that case, your argument moves from what we know in another case based on Scripture's testimony to what may be true based on details Scripture doesn't reveal. I can just as easily say that I believe there would be no way for an observer to track down the history of those grapes to a specific vineyard and a specific vat. I think we can both agree that there would be no way for an observer in that time period to conduct such an analysis. In other words, when Jesus did that miracle, he did not also make an alternate historical explanation for the wine that could be apprehended by anyone who saw the wine. But, when it comes to the universe, we do have that historical explanation for how and when it was created, and we have the God-given faculties to be able to analyze it.

 

[HankD]

I believe there would be no way for an observer to track down the history of those grapes to a specific vineyard and a specific vat.

Just as modern observers perhaps can't trace down a specific horse to a primogenitor oehippus?

There is indeed an apparent conflict between the literal Genesis 1 account and the empirical observations and deductions made by science.

My present position is to go with the 7 day literal creation account in spite of the apparent scientific evidence.

I believe there is something missing from the scientific evidence that would reconcile what seems to be the unreconcilable (for instance:the light at the creation of and from the stars was projected into the outer limits of the expanse of matter in an instant).

If the Lord explains the apparent discrepancies between TE and 7 day creation and they come down on your side then OK, I'll eat humble pie (don't think it will matter then).

NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.


HankD

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by HankD:

My present position is to go with the 7 day literal creation account in spite of the apparent scientific evidence.

HankD

Which is why religion and science address two different realms. Faith makes a very poor way to make new discoveries, while at the same time it can be very fulfilling in the spiritual realm. Science cannot replace that, but it can lead us to new knowledge of God's creation. Religion starts with an answer and seeks comfirming evidence. Science starts with observation and tries to come up with the most likely hypothesis to explain those observed facts.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
If the Lord explains the apparent discrepancies between TE and 7 day creation and they come down on your side then OK, I'll eat humble pie (don't think it will matter then).

Yeah, I agree, and I'll gladly eat the humble pie if it turns out you don't have to.

(I'm sure we'll all have opportunity to eat our fill of it.)

 

[HankD]

Yeah, I agree, and I'll gladly eat the humble pie if it turns out you don't have to.

I'm sure we'll all have opportunity to eat our fill of it

I think you're right.

HankD