Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[Revmitchell]

All I have to do is show other cultures not influenced by the bible

You could never show such a thing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What's so confusing about "I spoke and it happened?"

Even if God used evolution, what's so confusing about "I made ooze that brought forth man"?

I can explain the most confusing thing to my 6 and 8 year old children - can God not do that? Why would He lie - because if Genesis 1 and 2, which are written as a narrative, are not true, then God would be lying.

Because in his economy he wanted to make clear points that matter such as the value of humanity in that we are created in God's image. He wanted to ensure we understood he set everything in motion and the purpose he has for it. He wanted us to understand our relationship to him and our fall and redemption. Those were the points God wanted to get across not how we were made. Honestly, its enough that he did it. Getting into DNA, Mutations, Sting Theory, and all the rest would have confused his point because its not important. That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You could never show such a thing.

Are you certain? If I show that People in somewhere in eastern Asia or India that did not have direct contact with the bible believed in a 7 day week then I could say it developed naturally by observation. How about the Summerians or the Egyptians?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For instance

Extra-biblical locations sometimes mentioned as the birthplace of the 7-day week include: Babylon, Persia, and several others. The week was known in Rome before the advent of Christianity.

There are practical geometrical theories as well. For example, if you wrap a rubber band around 7 soda cans (or any other convenient circular objects). You get a perfect hexagon with the 7th can in the middle. It is the only stable configuration of wrapping more than 3 circular objects. Four, 5, and 6 objects will slip from one configuration to another. Ancients wrapping tent poles, small logs for firewood, or other ciruclar objects might have come upon this number and attach a mystical significance to it.

One viable theory correlates the seven day week to the seven (astrological) "planets" known to the ancients: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. The number seven does not seem an obvious choice to match lunar or solar periods, however. A solar year could be more evenly divided into weeks of 5 days, and the moon phases five-day and six-day weeks make a better short term fit (6 times 5 is 30) to the lunar (synodic) month (of about 29.53 days) than the current week (4 times 7 is 28). The seven-day week may have been chosen because its length approximates one moon phase (one quarter = 29.53 / 4 = 7.3825).

 

[Revmitchell]

Are you certain? If I show that People in somewhere in eastern Asia or India that did not have direct contact with the bible believed in a 7 day week then I could say it developed naturally by observation. How about the Summerians or the Egyptians?

Yea....you could say a lot of things. But none of it holds any water.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yea....you could say a lot of things. But none of it holds any water.

So could you Rev.

 

[annsni]

Because in his economy he wanted to make clear points that matter such as the value of humanity in that we are created in God's image. He wanted to ensure we understood he set everything in motion and the purpose he has for it. He wanted us to understand our relationship to him and our fall and redemption. Those were the points God wanted to get across not how we were made. Honestly, its enough that he did it. Getting into DNA, Mutations, Sting Theory, and all the rest would have confused his point because its not important. That's my take on it anyway.

Why would God have to get into DNA, mutations and such - or even things we have no clue about - in order to explain how He created us? As I said, I explain things to my children in an honest and age appropriate way. I don't tell them that babies come from a spermatazoa traveling through a fallopian tube at the time of ovulation and come in contact with an ovum, permeates the outer shell of the ovum and through a particular process, it becomes a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus then a birthed child. I just say that God has a part of the man and a part of the woman come together to make a new child. It's honest without any untruth and is appropriate for their understanding. Couldn't God have done that? Why would He make up a story, give it to us as fact then we find out later that He lied? What difference does that make in our understanding of God? How do we know that the life of Jesus and His death and resurrection wasn't some divine fairy tale that explained something we couldn't understand? That there is really some other way that God demonstrated His love to us but we wouldn't understand it and so He made up some story about a "Son" and what He did for us?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't cut it for me. God is a God of truth - not misleading stories.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why would God have to get into DNA, mutations and such - or even things we have no clue about - in order to explain how He created us? As I said, I explain things to my children in an honest and age appropriate way. I don't tell them that babies come from a spermatazoa traveling through a fallopian tube at the time of ovulation and come in contact with an ovum, permeates the outer shell of the ovum and through a particular process, it becomes a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus then a birthed child. I just say that God has a part of the man and a part of the woman come together to make a new child. It's honest without any untruth and is appropriate for their understanding. Couldn't God have done that? Why would He make up a story, give it to us as fact then we find out later that He lied? What difference does that make in our understanding of God? How do we know that the life of Jesus and His death and resurrection wasn't some divine fairy tale that explained something we couldn't understand? That there is really some other way that God demonstrated His love to us but we wouldn't understand it and so He made up some story about a "Son" and what He did for us?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't cut it for me. God is a God of truth - not misleading stories.

You and I agree but not with the final analysis. This is what I mean. God didn't make up a story. De narrated in such a way as to have us understand what's important. By God's words the universe is created but not how you think.
like with your reproduction analogy. I tell my young Children that God made Daddy with a seed who then gives it to Mommy. God helps Mommy add to the seed and grow the baby in her belly. Now everything. I said is true. But my kids may misunderstand what kind of seed I'm speaking of (Appleseeds?) or how long the process is or all of the rest. Did I lie? No. Was I purposely deceptive? No. But for their level of understanding I gave them enough information to continue with. As they get older all that other stuff will be flushed out.
I look at the creation account in Genesis the same way. Its an outline like my explination to the kids. If they took me literally the way they understood it they may come up with all sorts of weird ideas. It tells the truth and explains esential aspects of what information needs to get accross but it is by no means a manual on creation. The Like another poster (who believes in a literal view of creation) said their is something poetic because of how the 1st day relates to the 4th day and so on. I agree but not with a literal 6 day creation but an outline.

1:And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

4:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

where the 4th day is a subset of the first day. God created light and then organized them into stars galaxies etc...

2: And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

5: 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day

then God created the seas and the life associated with them day 5 is a subset of day 2

3: 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

6: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

And so God created the land and the creatures on them. Day 6 is a subset for day 3 and the day man was created.

So its not deceptive but outline and the days aren't meant to be taken literally. It catagorizes the process. Creation of light and then organizing into the universe, Creation of the sea and sea animals, creation of land and all land animals to include the creation of man.

Days 1-3 General outline
days 4-6 More specific.

 

[OldRegular]

Because in his economy he wanted to make clear points that matter such as the value of humanity in that we are created in God's image. He wanted to ensure we understood he set everything in motion and the purpose he has for it.

And He did all that in six days. A marvelous God wouldn't you say? And He did it so easily that some people just can not bring themselves to believe it. They want a God who has to do things like man, learn a little at a time as they work things out. Perhaps a little help from time and chance. A mutation or two would help if it didn't kill the host.

He wanted us to understand our relationship to him and our fall and redemption.

If it took Him millions of years to make man wonder how long He had to work on the plan of redemption?

Those were the points God wanted to get across not how we were made. Honestly, its enough that he did it. Getting into DNA, Mutations, Sting Theory, and all the rest would have confused his point because its not important. That's my take on it anyway.

Speaking of DNA, how about those mutations? They are nearly always detrimental, you know cause cancer and various and sundry other genetic diseases to kill man off, after it took God so long to make us. A Shame, that's what it is.

Heh! Its STRING Theory not Sting Theory. Of course that may be just some loopy idea like evolution.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And He did all that in six days. A marvelous God wouldn't you say? And He did it so easily that some people just can not bring themselves to believe it. They want a God who has to do things like man, learn a little at a time as they work things out. Perhaps a little help from time and chance. A mutation or two would help if it didn't kill the host.




If it took Him millions of years to make man wonder how long He had to work on the plan of redemption?




Speaking of DNA, how about those mutations? They are nearly always detrimental, you know cause cancer and various and sundry other genetic diseases to kill man off, after it took God so long to make us. A Shame, that's what it is.

Heh! Its STRING Theory not Sting Theory. Of course that may be just some loopy idea like evolution.

I mispelled String ok big whooop. As far as mutations here is an article on it.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

Despite creationist criticisms, this explanation has stood the test of time. Before the Industrial Revolution, a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation, whereas during the dark years it was a favorable (helpful) mutation.

 

[OldRegular]

They were still moths!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They were still moths!

Yeah but it shows your premise was misconstrued. And evolution takes 100,000 of years.

 

[annsni]

I mispelled String ok big whooop. As far as mutations here is an article on it.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

Despite creationist criticisms, this explanation has stood the test of time. Before the Industrial Revolution, a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation, whereas during the dark years it was a favorable (helpful) mutation.

Let's take a look at the facts:

Creationists were never concerned with this population shift. In fact, they were amused as evolutionists made such a big fuss over it. If this is the best "proof" of evolution, then evolution is without proof.

Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited.

The textbooks seldom point out that in recent decades, as England has cleaned its atmosphere, the shift has reversed and now the lights are the more common form once again. Remember, this shift and shift back again have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of moths, or how moths and people could share a common ancestor.

And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell's compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.

What a wonderful time to be a creationist, when even the supposed best proof of evolution in action is so flimsy that it cannot stand the test of truth.

from http://www.icr.org/article/what-about-peppered-moth/

The fact is that it was the same moth with different coloration. It is not a mutation at all - since both moths exist at the same time. Even today, both exist. This is a very thin argument - and one in which we just know the facts: camoflage is important to the survival of a particular species. But unless we see a genetic mutation occurring (which it did not), this is not an example of evolution at all.

 

[Marcia]

God did know but he also knew if he "broke it down to us" we would be confused so he got his point across in a way we would understand. Just like Jesus told parables to get his point across.

So are you implying God deceived us instead of being accurate? If he knew we and others would interpret 6 days as 6 days, then that is what He meant.

If it were really hundreds of thousands of years instead of a day, that would be deceptive. Genesis 1 is not a parable.

 

[OldRegular]

Genesis 1 is not a parable.

Would that all Christians would understand this truth. If God did not create us why would God incarnate, Jesus Christ, die on a Roman Cross to redeem us?

 

[Deacon]

If he [God] knew we and others would interpret 6 days as 6 days, then that is what He meant.

You don't really mean that do you?
The majority interpretation wins??? NOOOooooo....

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
Proverbs 25:2 NASB95

Rob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So are you implying God deceived us instead of being accurate? If he knew we and others would interpret 6 days as 6 days, then that is what He meant.

If it were really hundreds of thousands of years instead of a day, that would be deceptive. Genesis 1 is not a parable.

No you got it wrong. Refer to post 208 where I explain why its not deceptive and how I view it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's take a look at the facts:



from http://www.icr.org/article/what-about-peppered-moth/

The fact is that it was the same moth with different coloration. It is not a mutation at all - since both moths exist at the same time. Even today, both exist. This is a very thin argument - and one in which we just know the facts: camoflage is important to the survival of a particular species. But unless we see a genetic mutation occurring (which it did not), this is not an example of evolution at all.

The person you quote has no understanding of the fundamental consept for evolution. Mutation is one aspect but the more significant aspect is natural selection. Which this is a perfect example. You have one moth with the mutation of pigmitation. the Moth is then able to spread its gene as it is the only survivor. Natural selection perfectly at work which has everything to do with the theory of evolution and populations.

 

[OldRegular]

The person you quote has no understanding of the fundamental consept for evolution. Mutation is one aspect but the more significant aspect is natural selection. Which this is a perfect example. You have one moth with the mutation of pigmitation. the Moth is then able to spread its gene as it is the only survivor. Natural selection perfectly at work which has everything to do with the theory of evolution and populations.

Is it still a moth or is it a bird or is it something else; just what is it? I am sure that Dr Morris [ the one who has no understanding of the fundamental consept for evolution.] would like to know so he can further his evolutionary prowess? Actually I suspect that you are not nearly as schooled on evolutionary concepts as you think you are or as Dr. Morris is.

In truth God's people of the Old Testament are perhaps unique in their understanding of origins. Evolutionary concepts are almost as old as mankind; they did not originate with Darwin. The Apostle Paul deals with the error of mankind in general in Romans 1.

Modern man is not markedly different from ancient man, though his gods may be. He is certainly more elegant in defining his theology or lack therof. Science and technology are popular modern gods. Evolution, a pseudo science, is also a popular god of the day though in reality many pagan religions espoused some primitive form of evolution. Unfortunately many professing Christians are quick to adopt the error of evolution, thinking I suspect, it is a sign of superior intelligence.

Humanism, the idea that man is sufficient unto himself and therefore claiming to be atheistic, is another currently popular god, very closely related to the gods of evolution, science, and technology. Environmentalism, a modern form of pantheism, is the god of many and appears to be rapidly gaining new adherents.

 

[Jarthur001]

Probably from some religious myth :tongue3:

More likely it was breaking down the lunar cycle into quarters. But honestly, I don't know. I haven't really looked into it.

humm. Well that is to bad that you have not studied it.

But, as God would have it, there has been many studies done on the subject. The week has no astronomical basis whatever! This is why evolutionary atheist have tried to change the number of days in a week. They know and understand where it comes from.

Lenin, who was an evolutionary atheist tried this just after the Russian Revolution. He abolished the seven-day week and replaced it with a five-day week. All because he hated the idea of God and he knew the 7 day week pointed to God.