Evolution in any form in the Bible?

I don't push an evidentialist position for apologetics. Neither do I put my belief of a physical resurrection on an evidential base. It is a matter of faith.

What is the respondent to "it" here? I'm not certain.

It's an issue of faith as far as the resurrection goes. As far as creation goes it is also a matter of faith. We cannot not know cosmologically what happened at the beginning of this age. We simply can't. It is a matter of faith.

What is observable is, when using tested scientific formulas and principles, we see there are more things at play than a simple 8,000 year creation. Yet it is not a lack of faith that brings me to this conclusion.

Where my faith incedes is where the observable evidence fails. There is no evidence for the cosmological creation event in any direction other than we are here. Yet there is an evidential basis for postulating that this whole thing is probably more than 8,000 years old.

Now could God have created everything and made it look like it was 5,000,000,000 years old? Certainly...but why? Why would God have created all of this in such a way to hide Himself so much from His penultimate creation, mankind?

Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God when he, Russell, met God at the end of his life once God asked him, Russell, why he hadn't believed in God. Russell replied that he would simply say: why did You, God, go to such great lengths to hide Yourself? While I completely disagree that God has gone to such great lengths (and further disagree with Russell in principle) there is something in that question that begs us to wonder why God, as revealed in the Scriptures would have gone to such great lengths to hide Himself particularly in creating this whole thing is such a way that it appears significantly older than He wants.

For young earth creationists to side step questions of evidence by throwing out that this whole thing was made to look old seems both disengenious to their own case and a rather silly way to attempt to deflect legitimate questions.

Again, I fully affirm the created order as presented in the Scriptures. I just think we can honestly and humbly disagree over the length of time and still be right and proper Christ followers. :godisgood:

 

:laugh: Well said! I look forward to reading more from Sailhammer.

 

Also, I'd love to hear what young earth creationists think about the epistemological issues at stake in the major questions here as I previously posted.

 

Given that God instructed them to Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, [Genesis 1:28] and given that Adam and Eve were childless until after the fall, I suggest that your rationale is nonsense.

 

One of things I've noticed about the old v. young argument too, is that us old-earthers usually have to be the more gracious, demurring of the two sides. For whatever reason its SO important that all of science be lies, and carbon dating be wrong, it is their beliefs that must be left alone.

Next come cries of heretic, but then, I think they said the same of Galileo... Then again, all his observations are lies. I'm sure that under some church foundations, the earth is still flat.

 

So we accept some science and throw out other science?

This is the problem I see with young earth advocates. They quickly point to science in some things and ignore science on other things. Now, the problem we all face is can we trust what science says or is it just assumptions based on probabilities and intelligent guesses? I don't know. What I do know is God could have created the Universe in 7, 24 hour days or He could have done it over billions of years. I have no problem with either view. I believe the Bible to be true and I believe true science to be equally true because God created those scientific laws just as He created the Universe.

To take the young advoctes view, you must believe that the universe is 6000-7000 light years in scope. Or you must believe that light travel has not been constant. You may say science says it was not constant but others say science says it has always been constant. But to use science to prove a young earth is to eventually lose the debate on other scientific fronts.

 

But if it is a literal morning and evening then isn't a literal sun required?

 

Yet young earthers will reject other science. On what grounds do you accept some and reject other?

 

Actually Carbon dating is subject to error for the simple reason that its use depends on the age of the earth being sufficiently old that Carbon 14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere. As with most dating methods the accuracy depends on the assumptions made. Not good science.

British thermodynamist Roy E. Peacock in his book A Brief History of Eternity and a visiting professor at the University of Pisa [Italy] notes that The problems experienced by Galileo resulted not from his science but the fact he published in the "vulgar tongue" Italian, rather then the accepted language of scientists, Latin. So you see all is not as you like to believe. Sad!

 

Frankly I don't know what's your problem. I said nothing about throwing out science. However, people must understand that science is based on observations. The only person present at creation was the Triune God and perhaps some angels. Also science is subject to constant change. There was a time when science stated that the four elements were earth, air, fire, and water. Before the atomic age scientists stated there were three basic particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now science states there are a dozen or so.

Wrong again. Many young earth advocates will double your age. Furthermore there are a number of physicists who are developing explanations for the apparent time lapse for star light to reach the earth. I believe that one of these is the husband of Helen who posted on this forum at one time.

The biggest problem I see is that some are just as eager to accept the truth of science, which I showed above is constantly changing and not necessarily trustworthy, as they are the inerrant, unchangeable Word of God.

 

Very aptly stated!

For me it simply boils down to one of two options.

You can either believe science (that is constantly under revision)
OR
you can believe the word of God as it's written (that is eternal and non-changing).

"As for me & my house-------!!"

 

For me science must be interpreted by the word of God.

 

Even though God says over and over, "there was evening and there was morning, the second (third, fourth, etc.) day?"

"Timeless?" But God says right away (Gen 1.14) that he created the lights (sun and moon) partly as tools to reckon time.

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years Gen 1.14

I would say from the narrative format that God is giving an account he expects us to take for what it says. When this was first given and the people with Moses heard this, they would have assumed it was literal. It is the plain meaning of the account. Why would God say each day and mean something else?

 

There is a lot of symbollic meanings to days, years, numbers and other things in the Bible.

For many years, dispensationalists had a gap theory between Gen 1: 1 & 1:2, so, allowing for natural process was not out of the question. Theistic evolution does not negate any scripture. It does help to account for many, many things not included in the scriptures.

Cheers,

Jim

 

How many days were Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall?

You mean it doesn't give all of that information?

What was happening in the world outside the garden during their time there?

You mean it doesn't say?

The problem is NOT that I think the Word of God could be wrong... The problem is that people think that nothing exists outside of what He wrote there.

 

You ignored OldRegular's comment on the last page. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. If, as you imply, millions of years (or even thousands or hundreds of thousands) went by before the fall, then that means Adam and Eve did not obey God in his commands for those millions of years.

 

I cannot think of anything scientific about scripture. It is all historical. Scripture is not repeatable and observable by the scientific method. God created . . . .

 

Thanks Matt. I was going to call Creyn's attention to that little bit of information. However, some people have convinced themselves that the first chapters of Genesis are myth and nothing will change their mind.

 

They may still have been "fuitful and multiply." They may have eaten an apple, a pear, a peach, a promegranite, a grapefruit, and a banana, and then started ciphering: "2 times 1 is 2; 2 times 2 is 4; 2 times 3 is sick-- uh, six......"

 

I am afraid that is about as serious as some take the Word of God.