Is Gen 1-3 "real" or is Atheist Darwinism "Real"?

Jack, I'm going to answer your post bit by bit. This has been a field of study of my husband's and mine.

In the 1930's a fellow named Wiseman noticed something about the most ancient of tablets we have found in Mesopotamia. They were not signed at the top, or beginning, the way we title our documents now. Instead, they were signed off at the bottom with an interesting phrase: this is the generation of...

And he looked at the Bible. Genesis 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, etc. we see where the authors have signed off on their own eyewitness accounts of what happened in their lives. The first tablet, however, ends with Genesis 2:4a. So who wrote that one? Well, God wrote the Ten Commandments on stone Himself, so it is not a problem to attribute the opening of Genesis to the only Eyewitness who saw it: the Creator Himself.

Genesis does not give any indication that it is anything BUT eyewitness history. Details are remembered, conversations are remembered. There are no 'heros' of mythology there, but rather real people with real problems and real relationships. Warts and all.

You stated that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give two different orders of creation. No, they do not. There is a translation problems of two verbs, among other things, in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2:8, the pluperfect is absent from Hebrew and the correct translation should be "had planted". The same is in verse 19, where the Lord God "had formed". Thus, we find in Genesis 2, Adam's memories of those first days of his life.

Did the sun appear on day four after the first growth of plants? Yes, it did. If you study the formation of plasma currents and filaments, you will see how the entire universe was probably formed. In a single plasma filament, there forms, around its pinched middle, a 'string of beads' which follow each other in a circle, and finally swallow each other up until only the largest is left, circling the filament. Then, to the inside of that orbit, another string of beads is formed, and again only one will be left. This can happen several times, with each 'string of beads' forming inside the last. The final thing that happens is the 'lighting up' of what is left in the middle. That is how our solar system, and probably all solar systems, formed. The sun is the last part of each to light up, as it is in the middle.

So yes, the earth was formed before the sun. And yes, the plants were growing a day before our sun lit. The initial light for the earth probably came from the center of our galaxy, where there used to be a quasar. These are associated with the black holes as far out as we can see in space, and the further they are, the brighter the quasar; i.e. the longer ago, the brighter the quasar. With its light and the earth formed, plants were quite able to grow before the sun was formed.

When you mention that Moses may have decided to include what you consider contradictory accounts, and then the Hebrews consider the work to be inspired holy Scripture, you are in effect accusing the Hebrews of being incredibly stupid people. They weren't.

And no writing language existed early on? You will find that claim denied in Genesis 5:1.

Just because we don't have a full understanding of everything that happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Man's brain and understanding are not the be all and end all of knowledge! God is the be all and end all of all understanding. And He attributes historical accuracy to Genesis in His words when He was incarnated as our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Of course it's true!

God said it and that settles it - the fact that one does not believe it, does not negate it.

 

Tim thats a really great statement to show just how much of a Christian you are. I am saved whether you like it or not and the beliefs of the "details" are not going to keep me out of Heaven. As for my "heretical beliefs", I postulated them on my own just from reading the Bible. It's very blantant that the Bible is not all factual and you're somewhat deluded if you believe it is factual. The Bible even went through two councils of Nicaea, AD 325 and AD 787, to decide what should be put into the Bible and what should be kept out. Those men formed the message that the Bible was going to support.

Please find me evidence that Charles Darwin actually said this. And secondly, Darwin was the pioneer of evolution and he was the end-all-be-all. Just because Darwin felt that it would invalidate evolution doesn't mean that it does. Evolution is a fact whether everyone here likes to believe it or not. They're may be discrepancies and some holes, it is a fact that organisms DO change and adapt(evolve) to their surroundings.

Organisms DNA can change and adapt and humans are direct evidence of that. Again, here's evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Find me a link to...lets say 10 of those thousands of manuscripts you speak of.

You obviously missed my point earlier. I do know God, and I also know that just because a very fallible human being said he/she was inspired by God to write something doesn't mean its true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is their actually any scripture where God himself speaks out against homosexuality. I think it's more along the lines of people saw that it was something different and strange and they did'nt like it. So likewise they push an agenda into the Bible of what they believe God wouldn't approve of. Homosexuality is a natural occurance in nature. It sounds to me canadyjd, that you're just afraid you might have to treat homosexuals as people? Here's just one example of homosexuality in nature. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Please provide some links to that "evidence" Helen.

You're right annsni, evolution is not complete merely because we can't excavate every patch of land on the earth. They don't want to acknowledge a creator because they must be atheists, but there are many evolutionary scientists that are Christians. And please tell me what agenda evolutionary scientists are trying to push? I know that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris want to abolish religion, but they are definitely the minority in the field of science. And annsni, there is NO evidence to support that everything was created in 6 days.

Bob, you definitely haven't done your research here. Intelligent design(ID) has NOTHING to do with evolution and it is the farthest thing from science as you can get. ID is an abomination of both Christianity and science, and I plan to fight in every way I can to keep it out of the public schools in my country. Here's a 1 hour lecture from Ken Miller on the Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Bob, please provide a link to your claims.

The Bible wasn't written and bound by God, Bob. Sounds like you're afraid to me.

Please provide a link to where Darwin states that "Darwinsim is atheism", or something of that nature.

Annsni, have you ever even read a book on evolution? And can you even explain natural selection? Please don't preach to me about not doing my research because I assure you I have.

We don't toss it out the window, we merely must realize that just because something is written doesn't make it true. There are lies in the Bible I assure you, but that doesn't mean if you realize them you're not going to Heaven.

 

Rew_10, I must disagree with assertion that anybody who studies evolution will eventually accept it. After studying evolution, biochemistry, ecology, genetics, microbiology, physiology I had to reject evolution. The theory of evolution and its underlying assumptions cannot account for the complexity of life.

It really bugs me that people put forth evolution as fact when in reality by the conventions of science it is nothing more than an educated guess aka theory. It is no more or less valid as Intelligent Design. At the same time like every other attempt to "scientifically" explain the origins of life and the universe, it is a singular waste of time. You can't get very far in determining the truth when you are dealing with faulty data.

 

Rew_10,

If the Biblical account of creation is unreliable, then how do you know that any of the Bible is true? How do you know that Salvation is even possible? How do you know that you're saved?

As for me, I believe every bit of the Bible is true, even the parts I don't fully understand. I've staked my very life and future on it being true. If the Bible says that God created it all in 6 literal days, I believe He created it all in 6 literal days.

If your "god" isn't big enough to write a book of facts about himself that is entirely true, try my God out. He is a God of truth!

 

Oh, brother.

 

So you actually believe the earth is 6000 years old? I really hate to be rude, but Young Earth Creationists are delusional. While the earth MIGHT not be 4.5 billion years old, I'm certain geologists aren't off by 4,499,994,000 years. And no matter how much you believe it, its not going to change the age of the earth.

You can sit there and believe every bit of the Bible is true and factual, but you will forever be wrong. My relationship with God isn't going to be broken just because a book isn't factual. I feel very sorry for all of you who have such a superficial relationship.

And no one has said anything about my discussion of Noah's Ark. Please feel free to try and explain how that happened.

 

Chemnitz, there are some other theories out there too. Like that the Earth rotates around the Sun (which according to the Bible it doesn't), and of course that pesky idea of gravity.

And please explain to me how you THINK that Intelligent Design is on par with evolution.

 

"Real" Christians don't believe in a "real (physica) universe. They "believe in" a universe which is micromanaged by God and which would disappear if God took a nanosec vacation.

 

So you get to define who a "real" Christian is and who is not? I personally have my doubts that Jesus would even call himself a Christian if he was walking the Earth today.

 

And no one has said anything about my discussion of Noah's Ark.by Rew_10

WOW! I go make some sandwiches..... Can't wait to see what a [Rev_10] has to say about Noah!

........and you are "Saved"? based on what?

[Shiloh if you are going to have any credible debate here, please avoid name-calling, and personal attacks, also known as ad hominems]

 

Why shouldn't he. This debate is really going to be a barrel of laughs. You are 19 years old, a typical teenager who thinks he knows everything there is to know. As Chemitz demnonstrated he already has quite a bit of post-secondary education under neath his belt. How about postinng your qualifications on this subject. I could list mine but I don't think you want to hear them. I would rather you listen to what Helen has to say, and maybe she will post her qualification's and especially her husband's from whom she consults from time to time. Your arrogance on here has reached the heights of the mountain tops which God destroyed with a Flood. Beware!
You stated that evolution was a fact, yet you have yet to prove that statement. You just demand that we accept it whether we like it or not. That is like saying green is red whether we like it or not and we better accept it because you say so. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You must have demonstrable proof that it is a "fact." The truth is that evolution barely fits the definition of a hypothesis, much less the definition of a theory, and yet the evolutionists have the arrogance to state it and teach it in the schools as fact. For convenience and to give you the benefit of the doubt will concede this much and call it a "theory," but that is all it is. Usually it invades the area of metaphysics where it does not belong and becomes a religion unto itself, for it demands an element of faith to believe in. It is constantly putting itself outside the realm of science. You already have done that. You have treated evolution as a religion. In that you must make a decisiion. Do you believe in the religion of evolution, brought about as an option not to believe in God?

Julius Huxley once said:"I believe in evolution not because it is credible, but because belief in God is far too incredible."
In other word he didn't want to put himself under the authority of God, who would become His Master. He wanted a way out. He chose evolution instead--not because it was a credible theory, but because it was an easy way out not to believe in God.

Look up a good definition of science. Science needs an observer. Science is knowledge gained by observation, and then classified according to order. Science always needs an observer. Who was there to observe to the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth? Not any evolutionist? No one. It is outside the realm of science, and has entered into the realm of metaphysics where it doesn not belong. It has become a religion unto itself. It takes more faith to believe in the "big bang," then it does in ID, that God created a perfectly ordered universe within the space of six literal days as the Bible describes in Genesis one. But then you lack faith don't you. You have misplaced faith. Your faith is in a fable, a fairy tale so-called theory that never had an observer. It is a story, and that is all. It is outsided the realm of science. There is no reason for anyone to believe it. It cannot be proven.

 

I would rather stand before the Father and have Him tell me "I never intended for you to believe every word of my Bible" than stand before Him and hear Him say,"I said what I meant, I meant what I said, and I expected you to believe it!"

Believe whatever you want. If secular science and God disagree, I'm siding with God.

 

Where in the Bible does it ever claim the sun revolves around the earth?
The original objection toward Copernicus' theory was based upon Joshua 10: 13, where it records "And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day." The Roman Curia assumed this meant the sun revolved around the earth, however there is nothing to back up their assumption because the verse makes no mention of orbital dynamics beyond the sun and the moon not moving in the sky.

Gravity is a law, which means that it has been incontrovertibly observed and tested via reproducible experiments. Evolution on the other hand has not been incontrovertibly verified through reproducible experiments. It is an idea which purports to explain observations. In otherwords, evolution is merely a theory and can therefore be contested.

Evolution and ID are most definitely on par, neither can be proven. That aside they are on par because they are both drawn from observational data that has been gathered via the many scientific disciplines and contrary to the propoganda of the pro-evolution side ID is not an attempt to insert God. ID simply takes in the complexity of the systems at play and combines it with the observable data of intelligence creating other complex systems and thus concludes that life and the universe are the products of an unspecificed intelligence.

 

A hearty AMEN!

 

Yes I am 19 year old, and an intelligent one at that. And dear DHK, I'm far from typical and would never pretend to know everything. I don't have the qualifications that some of you have, but I'm sure I do have more authority than others as well. While I don't have any degrees(yet), I do read around 400 pages of "leisure reading" a day and keep a 3.87 GPA in an engineering program, so please don't label me as a "typical teenager".

Next, I never have and never will demand that you accept evolution because obviously people like you see it as blasphemy and will always refuse to accept it, no matter the evidence. For me it's obvious, even without any observation, that organisms would have to change and adapt over billions of years. I'm a pretty avid bird watcher, and if you just look through a Peterson guide and see all the different, but very similar species, its very obvious that they are the effects of evolution.

You say that,

You tell me your reasoning behind this. Would you rather Intelligent Design be taught in schools? And if so, go ahead and burn the U.S. Constitution while you're at it please. Again, go watch Ken Miller's lecture on ID. He is a Christian biologist at Brown University, and I have much respect for the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

No, I have a plenty of well founded faith in my relationship with God. I know that I will be going to Heaven and I certainly don't need your approval to get there. You on the other hand have the misplaced faith. Your faith is in a text written by human beings that claim to be inspired by God.

 

When ID partakes of years of rigorous study, debate and peer review, then it will have a place in the classroom. The proponents of ID want to go straight from the conception of the idea to the classroom. As I have said before, I will fight in every way I can to keep ID out of the public school system. If you want your kids to learn about it, be a parent and teach it to them at home. I refuse to allow theocratic "science" to be taught in America. It was the downfall of the Arabic scientific and mathematical world and it will be the downfall of ours if we don't stop it.

 

The only science which should be taught is good science. Rew is right.