My position-- or lack of one

Quite right. But you should at least attempt to synchronize it with scripture, don't you think?

Quickly lost interest? My posts are quite thorough and longer than all the other posts combined. Sure I don't have as much time to post here as I used to... but come on - that was pretty in depth.

Mercury - I am hurt that you would say such things. Is there another reason for stating it besides an attempt to be rude and hurtful? By FAR I post more scripture than ANYONE supporting evolution on this board. Moreover, what I post is both in context and exegetically sound. I frequently even go as far as to bring in the Hebrew definitions of the words for a clearer exegesis. The evolutionists position on this board has been that the Bible is silent regarding the origins debate - so I am uncertain where or how you think I am shying away from studying what the Bible says. In fact, I have been trying to get you guys to view the Bible as the only authentic historical account of origins.

The evolutionists here have frequently equated the creation account in Genesis as allegorical, 'a bit off', 'not quite right', or simply a spiritual story that didn't actually happen. It's not my words - I claim it's literal history - but the words of those defending evolution.

 

Gup, I don't want to get into a debate on debating styles. I was not attempting to be rude or hurtful. It was an observation. If you found it hurtful, my apologies.

That's the whole problem, though. The words aren't ones used by those defending evolution. The only ones who use such disparaging phrases about God's word (such as "only allegorical fairy tale") are some YECs and unbelievers.

 

Well it's certainly not an accurate observation. I use far more scripture to back up what I say than anyone here arguing for evolution. Moreover, those here claim the Bible doesn't talk about such things as the literal origins of the world or it's inhabitants.

 

Yes, but if Lubenow is right and certain aspects of human evolution from African apes as taught by evolution scientists may be seen as a form of scientific racism, why should those specific racist views be condoned and tolerated in our churches?

 

Of course. Lubenow documents the many disagreements amongst professional paleoanthropologists in his newly revised and updated 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

Lubenow demonstrates how human evolution from African apes is falsified by the human fossil record itself and fully justifies his contention that any evolutionist thesis or belief which posits that people evolved from African apes in Africa once upon a time, is inherently racist even if "scientific."

 

"What I mean is that you subscribe to a theory who's a priori assumption is that God doesn't exist."

Strike!

It makes NO assumptions about a Creator though it does exclude supernatural events as being a controllable, reproducible field of study and therefore beyond the ability of science to study.

"Censorship isn't my cup of tea - but it's the only game in town if you are an evolutionist"

No censorship required for me or for sceince, thank you very much.

"What were you before you were a YE? What did you believe about the origin of man when you made a decision to get saved?"

I had not considered orgins theories at the time. Not something a lot of children spend their time worrying about.

"The other method of avoiding and undermining that would lead to the end of the chrsitian's faith is to propose that God used evolution."

Look around you. Do you see the others in life who have managed to keep their faith and allow that God may have used evolution as part of His creative method? Your assertion is thereby proven false.

 

That's not what Albert Einstein believed. He believed that the universe showed such great design that it pointed to a designer. This belief lead to his discovery of E=mc2. As a matter of fact nearly all of the "founders of science and the scientific age" were men of faith who believed in literal creation and that God had created a universe based on laws which were upheld by God, and therefore observable and repeatable.

Unfortunately for you and other evolutionists, the Bible describes plainly that we - and all life on earth - came to be through direct supernatural forces... not by natural created forces.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

That's you, UTEOTW. You have changed the Creator into a spectator, and glorified Nature as the creator rather than God. You have glorified the Creation over the Creator. You have both added to and subtracted from the Word of God. You dismiss Genesis as non-literal - and for what reason? The word of man! You reason that God 'started it' and let His creation do the creating for Him - this is clearly in contradiction to scripture! Clearly the plainest most straight forward reading of scripture is that God supernatually created everything in six literal days. You simply cannot fit millions of years into the Bible. The idea of millions of years is an external idea which is contrary to scripture that is being imposed over the Word of God. The sad thing is the millions of years are not necessary. Evolution is not necessary. We have a PERFECTLY viable scientific explanation coupled with incorruptible, pure, and wholly accurate, infallible history in scripture. There is no need to add evolution and millions of years to scripture.

Moreover, God declared his creation including Man to be "very good". Why would God use death, suffering, disease, struggle, thorns, etc in his creative work? Why would God use Evil to create something good? Additionally, why would God create a means for "creating" and simultaneously oppose that means? The answer: He wouldn't.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

God doesn’t use evil to accomplish His will. Every part of creation leading up to an including that of man was declared "very good" by God. Therefore, a cursed world marred by sin and death could not have been responsible for creation.

So you would welcome scientific courses on creation and intelligent design along with that of evolution in the public education system?

Had you ever heard of Adam? Did you accept that story as actually having happened?

Perhaps not for you... but I guarantee that undermining scripture like that unlocks the door to doing it elsewhere (such as the New Testament, for example). You may not walk through the door you have opened, but I guarantee that you will have enabled future generations to do so. They will simply walk through the door you have opened. You forget that today's generation is looking for something authentic and real. They are looking to be consistent and true. You can't be consistent and believe the Bible and evolution.

Did you know that (and secular literature confirms this) Darwin's brother - who was an hardened atheist and humanist lobbied to have Darwin buried in Westminster Abby because they knew that if he were buried there, then the church honors Darwin (and evolution) and then the church honors humanism and undermines the Bible. They reasoned that if the church honors Darwin it would undermine scripture and advance humanism.

 

Indeed. That's one of the reasons the claims of a giant conspiracy in science aren't that convincing. The ones who first discovered that the earth was far older than mere thousands of years and that there was no evidence of a global flood were mainly scientists who were expecting to find otherwise.

Also, I wholeheartedly agree that the universe is based on laws which are upheld by God, observable and repeatable. I do not take God's natural laws to in any way diminish his sovereignty over creation. Whether gravity is a result of God moving every object supernaturally or through some inherent property God endowed matter with, either way gravity only exists because God ordained and sustains it.

But here you contradict those founders of science you mentioned above. You try to make God's involvement antithetical to natural created forces. Newton didn't think his laws described phenomenon that were anti-God.

Scripture describes plainly that lightning comes through direct supernatural forces. Fetuses are knit together by God -- something quite direct and supernatural. The YEC is in the awkward position of writing off these kind of descriptions as "mere poetry" when they contradict with the natural forces the YEC accepts (such as electromagnetism) while accepting them as the plain and simple truth when they contradict with the natural forces the YEC doesn't accept (such as evolution). The TE is free to see God's hand in all processes, whether or not we understand exactly how they work, and so I can still affirm that God makes lightning, babies and all kinds of animals without rejecting the evidence creation presents about the natural forces that describe God's normal means for doing this.

Did God start the four forces we know about (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) and let them do the binding of matter for him? How is God's creation less spectacular if he chose to endow it with such amazing capabilities?

What would be more spectacular: a roboticist who made a robot that could recite a predetermined poem written into its circuits, or a roboticist who made a robot that could compose and recite its own poetry? Assuming the quality of both robot's poems was comparable, I'd certainly say that the second roboticist made the greater accomplishment. What is so amazing about the universe isn't just how it exists, but the capabilities it has within it. Those capabilities came from its Creator! As long as God sustains it, the universe will continue to do what God has purposed it to do.

Why limit God to only non-natural involvement? How is God any less the Creator if he makes a cohesive universe that works according to laws like gravity and natural selection? When Judah went into captivity, was this God at work, or do you write off his involvement because foreign armies were used? If not, then why do you use that reasoning when it comes to nature?

Yes, that's the simplest reading people are most likely to get if they read really quick without thinking too much or in any way challenging the assumptions of their 21st-century mindset.

Unfortunately, whenever someone tries to articulate this alternative explanation, they seem to lose their voice. This forum is filled with many claims that such a theory exists, but hardly anything as far as what it might be and how it could explain the evidence. Threads that get into details, whether of science or theology, usually die quickly. The threads that keep on going are generally those where assertions are tossed in continually without much to support them.

Why do you equate things like animal death and thorns with evil? You seem to accept that some kinds of death aren't evil, such as plant death, but for some reason you insist on placing humans on the same moral level as animals. I do not believe humans are merely animals since we share God's image while animals don't. We are moral agents, so our death has a moral property that the death of animals and plants doesn't have.

Nobody is claiming that God created a cursed world containing sin, or that the world somehow gave birth to itself. The presence of death does not make a world cursed, as you obviously accept since you've said elsewhere that you have no problem with plant death. You're trying to make an arbitrary distinction between plant death and animal/human death, while in the Bible the major distinction is between humans and all the rest of creation.

If this is indeed a door, it is one that has been open as long as people were able to hear or read the Bible. It didn't even take scientific evidence to convince some Christians that the days of creation were not literal days -- Augustine came to the same conclusion in the 5th century based on reading Scripture.

You've failed to point out any inconsistency. I've shown my own reasoning in the threads on [animal death] and [Genesis 1], among others. I think I've shown how I use a consistent approach to the Bible to come to my conclusions. I use the same type of reasoning to see the days of Genesis 1 as symbolic as I use to see the bread of the Lord's supper as symbolic. I use a consistent approach to distinguish between a miracle and figurative language in Scripture. It doesn't take inconsistency to affirm the fundamentals of the Christian faith while also affirming what God has revealed through Scripture and nature.

 

I cannot really add much to Mercury's excellent rebuttal except to add...

Gup2 - "The sad thing is the millions of years are not necessary. Evolution is not necessary. We have a PERFECTLY viable scientific explanation coupled with incorruptible, pure, and wholly accurate, infallible history in scripture."

Mercury - "Unfortunately, whenever someone tries to articulate this alternative explanation, they seem to lose their voice. This forum is filled with many claims that such a theory exists, but hardly anything as far as what it might be and how it could explain the evidence. Threads that get into details, whether of science or theology, usually die quickly. The threads that keep on going are generally those where assertions are tossed in continually without much to support them."

...except to add a few of the recent threads where you have shown this statement of Mercury's to be true. You continually post of the better explanations, but you never deliver them and generally never even really attempt to do so.

Information (one of your favorites to bring up but not to defend) - Answer to Gitt

Human Genetics - Start / End and link to details

Whales which covers the congruence of fossil, genetic, vestigal, developmental and atavistic data - Start / End

Dating - Unanswered response on RATE

Grand Canyon - Start / End BTW, I visited Mt. St. Helen's last week which is a player in this debate. I have also been to the Grand Canyon. Hard to believe after seeing each that some YEers try to confuse the two.

Bird Evolution - Link

Neoproterozoic geology - Link

Ice cores - Link

Information (again) - Link - At least you responded on this one. It was all handwaving, of course. You never actually defined "information" in a measureable way nor gave a factual reason why the examples given were not new information. But you typed something in.

Those are enough example of things you are forced to ignore because you cannot support your assertion about being able to provide a BETTER explanation. I guess you follow the advice of your hero Phillip Johnson.

"So the question is: 'How to win?' That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing'—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do. They’ll ask, 'What do you think of Noah’s flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they’ll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you’ll never get out of it."

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html

Emphasis added. You practice that advice of not allowing yourself to get drug down into the facts every time you post.

[ June 04, 2005, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

That is certainly subject to debate.

 

You really need to investigate your history. James Hutton was one of the earliest proponents of millions of years. This, he claimed, was from a geological perspective and came before Darwin. Hutton, a uniformitarian, in letters to his peers, showed his remarkable disdain for Christianity and even outlined how he would systematically remove God from all fields of science. Hutton was a lawyer, not really a scientist and his strength lay in arguing, not in observation. It was Hutton's injection of millions of years that lead to Darwin's evolutionary theories. Moreover, Darwin wanted to do the same thing - write God out of the will... so to speak. He invisioned a world devoid of God's direct divine influence. When his daughter died he could not understand how a loving God could allow such a thing.

We can see from the accounts of Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednigo the result of God sustaining all things entirely. They were not consumed by the fire, and the smell of smoke didn't even get into their clothes. Spiritual and physical death both have their root in the abcence of God. If God does not sustain things, they die. We can see from the Old Testament that the Israelites shoes didn't even wear out. We see this is NOT the case under "normal" or natural circumstances now.

We understand from scipture there was no death before the Curse, and that there will once again be no death in the future. God will not be abscent, but present with His creation sustaining all things fully.

That's not what I was saying at all. I stated that God says He created everything directly by speaking in six days about six thousand years ago. You say that God created nature, which in turn created man over millions and billions of years. The two stories are contradictory. I choose to believe the one that is consistent with scipture.

Dr. Werner Gitt says it this way:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp

Why don't you interpret poetry as poetry, literal history as literal history, prophecy as prophecy, etc? Clearly in writing or speaking the writer or speaker has an intended meaning. The whole Bible has been given by Inspiration from God Himself. You would do well to read it with a thought towards His meaning. Taking poetry literally is fallicy. Taking literal history allegorically is fallicy.

Therein lies your mistake. It is not YEC who have limited God. God Himself has put the limitations upon Himself. He says "I did it in six literal days" and He says "I am not a liar, I do not and cannot lie". So God has limited the possibilities of what happened to one - we have simply chosen to believe Him.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The point of the matter is that God states that He was directly responsible for the creation of man. To then re-assign that role to nature (the created rather than the creator) is precisely what Rom 1:25 is talking about.

It's not a question of how many words per minute one can read. It is a question of reading comprehension. Anyone reading it understands it's literal meaning. Moreover upon a hermenuetical inspection it can be further seen to corroborate a literal history. For example, the meaning of YOM when combined with modifiers like a number, evening, or morning. The only reason NOT to believe it literally would be an a priori committment to something else.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Plants are simply biological machines built to provide food for us. Animals and people have been given soulish life (nephesh chayyah).

According to the Bible, plants are not alive (nephesh chayyah), so they cannot "die" as animals and people do.

And you do well in that belief. In Genesis 1 (literal history) God specifies the moral relation between man and animals:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Ok - wow. I don't understand how you can say that?

Six days or 13 billion years
earth, sun, plants or sun earth plants
discreetly created organisms or common ancestry
death is the result of sin or death came before sin
God determines truth or man determines truth

There is a world of contradiction between old earth views and young earth views.

If those views consistently contradict scripture (as I have shown them to), then they are still wrong. The consistency I was referring to is consistency with scripture. Does it agree with what God says happened? In the case of evolution, it does not. Moreover, evolution is inconsistent with the statements of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.

Check out this article on AiG (hey they re-designed their site... isn't it cool looking?):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp

I'll start a thread with this article too.

 

Later in the same post you say plants could die before the Fall. Why did God not sustain them entirely? No need responding with something about nephesh chayyah, since I'm pretty sure shoes aren't nephesh chayyah either and God managed to sustain them.

Anyway, I do admit that you've presented a creative reading of Scripture. So, prior to the Fall, would all water turn into wine because that's what happens when God entirely sustains water (as Jesus demonstrated at a certain wedding in Cana)? Would there be no wind because it ceases when God entirely sustains the weather (as Jesus demonstrated on a certain boat on a rocky sea). Would fish continuously multiply without end because that's what happens when God sustains fish (as Jesus demonstrated when feeding a multitude)?

What is your basis for claiming that God's miracles in human history show how everything worked before the Fall?

But the death that happened "in the day" Adam ate of the forbidden fruit was neither animal death nor human physical death. The curse did not include any statement about animals starting to die or starting to eat each other. By reading animal death into these events, you need to add all these extra details between the lines of Scripture.

God created nature, yes. But nature only does what it is designed to do. If God created the waters so they could produce life, then that's what the waters are going to do. If you can understand how God is directly involved in man's creation whether he's created by a word or by forming dust, then you should also be able to understand this. Ultimately, God made the dust too, so he's still the Creator.

I do. You seem to think that poetry means something that can be dismissed as untrue. So, when the psalmist says that he was knit together in his mother's womb, you just disregard that statement as poetic nonsense. I think poetry contains truth too. The psalmist is saying, through poetry, that God is directly responsible for his existence. God is his Creator. That statement is true even if knitting needles weren't used.

I really think this is a major problem with YEC thinking. You are so indoctrinated into equating a non-literal Genesis with fiction and fairy tales that you treat other parts of the Bible that are obviously non-literal (such as this verse from the Psalms) as fiction and fairy tales too. Since there's more poetry than prose in the Old Testament, this results in a severely gutted Bible.

God inspired writers to record creation that way, yes. God also inspired John to write about the tribulation a certain way. Your mistake is in thinking that if the details aren't historical, God is a liar. Revelation is true whether or not the seven seals are simply history-written-in-advance. Genesis 1 is true whether or not the seven days are simply history-written-by-God.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The point of the matter is that God states that He was directly responsible for the creation of man. To then re-assign that role to nature (the created rather than the creator) is precisely what Rom 1:25 is talking about.</font>[/QUOTE]God also inspired the psalmist to write that God was directly responsible for the creation of that psalmist. And yet, you reassign that role to natural processes, since it happened after the six days of creation. I much prefer my approach of giving God the glory for all of creation, including the natural processes God made. I am not worshiping creation when I claim that God made it spectacular.

And sheep are literal when accompanied by phrases like "shepherd", "wolf", "flock" and "sheep pen". However, that does not mean that the actual sheep within the picture provided in John 10:11-16 don't really represent something other than sheep in the interpretation of the picture, such as people. Similarly, the days of Genesis 1 are literal within the account, but the whole account uses the days to represent something else: God's creative act and God's rest. God condescends to relate these things in a template that humans can imitate, and by so doing remember who God is and what he has done.

Oh wait, that's another unaddressed point from another thread.

But the death is never qualified as only referring to nephesh chayyah. If you're going to qualify it, why not use the qualifications within the text rather than inventing other ones?

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..."

Death didn't spread to all nephesh chayyah. It spread to all men (meaning all humans).

Genesis 2:16-17: "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.' "

It doesn't say that all nephesh chayyah will surely die. Now, I realize that you feel this second passage is referring to the death of the animal killed to clothe Adam and Eve, but I think most people would agree that a more straight-forward reading is that it is talking about the death of the one to eat the fruit. And, since Adam and Eve didn't physically die on the same day they ate of the fruit, it seems to also refer to spiritual death. By no means does it refer to animal death, and nowhere in the curses of Genesis 3 are animals told they will die or that some of them will start to eat each other.

Kind of like the world of contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 (if both are taken as literal history):
</font>

• Six days or one day (Genesis 2:4: "in the day...")</font>
• Plants, fish and birds, land animals, humans or man, plants, land animals and birds, woman</font>
• Birds created through speech or birds created from ground</font>
• Creator is plural Elohim or Creator is singular Yahweh</font>
• Humans created to rule over creation or man created to work and till the ground</font>

For some reason you expend plenty of energy to try and make Genesis 1 not contradict Genesis 2, and yet you object to those who interpret Scripture in a way that doesn't contradict reality.

Your way of interpreting Scripture makes Scripture inconsistent with Scripture. Your approach can't even reconcile the first two chapters of the Bible, much less Scripture and creation itself.

Superficially, AiG has always been prettier than other sites like talk.origins. It's only in their content that they falter.