1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Biggest find in the history of paleontology

Discussion in 'Science' started by mioque, Mar 25, 2005.

  1. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Good question Alcott.

    UTEOTW, after I posted I was thinking about your comments concerning interpretations of scripture.
    I'm wondering how strong of a belief you have in
    the scriptures as being accurate and authoritative. I've met a number of people who agree with the Bible yet they do not truly accept it and thus it fails to permeate all aspects of their lives.

    I truly am not attempting to state that you are not a believer in Christ. I am concerned about some of your statements regarding certain matters and want to know more.
    Also, do you think that your experiences and observations concerning evolution have affected the manner with which you read God's word, and has your belief in the word ever affected any of your experiences and observations concerning evolution?
     
  2. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    mioque

    It never ceases to amaze me at what scientists can find ...

    God is GREAT!
     
  3. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    How does it fit into the character of Jesus to speak to the disciples in Luke 22, saying after he took the bread and broke it, "This is my body given for you..."? If you assume like I do that the bread wasn't literally Jesus' body, does that mean Jesus was inherently misleading?

    In cases like Exodus 20:11 or Luke 22:19, we can either accept that it is a biblical practice to equate a symbol with what it represents, or we can insist on being literalistic and create an extra doctrine to explain it (young-earth creation and transubstantiation, respectively).

    Many people understand how this principle works when dealing with the bread/body or baptism/salvation (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, etc.), and yet are up in arms when others use the same principle when it comes to the work week/creation and the Sabbath/God's rest.
     
  4. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Mercury, when a person holds up a piece of bread and says "this is my body" it screams anecdote. You immediately and naturally know that the bread held in front of your face is meant to be representative.

    When a statement such as "I created the world in six days" is made there's a huge difference. Not only is it stated with no hint of symbolism, it's repeated in that manner. The days are described. The meaning of a day is defined.
     
  5. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does it also scream anecdote(?) when Jesus says "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (John 6:55)? What about 1 Peter 3:21 where it says that "baptism now saves you"? I don't think it's as simple as you imply. Many of us are raised knowing that these other things are symbolism and so never doubt them, but when it comes to the days of creation, we have to do a bit of thinking on our own.

    You claim there is no hint of symbolism. In Exodus 31:17 it reads "...for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed." The Hebrew word translated "refreshed" here appears two other times in the Bible. In Exodus 23:12 it speaks of people resting and recuperating from work on the Sabbath (the exact same context as it is applied to God in Exodus 31:17), and in 2 Samuel 16:14 it speaks of King David being weary and exhausted and stopping to refresh himself.

    Does God get weary or exhausted? Does he ever suffer a lack of refreshment? If you believe, as I do, that such things are not possible for God, then you will see symbolism in this verse. People are refreshed on the Sabbath, and so God's rest on the seventh day is also described in the terms of refreshment. This is an anthropomorphism. It is not literal.

    Indeed. They're described in a way that can't possibly refer to sequential historical events. On both day 1 and day 4 a one-time event occurred: God separated light (called day) from darkness (called night). This separation would have been "good" the first time God did it, so there's no reason to believe he scrapped it or it came undone so that he needed to do it again three days later. That's as unnecessary as claiming that God placed Adam into the garden twice because of Genesis 2:8,15. The repetition, rather than speaking of a second, duplicate event, is a literary device to let us know the author is returning to an earlier point.

    There's further evidence that the days are not solar days because we have inspired commentary on them that tells us so. Hebrews 4:3-5 quotes the seventh day of Genesis 2:2 and says that this is God's rest that we can still enter. Even if you believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, that means the seventh day has been going on for 6,000 years now.

    So, from Exodus 31:17 and Hebrews 4:3-5 we have scriptural evidence that both the length of the days and the content of those days are symbolic. God didn't really refresh himself and his seventh-day rest didn't end after 24 hours, but the picture depicted by these verses still refers to very real events.

    Even if you don't accept this interpretation, perhaps you can see how Bible-believing Christians arrive at it. It does not require different interpretational approaches than those you're already willing to use elsewhere.

    [ March 31, 2005, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]
     
  6. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    Excellent Mercury! Way to speak in the spirit of truth!
     
  7. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Yes, I realize I used the wrong word! Sorry.

    True was an accurate word as he is comparing worldly to spiritual, in the context that the spiritual is what is true. The context and meaning is explained immediately following.


    What do you think is the symbolism of six days?
    I don't know if God would need refreshment. I would imagine that after creating a universe and everything in it, it woud be refreshing to take a break. I can do work that is non-physical and feel refreshed simply sitting back and lookng at what I did. A picture, arranging a pattern. Or God may have conveyed something to us in a way we could not otherwise understand as all we really can relate to are human emotions and feelings.

    Not at all. Just as you got a keyboard before you typed on it, God created what needed to be for that which would use it. The following link may make an interesting read for you. LINK


    I have my own comment...ary?
    As pertains to us it was seven literal days. As pertains to the spiritual, the rest being spoken of is not OUR rest, not the seventh day of physical rest, but the seventh day of the type of rest God would take as God is a Spirit. Spiritual rest. That we cannot have without salvation.

    That was proof that Genesis is falsely worded? Did anybody else reading this see any proof of that offered?
    On your picture depicted by verses comment, how does a story written using inaccurate and misleading wording to describe an event paint a true picture of that event?

    No, I can't. Once all of the statements and offerings you and others have given are put together, the picture I get of your belief in it would best be shown by holding the bible up to a fun house mirror and trying to understand what it says in the reflection.
     
  8. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Six days refers to the work week for the Israelites. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work" (Deuteronomy 5:13). The six day work week symbolizes God's work in creation.

    I don't see how that applies to God separating light from darkness on day 1 (Genesis 1:4) and day 4 (Genesis 1:17-18). I didn't need to connect my keyboard to my computer twice before I could use it. (And if I did, it would only be because I did it improperly the first time -- not something that would apply to God separating light from darkness.)

    I sure hope not! Why would I want to provide proof that Genesis is falsely worded? I believe it is inspired Scripture! I provided evidence that taking it literalistically is missing the point and diminishing its meaning. If we reduce God's rest to a single day of refreshment after a hard week's work, that pales compared to what it really is -- something that we should eagerly desire to enter (Hebrews 4:3-5, 9-11).

    I think you are quite capable of answering that question yourself as long as you deal with areas of Scripture where you aren't predisposed to read them differently. For instance, let's look at the descriptions of God. The Bible describes God as a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24), spring of living waters (Jeremiah 2:13), shepherd (Psalm 23), warrior (Exodus 15:2-3) and protective mother bird (Psalm 91:4), among other descriptions. Now, are the pictures in these verses inaccurate and misleading?

    Luke 4 and Matthew 4 list the temptation of Jesus in a different order. One (or both) of them is not chronological. Does that make one (or both) of the accounts inaccurate or misleading?

    Does Revelation 12:1-6 give an inaccurate or misleading picture of what it represents because it uses symbolic imagery without defining all of its symbols?

    Once you've demonstrated that these things aren't really problems, just apply the same reasoning to the picture of God's creation in Genesis 1.

    Well, that may be true to a degree. God is above us, after all, and we only see as if through a dark glass. The descriptions of God I listed above do almost have a "fun house mirror" quality to them, but they also reveal real truth about God's character. I don't think we should dismiss metaphorical, symbolic or anthropomorphic language so lightly. It has much to teach us.
     
  9. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Why? That doesn't make sense if six days had nothing to do with the timing of God's creation. If I take 5 billion years to make a post and tell you to do likewise, why would I tell you it took me six days?

    You can't type on the computer at all without the keyboard. You don't click away on the keyboard without the computer. You pull out a chair before you sit. You prepare milk before you put the cap on a milk bottle. You plant grass before you bring home a goat to use it. God created light before he created the sun to use it.

    Why wouldn't you? You're saying God didn't create the earth in 6 days like that Bible says. You haven't offered an alternative explanation of a six day workweek or made any sense out of the use of the term if it truly has nothing to do with days. I don't believe in it but still could have done that. If I were you I would have stated "I believe that each period of time was equal and in God's timing, each period of time is symbolic to one day in our lives. Day one was probably 10 milion years, the next ten million years was the second day, and in each of those ten million year time frames, things evolved to the point of becoming mature, fully created, and able to be used in the manner God intended".


    Again, using such descriptions of the attributes of God is a FAR cry from God saying "I took six days to create the world and everything in it". Where else do you ever find a figure of speech anywhere near that, and what is the use of it? What does it refer to?

    They're still the same events. You can't throw it out and say "this isn't really how it worked".


    Revelation in itself is a mystery and unfolding revelation. It states itself as a vision and obviously and purposely uses symbolism, just as Christ used symbolism in his parables. There is and was a purpose in that. What purpose would there be to use symbolism for the past event of creation?
    BTW how could God rest, leave off creating, if evolution is true? Isn't our world and everything in it still evolving? Wouldn't this mean God is still in the process of creation?

    "Through a glass darkly" can be taken in two ways.

    1. Paul was speaking of incompletion, which is now over with as we have the full gospel.

    2. Paul was speaking of limited knowledge. Not twisted and distorted knowledge, but the kind that will become more clear and focused (draw near to us) when we reach the spiritual. If you wear a pair of sunglasses your view doesn't become distorted, it becomes less detailed and you have more problems defining boundaries. The more focused we are on Christ, the less tint to our shades. [​IMG]
     
  10. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    By that reasoning, no symbol could ever be anything but an exact correspondence to what it symbolized. That destroys the whole purpose of symbolism.

    Also, you're talking about communication between equals, but when God communicates to us, it is not between equals. If you were capable of spending 5 billion years on a post, then telling me to do likewise would be futile, since my life span is not that long. If you were such a long-lived creature that could do such a thing, then you'd need to condescend a bit in telling me to follow your example.

    Our actions are not equivalent to God's actions. I believe God's creative work was something beyond human understanding. I don't know whether it happened in an instant or over lots of time, and I suspect that such a question is meaningless when we're talking about a creative act that started time. So, I don't think it's like how we both write posts. God's creation of the universe is described in a way that is comparable to how we might create a story (by describing the creation of scenes and characters for that story), but creation is totally beyond any type of creative endeavor (such as telling a story) that a human being could do.

    You seem to have misunderstood my argument. I was talking about the separation of light and darkness, not the creation of light or the sun.

    Yes. Just like I'm saying the Lord's Supper isn't Jesus' flesh and blood like the Bible says, and baptism isn't salvation like the Bible says. I'm claiming that the Bible uses symbolism.

    In the following post, I'll re-post my view on Genesis 1-2 for you.

    You're not me. :D I don't hold to the day-age theory. I think the days in Genesis 1:1-2:3 really mean solar days and not ages, just like the sheep in Jesus' parable of the lost sheep really mean sheep and not people. However, while the days and the sheep are literal within their respective narratives, their narratives as a whole are symbolic of something greater. More on that in my next post.

    You can assert it, but I don't think you can show it to be true. I've already given two similar figures of speech: Luke 20:19 and 1 Peter 3:21. I agree that there's a big difference between the symbolism you accept and the symbolism you reject, but I think the difference is with you and not the text.

    Exactly. Similarly, treating the creation days as symbolic of a higher reality doesn't throw them out either. Symbolism doesn't mean inaccuracy.

    Maybe God's acts of creation, which took place before there were human witnesses, are also beyond human comprehension. Maybe, just like the future, the physical details of creation are not as important as God's declaration that he did it, it was good, and he sovereignly reigns over it.

    Unless you hold to a deistic view of God, you should accept that God is still active in the process of sustaining his creation. It is only by his power that the natural processes he made continue to function. "...[A]ll things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16-17).

    After all, I was born long after Adam, but I still believe that I am God's creation, as are you (see Psalm 139:13-14). God makes the lilies of the field just as he made the first vegetation on earth (see Luke 6:28-30). I think you're making the mistake of taking the symbolism of the seventh-day rest too far and equating it with reality. God's rest does not mean a cessation of work. Jesus explains God's action during his Sabbath in John 5:17: "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."
     
  11. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    As requested, here's a more detailed explanation of how I interpret the Genesis creation accounts. I've posted the first two sections of this before. It's long, and some of the details I've already mentioned above, but this puts many of the pieces together.


    Partial pictures

    The Bible contains descriptions of many things we can't comprehend -- things that are beyond human experience. To explain the unexplainable, Scripture tends to use many pictures, none of which are complete, but each of which explains certain things.

    For instance, the Bible gives many pictures of God. Here's some of them:
    </font>
    • God is Spirit (John 4:24; Psalm 139:7-10).</font>
    • God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 John 4:12).</font>
    • God is not a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9).</font>
    • God is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24).</font>
    • God is the spring of living waters (Jer. 2:13).</font>
    • God is our shepherd (Psalm 23).</font>
    • God is a warrior (Ex. 15:2-3).</font>
    • God is a protective mother bird (Psalm 91:4).</font>
    If we take any one of these too seriously while excluding others, it can warp our image of God. If we focus on the first three, we may think of God as more of a "force" or a diffused gas than a personal being. Each of the remaining pictures stress certain aspects of God's character that the more technical descriptions don't get across. We don't get the best picture of God by literally combining all the pictures -- that only leads to nonsense -- but instead by combining the characteristics that underlie each picture.

    As another example, Jesus uses three parables to explain why he has come to seek and to save the lost. Luke 15 contains the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost (or prodigal) son. None of the pictures is totally accurate by themselves (for instance, God can be in more than one place at a time, unlike the shepherd who needs to leave his 99 sheep to go after the lost one) but put together they paint a more complete and accurate picture.


    Genesis 1 vs. 2

    Finally, getting to the point, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 give two stories of the creation of the world. Trying to merge the two into one literal account is as ridiculous as trying to merge the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son into a single story, or of merging the descriptions of God as fire, spring, shepherd, warrior, and bird into a single figure. The two creation accounts are not contradictory, but rather they give different halves of a whole. If the two halves could neatly fit together into a single literal story, there would have been no reason to separate them in the first place.

    The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground in need of rain (Gen. 2:4-5). The first puts man's creation at the end while the second has man created first before the plants have grown or animals have been formed (unless you read it from the NIV, which tries to smooth over the difference with the animals; this is clearer in more word-for-word translations such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV or ESV). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him. Similarly, the first portrays God (Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve.

    Many people explain away these differences by taking one account or the other as less literal. Generally, the first account is taken as authoritative and the second is just used to add further detail to the sixth day. When there's an apparent contradiction (such as the plants already existing by this time in the first account but not being there in the second), the first chapter is taken literally and the second is adjusted to fit.

    My approach is to take both accounts as two sides of a coin. Either account would lead to misinterpretations if the other is excluded from consideration. For instance, the first account stresses God's transcendence, while the second stresses God's immanence. The first shows God's sovereignty as creation takes place in highly ordered and structured days, while the second focuses on God's providence, with things being created in response to needs (man to till the ground, woman as a helper for man). The first stresses how humanity is created in God's image with dominion over the earth, while the second stresses that we came from dust and have an duty to take care of the world. Industrialists may prefer the first account while environmentalists prefer the second, but by taking both together we find balance.

    It is not a matter of contradiction. Most of the differences are so plainly obvious that it is the height of arrogance to think we've only noticed them now. They were as evident when the accounts were written down as they are now. They are presented side by side, which is a pretty good clue that the writer of Genesis wasn't disturbed by their differences. Consider two proverbs in the Bible that are often given on Bible contradiction web sites: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself" and "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes". What the contradiction web sites try to minimize is where the proverbs are found: Proverbs 26:4-5 -- in other words, they are back to back! Obviously the compiler of Proverbs was well aware that these two proverbs gave different advice for a similar situation, and yet under divine inspiration he had no problem including them both. This was not a flaw he overlooked or some secret that was only discovered by later generations; the proverbs are two sides of the same coin, and so they were placed side by side. There are times when each is relevant, and it is better to keep both in mind than to always use one to the exclusion of the other.

    There are other times when the Bible uses multiple accounts quite differently. Jesus' crucifixion is recorded in detail four times, yet we don't see the huge differences between the accounts that we do in creation or in the parables of the lost items. When Samuel/Kings and Chronicles give accounts of Israel's rulers, they select their details in order to fit their individual purpose, but yet the details mesh together. Saul is followed by David who is followed by Solomon in both accounts, and any differences are in minor details such as the exact moment a king died. Most of the details are exactly the same in both accounts (sometimes word for word).

    In the creation accounts, by contrast, hardly any details are the same. While both describe God as creating everything, they do it in totally different ways. Somebody who reads Genesis 2:4-25 without any preconceived ideas from the preceding chapter would get a totally different picture of creation than one who tries to reconcile the second chapter to the first. I think we often miss much of what the second account has to say to us because we are only willing to view it through the filter of the first chapter.


    Genesis 1's framework

    I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions we have the God-given ability to answer on our own (even if the answers aren't discovered in our lifetime). Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun or is dwarfed in size by the sun. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe that the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.

    Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we (and earlier humans) can understand.

    Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally, acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. I think Genesis 1 describes how God created the universe using a structure familiar to any playwright or storyteller. It describes the three sets, or realms, and the three groups of characters that together make up this creation.

    The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is space (or, the heavens). It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. Aside from the sun, moon and stars, all this realm consists of (from an earthly perspective) is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.

    The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.

    The third and final realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.

    The second set of three days describe the three groups of characters who inhabit each realm. First, the characters for space are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is natural since these are characters and not mere set dressing like the plants.

    Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. It also isn't classifying them according to worth (if that were the purpose, surely humans would have a day for themselves!). Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second set, so they are all created on the fifth day.

    Finally, the characters that live on land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.

    One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one thing to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. This view is similar to how this creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond with three days of filling, but unlike that view, the creation of plant life on day three isn't a problem. Unlike a literal historical reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, and the personification of the sun and moon also makes sense. It also explains why animals span two days while humans are added at the end of day six instead of getting a day of their own.

    Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play being fashioned with three realms (or sets) corresponding to three groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.


    A parable about condescention

    Fredrick asks his mom where babies come from. She gulps deeply as she was not expecting her young child to ask this question for a few years yet, and then explains that when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they kiss each other a lot and sometimes this makes a baby start to grow in the mommy's tummy.

    When Freddy's older, he reflects back on this explanation and realizes how false it was. Kissing has no direct link to conception. But that's not the only factual error: it's also not true that making a baby requires a married couple, or even that the couple needs to love each other. Why did his mom tell him this blatantly false story?

    Fred can think of a few reasons. Maybe everything he's learned about sex is actually a clever deception and his mom's story really is literally true. Or, maybe his mom meant something more by "kiss" than its ordinary meaning; after all, the word can also mean an expression of affection through physical contact regardless of which body parts are involved. Or, maybe his mom was just talking about how a couple tends to kiss a lot when they're planning to have a baby, and the statement about a baby starting to grow is just the end result of that plan. But, none of these reasons satisfy Fred. The first seems extremely unlikely. The second and third require his mom to use words in a way he wouldn't reasonably be expected to understand at the time.

    Finally, he comes to think that his mom was purposely condescending to him in relating that story. Kissing was a form of intimacy that he was already able to understand and appreciate, and so his mom used that instead of the more accurate description which he would have found baffling and probably a bit scary and gross. While his mom's version wasn't technically as accurate, it better conveyed the spirit of the sexual act. Also, he came to see that his mom was more intent on telling him about how marital love should work than how sex does work. That's why she had said it was between a mom and dad who loved each other.

    At the beginning of his questioning, Freddy had wondered why his mom would tell him something that wasn't true. Now, he realized that his mom's story had been true in another way, and the story was even more important than he'd thought. He didn't think his mom was evil for telling him this story, and he didn't discard the other things she'd taught him because of this, or treat everything she said as symbolic and not literal. However, he did come to a greater appreciation of the different ways his mom had communicated with him in order to guide him to adulthood.
     
  12. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Wow Mercury, I'm not even sure how to approach that interpretation. It certainly makes a relatively simple passage muddled and in need of a lot of explaining!
    Describing the nature of God (covering with his wings, consuming fire, flower) is not the same as describing what God did. I'm not sure why you continue to use those comparisons as if there was a point to it.
    Let me try one more time.

    I went to the grocery store on April 1st. I flew like the wind to get there before it closed.

    From this you conclude two things.
    1. I went to the store.
    2. I got there fast.

    You understand automatically that I didn't literally fly. Because I didn't literally fly does not leave you seeking an alternative meaning of "went to the grocery store".

    Or does it?

    Now about Fred, sex, and creation. Fred has a friend. Let's call him Ed.
    Fred and Ed are walking down the street together when Fred says "Hey Ed, I know where babies come from".
    Ed listens to Fred and and says "hey Fred, my mamma told me the same thing".
    But that isn't the end of it.
    Ed has his own explanation of where babies come from. He had been distrustful of what his mother told him, so he went searching for answers. He found a baby and investigated it.
    He sat in front of the hospital. He saw no babies walk in. But then, he noticed something. Usually no babies went in the door. But very often, babies were being carried out. He took pictures of this. He documented it. He called in witnesses.
    They all agreed. Babies must be inside of door frames. When people open the doors the baby squishes out the other side. The people on that side grab the baby, wrap him up, and later take the babies out of the hospital.

    Ed has reasoning and visual proofs that this is correct.
    Thus, he concludes that Fred is wrong, and so is Fred's mamma, and so is his own. Everyone is wrong but him.

    Pop quiz: Why is Ed right?
     
  13. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. And, to apply this to Genesis 1, even if God's act of creation is spoken of in human terms using symbolism and other figures of speech, that doesn't mean God didn't create the world.

    Ed isn't right. On matters of science, Ed shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that all the scientists are wrong and he alone has discovered the truth.
     
  14. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Allow me to rephrase your reply.

    Ed shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that all creationists are wrong and that he alone has discovered the truth.
     
  15. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    That rephrasing doesn't make sense. When it comes to scientific claims, Ed would be far more arrogant to reject the opinion of 99% of scientists than to reject the opinion of about 1%. You and I both reject other fringe scientific opinions all the time: that doesn't require arrogance. If Ed rejects the opinion of all 100%, then he's even more arrogant.

    Your illustration about Ed seemed to make a point about how minority opinions are likely (though not guaranteed) to be wrong. I agree. That doesn't help you defend young-earth creationism.
     
  16. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Oh no. I forgot to mention Ed took 25 friends with him and they all observed the same thing.

    Both Fred and Ed have two mutual friends. Their names are Ted and Jed. Ted believes babies come from storks. Jed believes babies slide off the edge of the flat moon and fall into the ocean where dolphins gently carry them to shore.

    The end.

    Moral: Fred was better off, and most accurate, believing his mamma.
     
  17. mareese

    mareese Guest

    That depends on how you define Deism. You seem to be more of one than I would be, or maybe just in a different way.
    I believe that nature is part of God's revelation to us.
    So do you, right?
    As stated earlier, I believe God's creation was finished. The creation was obviously made to be self-sustaining to a point, under the care of humans.
    Genesis 2: 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
     
  18. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    At this point, I think you've exhausted the illustrative potential of Ed and Fred.

    What is this different way you speak of? I believe God created me and sustains my existence, just as he created and sustains the rest of his creation. Natural processes describe some of the ways God works. Miracles describe another way. How does this make me a deist?

    As for your own views, if you believe God is finished with creation, then who created you?

    What do you think is responsible for lightning: God or the electromagnetic force? Does the latter rule out the former?
     
  19. mareese

    mareese Guest

    Your way seems to have a creator who in a way simply started creation and then let it develop through nature.
    My way has a creator who fully completed the creation.
    Technically either way could be pushed into a folder marked Deism.
    Except we both believe God is still involved. You believe God is currently involved in creation, I believe God is currently involved with what he already created.

    God created my soul, and created humans to reproduce which resulted in my body.

    God created light. He created the means for light to be formed and used. God is responsible for it being there.

    Did God create the cup of milk you drank this morning? No, he created the first cows and the means for them to make milk. Is God responsible for the milk you drank being there? Yes. He didn't come down and poof it into your glass though, or into the cow. It was the result of the processes of nature he put into place when he created it.
     
  20. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simply? :eek:

    Just how simple do you think it is to create a universe, especially one so well formed that it can develop according to natural processes inherent in it?

    How many universes have you created recently? [​IMG]

    That's like saying we both could be pushed into a folder called atheism.
    Except we both believe in God.

    I acknowledge both God's sustaining power in the universe and his exercised ability to miraculously intervene. That cannot be called deism.

    That's semantics. I think God's involvement includes allowing the natural processes he created to function, and I believe mutation and natural selection are some of those processes. So, to me, speciation is no more or less creation than the birth of a new animal is to you.

    Did God create your soul during the creation week? If not, does that mean you believe that God is still creating?

    Are you starting to see how this is mainly a semantics exercise? ;)

    [ April 01, 2005, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]
     
Loading...