Part 3, Earth Millions of Years Old?

// No one on this Forum has indicated that a belief in a 24 hour day in Genesis 1 is required for salvation. //

Nor did I claim that for anybody on this Forum.

Your problem may be thinking I have a bad motive?
I have shown my motive over and over (remember, this is part 3 of the topic). I'd like some responsibility of others who are ruining my witness to science minded folks. Unfortunately most science minded folks didn't study the history of science. They are not taught the Logical Basis of Science

BTW, OldRegular, I use my handiest Bible which is an electronic copy from e-sword.com Parallel:

Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition (some say 1587 Edition)
KJV1611 Edition (actually a KJV1613, but close)
KJV1769-ish type Edition with Strong's Numbers.

Would you mind going to the Version/Translation Forum and start a topic complaining about my choise of versions? seriously, I need some good press.

 

It would be a red herring only if you believe that everything that could be known about Christianity the apostles knew. However, do you believe things are being revealed even now?

 

So which color would you prefer?

 

You put a qualifier. Is progressive revelation occuring now or not? In the Old Testiment we go from "I am that I am" to "Jehovah Jireh". Is something like that occuring now?

 

Well said. That is my conclusion as well. On the 10th day of creation we could have walked up to Adam and weighed and measured and poked and prodded (as scientists are want to do) and we would have determined that Adam showed evidence of maturity that required approximately 30 years to achieve in normal human growth, therefore, is Adam 30 years old? And that same scientist would walk up to the mighty oak tree, and he would measure and calculate and determine that it requires some 100 years for an oak tree to grow to this mature state so therefore the oak tree must be 100 years old. Based on the physical evidence, the scientist would conclude that the earth must be at least 100 years old.

The only thing science can prove is that the earth and the cosmos have the appearance of great antiquity.

I look out on the universe and have no problem believing that God created all this in 6 days. My God could have done that in an instant, in one heartbeat, but instead, God took his time to mold and shape and fashion the world leaving his fingerprints everywhere.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

Marcia, I don't think anyone has argued against aspects of evolution being a belief system. Certainly evolution has been proven on a micro level (beyond a shadow of a doubt). The Macro level that is in question. Evolution on the whole is scientifically based. I agree with Sproul with regard to where the faith issue is regarding evolution. That Chance becomes God rather than a random set of circumstances. This is where the faith aspect in evolution comes into play not the processes in which things evolve. Remember I said that I don't buy into all aspects of evolution but I'm not convinced of a young earth either. I believe there are processes we don't understand as yet. But I'm not confining God either to a literal view of creation in 6 days.

 

I visited the above web site and found an article about Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith. I have had a book written by him for for about 40 years entitled Man's Origin, Man's Destiny. I would recommend it to anyone who is tempted to believe that science establishes evolution as a viable system. The article talks about the conversion of Dr. Wilder-Smith and also his education which I believe far exceeds that of anyone posting on this Forum.

A.E. Wilder-Smith F.R.S.C., Ph.D was a Countess Lisburne Memorial Fellow in cancer research for London University and a member of the British Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the New York Academy of Science. He held the Chair of Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, where he was elected 'Best Teacher' four times and won the 'Golden Apple' award three times.

<snip>

After his conversion, Wilder-Smith earned a PhD in organic chemistry at Reading University, followed by another doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Geneva and one in biology and natural sciences from E.T.H. in Zurich. Ultimately it was through his own scientific investigation, rather than discussions with Christians, that he came to reject Darwin's theory of evolution and began to promote creationism. He eventually became the Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and his work led him all over the world, speaking about creation and other issues in hundreds of lectures in many famous universities. Fluent in German, he was particularly effective in reaching many thousands of German POWs during and after the Second World War. He was also a big hit with students who appreciated his boundless patience when they barraged him with questions.

"Today in Europe and the USA, the teaching of evolution in the schools and universities is a great problem," he said. "It is taken today as an incontrovertible fact of science that Darwin has made the idea of a divine Creator superfluous for the educated person. If God is scientifically superfluous to creation, then Christ who called Himself One with the Creator God, automatically becomes superfluous too. Thus, since Darwin, the preaching of Christ, particularly in academic circles, has become increasingly lacking in urgency."

It is worth noting at this time that only about 4% of Western Europe are professing Christians and they are in danger of being dominated by Islam.

 

Another interesting quote from the above web site [Superb Design by Dr David H. Stone].

Evolution would be a sickening and destructive method of creation for a loving God. Bloody competition, extinction of millions of species of animals and plants – survival of the fittest and destruction of the unfit. That's not the God of the Bible who provides for the birds of the air (Matthew 6:26) and praises those who are kind to animals (Proverbs 12:10)!

One particular quotation from an evolutionist affirms the conflict between the two views. Jacques Monod wrote:

"[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms ... The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. [An] ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."

I have used the above quotation by evolutionist Monod in discussions with theistic evolutionists.

 

He doesn't provide for the birds of the air in regard to keeping bigger carnivorous birds and shotgun blasts from killing them. And it's hard to see how "kind" it is to chop an animals jugular vein according to the kosher method of slaughter.

Evolution or not, that is precisely the case. Predators look for the young and old and sick and injured [slower; more defenseless] among their targets of prey. You're not arguing that God "set this up" are you?

 

You are obviously ignoring or ignorant of the results of the Fall!

 

<<Not really; that season only ended 4 months ago.>>

In your citation of Proverbs 12:10, is that in present tense, or does it refer only to 'before the fall?'

And explain how, if preying on the weakest is such a "cruel horrible process," how is it not cruel now? And while at it, explain why animals suffering cruelty was one of God's chosen effects of man's sin.

 

You are apparently too obstinate to recognize the effects of the Fall. Marcia has already explained the effect of the fall so I need not. By the way I did not quote Proverbs 12:10 Dr David H. Stone did.