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!

The initial exchanges

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Dec 29, 2001.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2 New Member

    Jun 30, 2000
    Likes Received:
    What follows is the initial series of posts from the beginning of the creation/evolution board. People are establishing positions and stating what they believe to be true. In the original series there were several ideas which were developed more fully, such as theistic evolution. These have been removed and are part of the beginning series dedicated to explain that position in its own thread. This series has been condensed to simply establish the fact of different points of view and as an introduction to everything that will follow.

    Pulled out from the middle of the initial series is a post by Lorelei which is a good reminder to all here. The post by Sage, which follows, is actually the start of this series.

    The Administrator

    * * *


    It is important to delve deeper into God's word and try to understand the full meaning and literal interpretation of the scripture. We must get past the milk and seek the meat of the Word. But before we can do this we must place our faith in the Word and in God, the author of that Word. If we know Christ as our personal Savior, then we have the Holy Spirit to help reveal it's truth to us. We must also believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that it is infallible. This comes from Faith.

    I was reminded of the passage in Romans 1: 18-23.
    18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them,
    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 and image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

    Though I think it is important to know and understand the time frame of the creation for our own purpose, one thing you must do is remember, no matter how old the earth is, God made it. That is the message that of Genesis1. God made the earth and all that is within it. We can research these verses for days, weeks, even years, and no matter what other findings may be revealed, it still holds true that God is the creator. If you get stuck on this one point, and never get past these scriptures, you are denying yourself the pleasure of learning all of what God has to say.

    Am I saying that everyone here is wasting their time? No, of course not. I too am still learning more about this and that is why I was reading all that has been said. But I will also read more of the scripture and will continue to pray for God's guidance in understanding it.

    God's word is not for the well educated alone; it is for everyone. His Spirit is there to help you understand. Remember, many who profess to be wise have become fools. Just let your lack of understanding be a reminder that we need to place our faith in Him. As we continue to grow in His love and His Word we will find the answers that we seek. So continue to research and study to show yourself approved, just don't let all the theories, theologies and scientific evidence get in your way of moving forward.

    2 Peter 1:19-21
    19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts;
    20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

    James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

    As for me, I will continue to read and gather information from the great resources listed here. I will form my opinion in time, but I will trust in God that no how old the earth is, he still made it and he will always fulfill his promise to us.


    * * *

    Hey,I'm a literal six day creationist, and was surprised to find how many people on this board (previous) believed in the theory of evolution (theistic evolution, day-age, gap-theory, old-earth, etc.). Is there anyone out there interested in this subject, or in discussing it with me??

    Sure, I am game. What would you like to discuss?

    Out of curiosity, do you hold to something other than literal six day creationisim, or are you playing devil's advocate?

    If you mean a literal 24 hour six day period of time as we understand it today, then no I don't.

    I hold to a literal 6 day creation though not that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Those who hold to day-age, gap-theory, old-earth are not Theistic evolutionists generally speaking. Darwin was a theistic evolutionist and the other views differ sharply with him. The gap theory of Scofield seems to have not enough scriptural backing but Hugh Ross's Day-age theory is very interesting though he hasn't won me to his position. This is an area that should not be a test of fellowship in that literal 6 day creation, day-age, gap-theory, all confess that God created Man apart from evolution.

    OK, to throw my two cents in, all I have to say is this.
    By saying that God could not literally create the world in 6 days and that the world is not approximately 6000 years old, then aren’t you denying the deity of God. He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. He could, and I believe, did create the world in 6 literal days. Thus begun the first day.

    And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    Genesis 1;4 and 5.

    This is the creation of the first literal day. And you need the literal to create the figurative upon. If there was no definition for a literal day, how could it be used as a metaphor?

    I'm a Christian and an evolutionist. Gen 1-11 is not literal science or history but conveys theological truth through symbolism. History begins with Abraham.

    I hold to a literal 6 day creation because it fits the text and the other views bring an unnatural feel to the text that seems to contradict the other views. On the other hand being a being a literal 6 day creationists does not mean one believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. That is a theory of Bishop Ussher that is unprovable and based upon bad research on his part. I personally don't know how old the earth is. In defense of Day agers however they will argue that the Hebrew word for day "Yom" can also mean a period of time. They are not denying God's power but simply God chose to create over a period of ages rather than 6 days. God could have done it in less than a milli-second we all know but chose instead 6 days. The problem with Day age is that it brings a unnatural feel to Genesis 1-2 that indicates 6 literal days.

    How do you know it wasn't a literal 6 days? Were you there? And before you say anything, no I wasn't there either, but I know Someone who was! I take His Word for it.

    The problem with saying that History begins with Abraham is that Paul in the New Testament indicates that Adam and Eve were literal people and not just symbols. Jesus indicates that Noah was a literal person also. How does one deal with the origin of Sin if they deny a literal Adam. Does not this indicate that one would have to deny inerrancy of Scripture and denial of Total depravity or Original Sin?

    OK, one additional note. The best way I can put it is faith. By placing our faith in today’s secular science, we are taking our faith off of God. We must trust in the Lord and not in man’s wisdom.

    Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
    Proverbs 3; 5

    For the wisdom of man, is nothing compared to the wisdom of God.

    Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
    But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    That no flesh should glory in his presence.

    1 Corinthians 1; 25-29

    If the first 3 chapters aren't true, why do we need a saviour?
    Just a trucker thinking, and that is hard for me to do.

    I am not well-versed in the Bible and I'm new to the board so please be patient...does it specifically say in the Bible that God did not create evolution? Is it ok for us to believe that God in His infinite wisdom, made the whole thing happen the way scientists believe?

    r5dots, Evolution scientists believe what we have in our public schools but creation scientist don't.
    Yes you may believe whatever you wish.
    I believe the reality of supernatural creation and the Creator's sovereign rule of the world.
    May you read and learn and come to your conclusion.
    God bless

    What exactly is it that they are teaching in the schools these days?

    Hmm, were to start? A lot has happened since I last visited (3 hours ago). Let me give some reasons why I believe in a literal six days.
    1. If one holds to Day-Age then how did the trees, grass, and vegetation (day 3) survive many years w/out the sun (day 4)and the birds, and insects (day 5&6) to pollinate them? Vegetation cannot survive for years w/out these variables.
    2. We take one day of rest just as God took one day.
    3. What would be the purpose of "evening and morning" if this were not a literal day?

    As far as the age of the Earth goes, that the Earth has been in existence for around 6,000 years, however I am not opposed to the idea that God made a "mature" Earth. God made Adam as an adult(as far as I know), He made "great whales" (Gen.1:21)and trees w/ fruit already on it(Gen.1:11). So, conceivably God may have made the Earth with age already in it.

    To those who deny creation completely, or even worse the first eleven chapters, you put in jeopardy the entire Bible, for almost every book in the Bible refers to the creation or the first 11 chapters ! Not to mention that Jesus himself refers to the creation of Adam and Eve!

    The bible is not a scientific textbook, it doesn't try to answer the how of everything. If it did it would be about 90 volumes, pretty hard to take to church.
    The beauty of the Bible is that it speaks to people of all intelligence levels. You don't have to be a Physicist to understand it.
    I believe Genesis is the word of God, I don't however believe in a literal 6 day creation or in a 6000 year old earth.
    To me Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly an infinite being communicate to a finite being in a way the finite being can understand. Not trying to tell us things we couldn't understand.
    What is a day? Were they days before the Earth was created and circled the Sun? Read Genesis 2:15-22. Was Adam a speed namer or what? If it's literal, a lot happened on that one day, didn't it?
    Several people have said why couldn't God have created in a literal 6 days. He could have. Why couldn't he create in 6 nanoseconds? Why not 6 billion years? Why not let God be God?


    Last summer, a group of scientists used the Hubble telescope to make some predictions about the age of the universe. They determined that the previously accepted age of 20 billion years was wrong, and that the universe was actually somewhere around 15 billion years old. A group of scientists at NASA studied their findings, and determined that the first group had interjected an assumption in one point of their calculations; finessing the
    assumption to a more correct figure dropped the age of the universe to 12 billion years old.
    Today, it was reported that scientists have made a startling discovery about our solar system. The two satellites Pioneer 9 and 10 (or was that 10 and 11?), each headed in opposite directions, are not as far out as they're supposed to be. Faced with this disturbing thought, scientists are now trying to figure out what gravitational or other effect might be causing the two satellites to slow down.
    Last summer, the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds was found. It was then reported about a month later that it not the missing link after all, but some dinosaur bones that had fossilized and then had feathers sometime (much?) later fossilize on top of them.
    The point is, those of us that are trusting science to tell us how old the world and the universe is, are still waiting for science to tell us how old the world and the universe is....
    Hugh Ross puts his faith in God and science, basing his logic on "God is not a liar." God does not lie, he postulates; therefore, if the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old, it must be.
    D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist with Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico, puts his faith solely in God, and has written several treatises, including a book called "Starlight and Time" which address how the universe could be exactly the age the Bible tells us it is.
    I personally believe the Bible is inspired. Genesis 1 is the ONLY passage in the entire bible where a day is specifically limited using the words "morning" and "evening." The ONLY one. If God is not a liar, and the Bible is His Word, written by His inspired authors, why would He specifically say the evening and the morning were the day?

    You said in your post you stated that you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but my question is do you believe the Word of God? If the Bible were to be a textbook there would be no need for faith. I wonder, would a child say "I can't believe the world was created in 6 literal days" or would they say "Daddy did you see that pretty little flower that God made for us to see and smell?"

    Just some things to think about:
    1. If Evolution is accurate, then there was death occurring for millions of years before Adam and Eve. According to Romans 5:12 "...sin entered the world through one man(Adam)and death through sin..." So if Romans says death did not occur until Adam how could there be death for millions of years before Adam?
    2. If organisms have been evolving for millions of years, there should be literally thousands of intermediate fossils (missing links), yet there are NONE. Why?
    3. Why are there no intermediate organisms now? Statistically is it possible that just by chance we live in an era that everything is in a "complete" state?
    4. Isn't it interesting that in 2Peter 3:5-6 warns against "scoffers" in the last days saying,
    For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"
    This is specifically for those who question the first 11 chapters (the flood specifically) of Genesis.
    5.If you deny the first 11 chapters as literal, than why in Hebrews 11:4-7 does God use three fictitious characters (Abel, Enoch, and Noah) as examples of men of faith, right along with a bunch of men who really existed?
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2 New Member

    Jun 30, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Just a quick note here. Day and Night (light and dark) were already around from the first day (Gen. 1:3-5). As to the "pollination," you are correct that there weren't any insects around, but many plants (older ones were generally ferns and the like) do not require pollination. I don't necessarily disagree with you, however.

    This is a topic with which I have struggled a long time. I do not believe we "evolved." I know too much to believe that. Microevolution has been exhibited (i.e., bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics, etc.), but macroevolution on the scale it would have had to occur while conserving the DNA/cell model is just too much to swallow. We were created: "Fearfully and wonderfully made."

    As to the age of the earth, I don't know. Both sides of the day/age controversy have valid points. The dinosaurs were around before man...apparently a long time before man. Furthermore, the earth existed before the main events of creation (it was void and without form, but it was there for who knows how long).

    I know a great deal about science, but I have reserved judgment on the age of the earth issue for a long time and am still contemplating it. Creation of man (and any other living thing ever to grace or disgrace the face of the earth with its presence) was of God and, with me, is a given. The Bible is completely unambiguous here.

    In the end, it does not matter to me how old the earth is. What does matter is that it was created by God and He sent His Son to die for me so that I may be with Him one day; then, I will know "the rest of the story."


    From Blade: "Microevolution has been exhibited (i.e., bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics, etc.)"

    Blade this is not microevolution, but simply the adaptation of an organism to its environment. I do the same type of thing when I travel to a nation like Pakistan and endure (adapt to) temperatures that range between 100 and 120 degrees. We adapt to our environments as animals adapt to theirs. But I fail to see any evolution taking place, in the scientific sense of the word.

    This is a flawed analogy. When you go to Pakistan and "adapt" to your environment, nothing about you changes genetically and you do not gain any new enzyme systems. What your body already has adjusts (sweat production increases, vasodilation in the skin, etc.) but you don't get any new genes or change anything about you.

    In the case of bacteria acquiring resistance, their genetic makeup changes. Their DNA sequence either mutates to accommodate or they acquire new genetic material (from scavenging plasmids of other bacteria). They get new genes. They gain something they didn't have before. By the strictest definition, this is microevolution (not from one species to another, but "improvement" of a species). It is adaptation to the environment as you say (all "evolution" is), but by a very different mechanism than you gave by way of analogy.
    As I said, though, this is on a microscale and is more a function of the abilities of the species (i.e., God made bacteria with the ability to acquire/mutate in this way and gave them a vast interchangeable gene pool). This is quite different from (macro)evolution in the sense that scientists speak of when they talk about the origin of man.

    I think we are playing a semantics game with what "micro-evolution" is. Populations do adapt to the environment and form new species (distinct breeding groups). But macro-evolution or the concept that simple life forms can randomly become more complicated is a fairy tale. Bacteria beget bacteria and so forth, "each according to it's own kind".

    I personally believe in d-evolution, the breakdown of higher life forms into simpler ones. The short term results of d-evolution appear to be identical to those proposed by evolution proponents in the variation and adaptation of species to specific environmental pressures.

    I also believe that d-evolution is entirely consistent with the Genesis creation accounts and the concept of the introduction of sin into a perfect creation.

    I am personally a six day creation fan. No gaps! I am also a big bang proponent. God spoke and bang, creation happened.

    I would like to respond to a few remarks that have already been made. First, I want to state up front that my desire is to engage in discussion for my benefit. I think that it is beneficial to discuss one's beliefs with others who might believe differently, not for arguments sake, but for the sake of truly understanding my belief structure.
    Where those areas are weak, it should be easily exposed; for reproof, instruction and correction. Where those areas are lacking cohesiveness, it allows for further delineation so that communication skills can be perfected. All in all these types of discussions are good for each one of us, and I appreciate those who are willing to engage in a little spirited discussion.

    I would not publicly go after someone who is involved in the ID movement, but in the ecclesiastical sense I do feel compelled to be separate. I would not knowingly allow a IDist, or Day-ager, or a gap-theorist, to preach in my church. Nor would I knowingly preach in their churches.

    BWSmith, you could be right about the symbolism of Gen 1-11, but would there not be in the rest of the Bible the definitions of those symbols that are found there? Is there anywhere in the Bible that makes the claim that these chapters are not literal? Are not historical? Is the only reason to accept them as symbolic because the the findings of science?

    r5dots, as DHK pointed out later, evolution is a broad term and clarifications are needed to know what you really mean by this. I do not know of any creationist who does not believe in some type of evolution or as DHK states, adaptation of an organism to its environment. Is the idea to accept certain forms of evolution because it fits into the apparent age of the earth by evolutionary standards?

    Read some of the leading evolutionary scientists today. They not only reject a literal creation but the God behind the creation. Let list a few quotes by these scientists:

    Richard Dawkins wrote: "Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos, but there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not."

    Richard Dawkins also wrote: "The virgin birth, the Resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children."
    Stephen Jay Gould wrote:[i/ "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution - paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce".[/I]

    John Maddox wrote: "The idea that religion may be a way of organizing one's appraisal of one's place in the world is not very different from what astrologers tell their clients. In other words, it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science. Holton, who skirts round this issue, is nevertheless correct in saying that `creation science', as its practitioners call it, deserves the fiercest counter-attack, especially now that so many of its practitioners have qualified as scientists and engineers, and so are all the more insidious because they know the language."

    Richard Lewontin wrote: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

    Julian Huxley said: "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.... Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era..."

    Max Plank wrote: "Faith in miracles must yield ground, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the forces of science, and its total defeat is indubitably a mere matter of time."

    Even college textbooks on evolution make statements like: "By compiling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous..."

    These are only a few of the quotes that I have run across, and by their very nature I am not willing to allow for the fact that God made it the way scientists said. (That is not taking into account the many, many times science has believed something only to turn around and change their beliefs.) There just is no way that science is infallible.

    Will wrote: The bible is not a scientific textbook... To me Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly an infinite being communicate to a finite being in a way the finite being can understand. Not trying to tell us things we couldn't understand... Why not let God be God?

    I do agree with you that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it speaks on the subject of science it is accurate. If not, then would that not presuppose that the Bible has errors in it? Or at the least is made to be taken other than literally? I believe the whole Bible is an infinite being communicating to finite beings.
    Isn't it letting God be God by believing that He could if He so desire communicate a book to His creatures?

    Blade wrote: The dinosaurs were around before man...apparently a long time before man.

    Apparently, Blade there are a lot of people who believe this. But there is evidence that made has been around a long time with dinosaurs. Let me link Kent Hovind's site that talks a little about dinosaurs. It even has pictures on the site of dinosaurs. It is: http://www.drdino.com/Articles/dinos.jsp

    There are even pictures of dinosaurs drawn on rocks in South America and other places. Carl Baugh has dinosaur footprints on top of human footprints. I am sure that you can find his site on the Net.

    DHK wrote: Genesis is an historical book written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

    DHK, have you heard of the work by P. J. Wisemen concerning the authorship of Genesis? Apparently he postulates that Genesis was redacted by Moses, but written by several different authors and passed down from generation to generation. Moses put these writings into the book of Genesis. He believes that Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Terah, Ishmale, Issac, Esau, Jacob and Joseph are the authors. In other words, there are eyewitness accounts to the actual events recorded in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. These eyewitness accounts have been preserved by God and passed down to Moses who then edited them in the book of Genesis.
    It is an interesting theory and one that I am going to be exploring.

    Scripture and Nature, No conflict, after all God is the author of nature and scripture.
    Theology and Science, There can be a conflict, since theology involves human understanding of biblical text.
    Science is fallible humans trying to understand the universe. Obviously conflict can occur. They both can and are wrong at times

    I checked out the website you gave. I wasn't very impressed that they "proved" anything about dinosaurs being around with humans. On several occasions, species thought to be extinct have been found (the Coelocanth being a shining example) living today, on other occasions, some "old" species (sharks, alligators/crocodiles) are well known to have "survived" from those "ancient" times. (Note, I am using "quotation marks" because I am still forming an opinion an don't want to give the impression this is the position I hold.)

    Further, it is accepted that humans did indeed coexist with old animals that are now extinct (mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and others). This does not prove, in my mind, that there were not dinosaurs before humans (especially when we examine the fossil record).

    As Will pointed out, the Hebrew wording does not exclude the possiblity that the earth is older than 6,000 years. And, indeed, much of scientific discovery suggests it is. I have seen much of this attacked by so called "creationists" (I, too, am a creationist; I am just uncertain of the age of the earth). The ones who advocate a 6,000-year-old earth generally seem uninformed or slant the facts, IMO.

    They specifically have a fetish for carbon-dating. Yes, the older something gets, the less accurate carbon dating is. However, the "mistakes" that these "young earth" defenders point to are generally in the order of millions of years, not thousands. Carbon dating has shown animals (i.e., mammoths that were preserved in ice) to have been around for at least 20,000 years by carbon dating.

    As a scientist, I have no reason to doubt this dating. It has been replicated and no error has been found. As a Christian, the Hebrew is not so dogmatic that it requires the time period to have been 6 literal days.
    Man may have been around only 6,000 years (our history and evidence of man seems to go back only that far, and I don't have much trouble with man being that old), but animals were created before man. In fact, everything was created before man. We were the last of God's creative work on earth.

    Don't get me wrong, I still entertain other ideas. The creation of a "mature" earth that is indeed only 6,000 years old but was created with a history already intact. Further, some have postulated that dinosaurs and the like existed (as a creation of God, of course) at some point before the creation account in Genesis. After all, there was an earth (void and without form at the time God began creation). What, if anything, had been here previously would be unknown to us other than by what we find in the fossils.


    Originally posted by Joy2: How do you know it wasn't a literal 6 days? Were you there? And before you say anything, no I wasn't there either, but I know Someone who was! I take His Word for it.

    God didn't write Gen 1-11. He allowed it, but didn't write it.
    In believing 6-day creation, you are taking the P writers' word for it, not God's. God has no intention of revealing details of creation to us, only that He is the Creator.


    Blade wrote:
    They get new genes. They gain something they didn't have before.

    Blade, have you had the opportunity to read Lee Spetner's book, Not By Chance?
    Granted, most of these type of books are over my head, intellectually speaking, but I do enjoy reading them. His primary thesis is that the different types of evolution do not add new information to the genome. In fact, he argues that it is just the opposite, information is lost, not gained. He states: among all the mutations that have been studied, there aren't any known, clear, examples of a mutation that has added information.

    Blade wrote: God made bacteria with the ability to acquire/mutate...

    Spetner brings up this point and makes the point that some bacteria have added information, but that information was already present in another bacterium or virus. So for evolution, no new information has been added overall, which is required by evolutionary theory.
    The genome of the bacterium that acquired the resistance does indeed gain information. But there is no gain for the life as a whole. The resistant gene already existed in some other bacterium or virus.
    Spetner also goes into detail of how insects become resistant, which is by losing its sensitivity to the DDT.
    He mentions enzyme systems and states that mutations makes the enzyme less specific, not more, and reduced the information in the genome.

    Blade I do agree with you that DHK's analogy is a little flawed. I am willing to accept the term microevolution as a suitable word for adaptations, but I do not really believe that in microevolution the genome gains new information.

    I also agree with MikeJ in that what we are really witnessing in this evolution/adaptation is d-evolution; a loss of genetic information.


    Will wrote:
    Many scholars in the past and today view the use of Yom to mean not a literal 24 hour day but a long period of time. Following are some of those scholars... Some good websites that discuss this in depth...

    Will it is amazing how data is filtered through the eyes of faith. We all are guilty, especially myself, of looking and analyzing evidences based upon our belief structure. No where is this more evident than in the interpretation of the word yom.

    Thank you for listing some of these scholars who hold to the view of yom not necessarily being a literal twenty-four hour period. Thank you also for your links to the various web sites that promote this view.

    Gerhard F. Hasel, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University wrote an article on this topic that is on the web. It is at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm
    Hasel mentions Origen and Augustine and admits that they do not hold to the literal twenty-four hour day for yom in Genesis. Though he does take a slightly different angle as to why. Read what he said about their reasons for this type of interpretation:

    Neither Augustine nor Origen had any evolutionary concept in mind. They took the creation "days" as non-literal, standing for something else, because it was philosophically mandatory to assign to God creation activity which was unrelated to human time. Since the "days" of creation are related to God, it was argued, these "days" have to be representative of philosophical notions associated with God taken from their philosophical perspectives.
    In Greek philosophy God is timeless. Since the creation "days" are part of divine activity, it was assumed that they also should be understood in a timeless sense. The thinking of Origen and Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy, not by scientific speculations, which led to a reinterpretation of the creation "days."

    Both Origen and Augustine held to the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation. It was this type of interpretation that "held primary importance for over a millennium in Christendom, providing the hermeneutical means for the reinterpretation of the literal sense of the creation 'days'" according to Hasel.

    Hasel makes some good points and I would just mess up his thesis by attempting to condense it here.
    There are also several articles at the AiG site at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp

    Will, I am forced to rely on the expertise of others in these areas as my knowledge it limited. It is quite obvious that there are good men on both sides of this issue. I think that it basically comes down to one of two things:
    1) Who has the better arguments? and/or
    2) Who supports my particular belief structure the best?

    Because it appears that we will have to base what we believe not on overwhelming. convincing arguments, but merely on the the best of the two.
    Will, what it is about your belief structure that demands, or asks, for a long time period for creation? Is it to harmonize Scriptures and science? Or do you really find the evidence overwhelming in support of the long time periods? (If so, can we go through them one by one?)

    Will wrote:
    Scripture and Nature, No conflict, after all God is the author of nature and scripture.

    Will that is correct taken at face value. The problem comes in, as you alluded to later, is that humans are fallible and as they seek to interpret both Scripture and nature errors have and will creep in. That is unavoidable with our fallibility factor.
    So if you are stating that nature does declare the glory of God, I couldn't agree more. If you are stating that those who study nature and then make pronounces about the "laws of nature" are just as infallible as the Scriptures, " I couldn't disagree more. Just as those who seek to understand the Scriptures can err in their interpretations of those Scriptures so can those who interpret nature err in their interpretations of nature.

    I've read many times how some people are constantly making statements that God has written two books, the Bible and the Book of Nature, or something similar. If I understand their meaning, again assumptions can be a bad thing, that they can put equal validity to the Book of Nature as to the Bible, then I beg to differ.

    Yes, you are right, as much as I admire Geisler, I would not let him preach in my church. I want to have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward men and I could not in good conscience toward God allow someone with his particular beliefs on Genesis 1-11 teach to those that I will some day give an account to God for. Again, I want to reiterate, that what he believes and preaches is between him and God and I would not be at his church or anywhere he is preaching to discredit him in any way. We can agree to disagree, and commit ourselves to Him that judgest righteously.

    …I would like to examine the fossil record and see if it is all that it is cracked up to be. I've read that the weakest argument for evolution, both theistic and atheistic, is the lack of a coherent fossil record.
    Tom has brought up some good points on C14 dating. As you are aware of there are a host of sites dedicated to refuting the radiometric dating, as there are sites dedicated to validating radiometric dating. I can link them if you like.
    Are you basing your beliefs about the long age periods on the fossil record? Or are you basing it upon the amount of evidence that science has accumilated for evolution?

    BWSmith wrote:
    God didn't write Gen 1-11.

    BWSmith, I guess that is really my hangup with this evolution/theistic evolution/creation debate. I do believe that God wrote Gen 1-11 and everything up until Revelation 22:21. (Now I also believe that there are theistic evolutionists who also believe this.)

    [From the Administrator: for BWSmith's response to this, please see the theistic evolution thread.]

    I believe God wrote His word to be understood and applied to our lives in a meaningful way.

    I believe that God has preserved His word for even our generation.

    Therefore I have no problem placing my faith completely in the literal account recorded in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
    Now that doesn't mean that I understand everything in the Bible, or even most of it. Hence the need for discussions such as this.

    [ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Administrator ]
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2 New Member

    Jun 30, 2000
    Likes Received:

    Blade, I was mainly wanting you to see the pictures that he has of dinosaurs.

    Only the first picture intrigued me. The others were decomposed beyond recognition and mysteriously didn't survive long enough to analyze (the one that did seemed to be a basking shark). In any event, these might be species previously thought to be extinct when in reality they were not (like the coelocanth). They may have been around during the time of the dinosaurs and have survived until our day (sharks and alligators have survived in identical form from "prehistoric" days).

    I would like to examine the fossil record and see if it is all that it is cracked up to be. I've read that the weakest argument for evolution, both theistic and atheistic, is the lack of a coherent fossil record.

    Indeed it is. My biggest problem is that there are fossils (i.e., petrified remains which takes a great deal of time) of all sorts of animals that don't exist anymore. These animals would have required a far different food supply than has been available in "recent" (last 10,000 years) history. Further, and probably most enigmatic, there are no fossils of man parallel to them time wise. These animals seem to have lived when humans did not; that is to say, there is fossil evidence of dinosaurs, but no fossil evidence of humans coexisting with them.
    Again, I want to stress that, whatever their age, dinosaurs were created by God. Their existence is undeniable. They also seem to predate humanity per the scientific and historical evidence. The earth's age is the puzzler to me. The Bible simply doesn't say (in unambiguous Hebrew terms) what happened before creation, how long the "days" were, or flat out how old the earth is.

    Tom has brought up some good points on C14 dating. As you are aware of there are a host of sites dedicated to refuting the radiometric dating, as there are sites dedicated to validating radiometric dating. I can link them if you like.

    I have had some education in radiodating, but it is most definitely a "nuclear" issue and Dr. Cassidy would know a great deal about it. I need to read up a little to "refresh" myself before I make any further comment either way. I would appreciate site links to both sides if you could.

    Are you basing your beliefs about the long age periods on the fossil record? Or are you basing it upon the amount of evidence that science has accumulated for evolution?

    My "beliefs" (I have yet to dogmatize on any single theory, yet) are mostly the result of the fossil record and its apparent age along with the ambiguous wording in the Bible (it doesn't say or mandate literal days be the meaning). I don't believe in evolution. No matter how old the earth is, 6 thousand years or 6 billion years, it and everything on it were created by God.

    As Don brought up, the morning/evening terminology does lend credence to literal days. However, we know that in Biblical "days," they could be lengthened or shortened (Joshua and Jesus in the battle and crucifixion, respectively).


    Will wrote:
    (In reference to Nature) What don't you understand?

    Will, I do not understand the emphasis upon the exaltation of nature and those scientists who interpret nature. I do not want to elevate a discipline to the same level as Biblical authority. I've just read Gerald Schroeder's books, The Science of God an Genesis and the Big Bang. So may be that is why I am a little skeptical about elevating nature to the same level of Biblical authority. Let me list a few of his quotes:

    The biblical account of animal life's development, which amounts to a mere eight verses (!), will have no problem with the final scientific understanding of how animal life evolved.
    The Bible may be the primary source for claiming that a purpose underlies our existence. But understanding the cause of that purpose can only be found as Maimonides stated so many centuries ago in a knowledge of the physical world. For that knowledge the theologian must turn to the scientist.
    ... it requires a deeper understanding of science and of the Bible than many persons have. I have confidence in human intelligence and so I teach it. (This in reference to whether Adam had an ancestor.)
    ...if the Big Bang theory is correct, then biblical tradition will have to accommodate itself to include this fact of expansion.

    It seemed self-evident to me that Schroeder has placed more emphasis upon the scientific models and beliefs than in the literal interpretation of the Bible, of which he claims to be a Biblical literalists.

    Blade wrote:
    My biggest problem is that there are fossils (i.e., petrified remains which takes a great deal of time) of all sorts of animals that don't exist anymore... Further, and probably most enigmatic, there are no fossils of man parallel to them time wise. These animals seem to have lived when humans did not; that is to say, there is fossil evidence of dinosaurs, but no fossil evidence of humans coexisting with them.

    Also, BWSmith wrote: There are tons of intermediate fossils.

    Blade the fossil evidence is based upon assumptions. The primary assumption is that the earth is billions of years old. Therefore the stratigraphical record must be interpreted in that light. Lyell, who developed the geological column, (after the theory of uniformitarianism was proposed by Hutton in 1795), according to sources that I have read, was a bitter opponent of Christianity. Again, I find it interesting that it was during these last two centuries that an all out attack on the God of the Bible was launched, as a philosophical opposition and not as a scientific or historical opposition.

    If one has the assumption that a global flood laid down most of the geological column and most of the fossils were fossilized at that time, (not all fossils, but simply most), then it would explain the apparent discrepencies of geological time scale. It would also go a long way in explaining the evolutionary hypotheses of stratification.

    Here is a site that answers basic questions about the fossil record. (I need basic sites. )

    Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, has a chapter about the fossil record which is worth the price of the book. He postulates that there are not a ton of intermediate fossils. Speaking of one supposed intermediate fossil series, the horse series, he states:
    A great deal has been made of the horse series and other similar cases. The traditional view is that they provide powerful evidence of the reality of evolution; and that what has happened in the case of the horse happened in all other cases, but the fossil links were not preserved or have not yet been discovered. In other words, the horse is the exception which proves the rule.

    He also closes his section on the fossil record with this statement:
    As evidence for the existence of natural links between the great divisions of nature, they are only convincing to someone already convinced of the reality of organic evolution.

    Even evolutionary scientists openly admit to the lack of fossil support for evolution.
    Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

    David Raup wrote;
    ... we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much... we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

    Collin Patterson wrote:
    If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...
    there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

    George Gaylord Simpson wrote:
    This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.

    David Kitts wrote;
    Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.

    We could go on and on with the quotes, but my point is that there are not tons of intermediate fossils, as is acknowledged by evolutionists themselves.

    Blade wrote:
    I would appreciate site links to both sides if you could.

    Here are the ones coming from a pro-evolution point of view:


    Here are the ones coming from a pro-creation point of view:


    Then there is a site that links to both sides of the controversy:

    Blade, within those sites are links to other sites and some like Talk Origins and True Origins are in competition with one another, i.e. they usually respond to one another's posts.
    Marvin Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention, has some interesting points about the fossil record and mankind. Basically he is stating that human fossils are not in the state of change and that human fossils have been around since 4.5 m.y.a on the geological time scale.

    Blade wrote:
    My "beliefs" ... are mostly the result of the fossil record and its apparent age along with the ambiguous wording in the Bible... [Earlier you wrote] They also seem to predate humanity per the scientific and historical evidence.

    I do not believe the wording in the Bible is ambiguous. It has become ambiguous because of
    1) the fossil record,
    2) scientific evidence, and
    3) historical evidence.

    All three of them are subject to one's preconceived bias.
    It is possible to get into the quoting game with my scientists are smarter than your scientists, but that is not my goal. I really do believe that there are evidences for and against both sides in this debate. It is easy to find the proofs that we are looking for.

    Yes, I too am looking for proof. I have come to the table with a preconceived bias. A bias that is for the literal interpretation of the Bible. Is it solely based upon the scientific evidences? No. There are other evidences for a literal interpretation of the Bible. After weighing them all, I am convinced that the Bible should be taken literally.

    I have been watching this with great interest since I teach science at a Christian college. I have been studying this issue for many years.

    Let me make a few observations. Carl Baugh and Ken Hovind are not the best choices to represent modern Creation science. They are at the fringes. If you want to study the best in Creation scholarship try the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, or the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism.

    If you want one single book to study dealing with origins issues from a scholarly Creationary perspective I recommend Faith Reason and Earth History by Leonard Brand. It is written at the college level and is well thought out. He starts off by developing a solid philosophy of science and then moves on to presenting the evidence for both sides in a fair manner.

    Has anyone heard of or been to Answers In Genesis? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.asp)

    And, if so, what did you think?

    I have. I check it on a regular basis. Answers in Genesis is a good representative for what Creationists are thinking today. Especially note the Q&A section. The articles are written by a good number of scientists.

    Let me recommend two other good sites.

    Institute for Creation Research at http://www.icr.org
    Especially note the articles on the research page.

    Creation Research Society at http://www.creationresearch.org
    Especially note the online Quarterly articles.

    [ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Administrator ]
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2 New Member

    Jun 30, 2000
    Likes Received:
    I believe God never lies but I do believe our interpretation of the Bible is often skewed to fit our needs. I personally believe the Bible should be read contextually rather than literally. The fact that there are so many variations of the Bible to me exhibits its inherent flawed nature. Though the book may be flawed the message is pure and unadulterated. Unconditional love is the one re-occuring theme in the Bible that remains the same despite the version or the denomination. It is also a message that crosses faiths from Baptists to Catholics to Islam. I am a universalist in that I believe a loving heart is that path for all to heaven.

    Are you saying that you believe Muslims will go to heaven if they have a loving heart? If it is than you do not believe the Bible. The Bible is very clear that the only way to heaven is through Christ (who Muslims reject).
    John 14:6 "I am THE way , THE truth, and THE life: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME."
    If you are saying that a loving heart is the way to heaven, than you are speaking heresy. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me

    Pure science is never wrong. That is a demonstration of how nature functions that can be repeated an infinite number of times where the same result will always be achieved.

    I believe all with good hearts go to heaven. Christ is love and with love in one's heart one cannot be devoid of Christ.

    You ask if I believe the Bible and I do though not perhaps your interpretation of it. The Bible is perhaps the most interpreted book in the world and as such either a only a few have the correct interpretation or there is no singular correct interpretation. I believe the latter. God did not create five sixths of the world only for them to be predestined to hell. That would not be in the compassionate and just nature of Christ.

    That sounds real nice and all but who are the "all with good hearts"? Isn't that "good" relative? I mean one man might say "he has a good heart" and another might say that he does not. In the same way how are we to judge what is good in one's heart and what is not? It seems that that is God's business. So I would conclude that if a man's heart is not good according to God's standard of good then his heart is really not good no matter what we think about the matter.
    I suppose that we need to find out what God would classify as a "good heart", don't we? I would like to hear what you think before I tell you what I believe.
    You said, "Christ is love and with love in one's heart one cannot be devoid of Christ". I was just wondering if this necessarily means that one with love in his heart is therefore a child of God?
    Could God allow love to dwell in someone's heart simply for the benefit of his children? I suppose that by human perspective this might be considered "unfair" of God, giving "non-elect" a little love (yet they will not go to heaven) so that the "elect" wouldn't have to put up with people who are 100% non-love.

    God did not create five sixths of the world only for them to be predestined to hell. That would not be in the compassionate and just nature of Christ.

    In my opinion it would be more just for God to send six sixths of the world to hell. Also, who are we to say that God is unjust? Is He our puppet which we can change to be as just and compassionate as we feel necessary?
    In Matt. 2:14-15 Jesus makes a whip and drives out merchants from the temple who had no doubt been working there their most of their lives. Does this seem like the "just and compassionate" Christ that you had imagined?
    You might also want to check our Matt. 23:13-36. In this passage Christ uses the following terms in reference to the Pharisees:
    "child of hell"
    "blind guides"
    "graves full of dead men's bones"
    "full of extortion"
    "full of uncleanness"
    "full of hypocrisy and iniquity"


    To tell you the truth I am not sure what God would classify as a good heart and frankly I do not think anyone else does either. Some believe they know based on the Bible, Koran, Torah or just a hunch but I do not put much credence in those books as they are of man. Basically I follow my heart and hope that it leads me in the right direction and for me this is all anyone needs to do to enter heaven.


    How do you know that there is a heaven? Also, do you think that God is at all active in this world? is He just watching from heaven doing nothing? has He revealed Himself at all to us? if so, how?


    I don't know there is a heaven I suppose I just hope so and have faith that there is. I do believe God is active in this world not by miracles but rather through people. People in their actions reflect God's love acting as a conduit for his grace.


    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

    Jeremiah 17: 9


    Santa, You say you hope to find out what God considers a good heart in man, and that no one can really know. God says in his Word that no man has a good heart that all men are wicked and have evil hearts. Rom 1:10-18
    "There is no one righteous, no not one.
    There is none that understands, none that seeks God, there is none who does good, no not one. the way of peace they have not known, there is no fear of God before there eyes."

    God says that there is no one that has a good heart.

    In Rom 3:23 the Bible says further that not only does everybody not have a good heart but because of that we "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

    You and I have to realize that there is nothing good in us that we are evil and that we fall short of the glory of God and because of this in Rom 6:23 it says "for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

    We deserve death due to our sinfulness. And we will never find salvation, The Bible has already pointed out in Rom 3:11 that there is no one who seeks God. We need to understand that we can never save ourselves or find salvation but that salvation comes from God that it is a gift of God.
    Ephesians 2:8,9 explains that "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast."

    So you see, you or I can never seek out God or earn His salvation due to any goodness in our own hearts. We must fall at His feet and rely upon His grace to save us.


    Respectfully that is an opinion I don't fully share. Yes we rely on his grace but I believe we can also earn his grace by our loving actions.


    It seems like we have a radically different view of God. Yours seems to be much more like a big Santa (no pun intended) giving love to everyone and sending them all to heaven. He's not powerful enough to do miracles or create the world. His purposes are whatever man wants them to be. It seems more logical for me to believe in a powerful God. In my mind God by definition means a higher power, the creator. I have no problem believing in miracles or any other miraculous events. Sure, most of the modern day "miracles" are fake but that doesn't nullify the possibility of God ever doing them.

    I also don't think that love is the only attribute of God. If a man kills another man he deserves to be punished. If he is not punished then God is unjust. What should God do with Hitler? God is love, right? He is unjust if He does not send Hitler to hell.

    Another thing about God that I believe. I think that He gave us rules to live by. Really, how are we know what really is good or bad if God has not revealed it to us? So I believe that God has revealed a law to us and that when we disobey there is punishment. I have to go but I also wanted to say that I believe that law of God is given in the Bible and there are various proofs for this but I'll go into that later. (maybe on a different thread)


    Isaiah 64:6
    But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


    I have backed up, as you say, opinion that we are saved through grace alone apart from ourselves. you said that we also can earn grace by our loving actions. Could you please show me in the Bible were God says that we can earn His grace by actions that we first perform?


    I don't use the Bible to back up my opinions because I view the Bible contextually rather than literally. The Bible is important because it is a book of virtue and moral instruction but it is not the end all of theology for me.
    I do believe God is all powerful and I also believe he has an ideal for us. I just believe he allows to flourish and blunder without his aid and without his spite.
  5. Administrator2

    Administrator2 New Member

    Jun 30, 2000
    Likes Received:

    The question is not whether or not evolution occurs. It does. The question is not whether or not macroevolution occurs. That also is directly observed.
    What the scientific creationists are now considering is how far macroevolution (speciation) can go. I discussed the issue with with John Woodmorappe(of ICR "Ark Feasibility Study" fame) via email. He believes that it extends no farther than species, genera, and families.
    The problem with this approach is that it puts humans and apes in the same "kind".
    But let's look at what the Institute for Creation Research says. They endorse John Woodmorappe's "Ark Feasibility Study", in which Woodmorappe says that a few basic kinds rapidly evolved in a few thousand years after the Ark to form all the present species, genera, and families we see. He confirmed this to me in a personal email.
    Since humans and chimps are in the same family, but different genera, that would be a little hard for a lot of folks to take.