Young Earth Creationism (Socrates versus JohnRanson) commentary

[dizzle]

Okay this thread is opened to discuss the debate located here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=33002#post33002



Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

Also, this subject has aroused great passion here in the past, and has escalated at times to an extent where any semblance of mutual respect has been lost. Please do not do that and govern yourselves accordingly.

[wienerdog]

So when's this sucker starting? Huh? I'm waiiitiiiiiing...

[John Powell]

Dee Dee Warren:

Also, this subject has aroused great passion here in the past, and has escalated at times to an extent where any semblance of mutual respect has been lost. Please do not do that and govern yourselves accordingly.


POWELL:
If emotions flare too much I would like a chance to do it in an acceptable manner. I suspect the ad hominems result from frustration that should be largely avoidable if the debaters focus on their goal: rational persuasion.

John Powell

[$cirisme]

I'm looking forward to this, when will it start?

[Socrates]

John Powell: This particular debate is one which presupposes Christian Theism and Biblical Inerrancy on both sides, OK?

[Socrates]

Wiener: It's started now, OK? :yipee:

[Rusty T]

Socrates, can you read the rules. Participants are not to post in this thread.

[John Powell]

Socrates:
John Powell: This particular debate is one which presupposes Christian Theism and Biblical Inerrancy on both sides, OK?

POWELL:
Thank you, Socrates for clarifying that. I'm sorry I unintentionally lured you to break the posting rules. Given what you say, it will be interesting to see two Christian inerrantists debating the issue.

Good luck!

John Powell

[GrayPilgrim]

I think the James Barr stuff is especially interesting as he states that 24 hour days is the only interpretation of Genesis 1 although he does not believe in that cosmogony.

[QED]

What interests me here is that, in some circles at least, the young earth is such a ridiculous notion that only a non-inerrantist would dare argue the affirmative, while an inerrantist would be stringently defending the negative in this debate. As time goes on, that circle will likely grow to include all but a tiny fraction (such as the geocentrists now may represent) of Christians. This is in a small way historic, in that it is likely among the last chances to observe an inerrantist defending a literal 144 hour creation week.

[QED]

P.S. - Witness James Barr who is (presumably) using a literal interpretation of Genesis to argue against inerrancy...

[tgamble]

Socrates continues his attacks on science.

But if this was before Genesis 1:31, as long-agers claim, then all this was “very good”. But fossils are better explained as the result of Noah’s Flood and its after-effects.

Obviously this is false since the flood myth was proven wrong long ago. The fossil record can't be explained by a global flood at all, even if one was possible or even if one had occured. Of course, neither is the case.

The reason they don’t agree is because they are intimidated by “science”, which is really the uniformitarian interpretation of data.


Both claims are false. Why would theologians be "intimitdated" by science? Scientists don't make threats if you don't accept their claims!

The 2nd claim is also false "uniformitarian interpretation" didn't arrive until the 1800's but an old earth was recognized from the data as early as the 1700's.

However, there is something illogical about this. What happens when the plain meaning of the Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing and truthful God who was there

Obviously, this is an unsupported opinion. The bible is NOT the written word of any God. That claim of his is merely his opinion based on faith. Furthermore, even if it was, the evidence still shows it to be wrong. If Socrates is correct in his interpretation, he's calling God a liar. It's that simple.

disagrees with the theories of some fallible scientists who weren’t there (cf. Job 38:4) and who are usually strongly anti-Christian?

This claim is, of course, false. Socrates even quotes from theologians who agree that the data clearly supports an old earth and universe. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of Christian geologists and astronomers who recognize and accept that the earth is old.

[wienerdog]

While it's valid to point out Socrates' view of science, this debate is between two Christians who accept biblical inerrancy. Thus, I think it's inappropriate to use this forum to try and argue against inerrancy or Christianity.

I suspect I'll agree more with Socrates than with John Ransom, since I agree that Gen 1 is history and not myth or poetry. Our disagreement is whether the days of creation should be understood as mankind's days or as God's days.

1. For Socrates' first point, I would argue that in my copy of Steinmann's article, he stated that the use of echad in Gen 1:5 was totally unique and unparallelled in the rest of the OT. He then concluded that we should understand yom in the usual sense anyway, because of the use of "evening" and "morning." Until his conclusion, I thought Steinmann was arguing that the use of echad made it less likely that Gen 1:5 was referring to a calendar day. After all, if a passage is unusual and out of the ordinary, it probably wasn't intended to be understood in the usual and ordinary manner.

--Soc then argues that when yom is not referring to a calendar day, there is a clear modifier to tip off the reader. I contend that the fact that Genesis 1 is describing God's workweek as opposed to humanity's is a clear contextual modifier that the days of creation are anthropomorphic.

--The point of Ex 20:8-11 and 31:17 is to demonstrate that the six-plus-one pattern of God's creation week is the basis for the six-plus-one pattern for humanity's creation week. Just as God worked for six of his days and rested for one, so we should work for six of humankind days and rest for one.

2. For his second point, I agree with Soc that Gen 1 is history and not poetry. As for the James Barr quote, I would just point out that two years before he wrote this, the Int'l Council of Biblical Inerrancy discussed this issue, and virtually none of the Hebrew and OT scholars present maintained that the calendary day interpretation is the only valid one of Gen 1. So Barr's statement was simply wrong, since he apparently rejects evangelical scholars.

3. For his third point, I disagree that "A straightforward interpretation of Genesis shows that death of humans and other vertebrate animals (nephesh chayyah) is the result of Adam’s fall (Genesis 2:17, 3:19)." I see no reason to think that any of the references in the Bible to the death initiated by Adam and Eve's sin applies to anything other than human beings. I agree with him that this doesn't merely refer to our spiritual death, but to our physical death as well.

--As for early vegetarianism, I would simply argue that God's statement to this effect in Gen 1:29-30 is made to Adam and Eve before they had been expelled from the garden of Eden. So I don't see any reason to apply to it beyond Eden.

4. As for early church testimony, I've read the quotes given in favor of the various views in their context, and it seems to me that some of them certainly did accept the calendar day interpretation, but many of them did not. I would just encourage everybody to read the passages in question for themselves.

5. Thus, I obviously disagree that the only motivation for not holding the calendar day interpretation is modern scientific discoveries. Soc's quote from Gleason Archer only has him saying that the calendar day view is a superficial interpretation.

[Woman]

That Genesis is written in a straight-forward historical style isn't an issue. Or shouldn't be. It merely proves that the authors either

1. believed it was history OR
2. wanted the readers to believe it was history.

I fail to see why this is relevant at all.

Although even within the "historical" and literal context we have things like talking snakes (which we are to "understand" is Satan.) So perhaps allegory is still permissible within history??



:huh:

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

That Genesis is written in a straight-forward historical style isn't an issue. Or shouldn't be. It merely proves that the authors either

1. believed it was history OR
2. wanted the readers to believe it was history.

I fail to see why this is relevant at all.

Although even within the "historical" and literal context we have things like talking snakes (which we are to "understand" is Satan.) So perhaps allegory is still permissible within history??
:huh:

talking snakes, magical fruit trees. If ya gonna believe one, you might as well believe the other.

Snakes don't eat dust either. But creationists rearely let facts get in their way.

[wienerdog]

In case anyone is interested, Soc started another thread about the early Church Fathers, and their understandings of Gen 1.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2747

[Warcraft3]

tgamble:

"talking snakes, magical fruit trees. If ya gonna believe one, you might as well believe the other."

I wouldnt call the trees "magical", I would call them supernatural. People often ask me why I (someone they consider very skeptical and rational) believe in such things. While a full answer is usually too long to give them, I do try to give them some kind of answer. I usually tell them that I believe in the supernatural simply because I have, on rare occasions, been a witness to supernatural events. These events have made a lasting impression on me which I can never forget or escape. Most people never get to see any supernatural events though, which I think is the fault of Christians.

I take issue with many of the beliefs of various denominations, because I think they really hinder (if not out right stop) these things from happening. So, since the current church lacks the supernatural power it once had, we have to resort to trying to "convince" people of the truth instead of showing them the truth. While I think having debates, forming arguments, and providing evidence, for our theological beliefs are all important, I also think that these things alone produce minimal results.

I hope everyone here has the oppurtunity someday to witness a supernatural event which can not be explained away. It really changes you forever.


Russ

:juggle:

[HeDied4all]

Is this really debateable? Is the Bible not the word of God? YES, it is! Therefore it is the universal truth from cover to cover, and not subject to the truth according to Garp!
How many times is the word DAY used in the Bible? 6? 60? 600?
My point is this, the word day is used many many times throughout the Bible and every time it is used, it referes to a 24 hour piriod.
Why then would the first six days be any different?

OOOOOH! Scratch your head and think about that one!

Where's the spell check when you need it?

God's peace to all.............

[wienerdog]

How many times is the word DAY used in the Bible? 6? 60? 600?
My point is this, the word day is used many many times throughout the Bible and every time it is used, it referes to a 24 hour piriod.
That's incorrect. I suggest you look up the term yom in a lexicon, or do a word study on it.

[QED]

Yesterday @ 06:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72768#post72768)
wienerdog:


That's incorrect. I suggest you look up the term yom in a lexicon, or do a word study on it.

A good starting place is Genesis 5:4-5. That passage simply does not make sense with 24 hour days. (The number of 24 hour periods of Adam were eight hundred years...?!?)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I have some questions Socrates might wish to consider.

LENGTH OF THE DAY = 24 HOURS 0 Min 0 Sec?

SOCRATES:
Yom has a number of different meanings, but the primary one is a normal length day. And in Genesis 1, this is the only meaning it could have:


POWELL:
To the second of time, Socrates, how long is a "normal length day" or "regular solar day" as one of your sources says? Is every day of the year that long? Is today that long? Was every day of creation exactly that long?

IT'S GOOD TO KILL PLANTS, BAD TO KILL ANIMALS.

SOCRATES:
Genesis teaches that the completed creation was ‘very good’ (tov me’od) (Genesis 1:31). The ‘very good’ was the culmination of creation week, where God had already pronounced things ‘good’ (tov) six times. This is a clear indication of no principle of actual evil in what God had made. Keil and Delitzsch comment:

. . .

This is a key problem for all non-literal ideas about Genesis. A straightforward interpretation of Genesis shows that death of humans and other vertebrate animals (nephesh chayyah) is the result of Adam’s fall (Genesis 2:17, 3:19). The rest of Scripture teaches that human death is the result of Adam’s Fall (Rom. 5:12-19), and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 states:


POWELL:
Are you suggesting, Socrates, that there was death of invertebrate animals and other biological life forms (e.g., plants) prior to the Fall of Adam?

There are differences between cells of plants and animals, Socrates, but are those differences so extreme that it's "good" for one kind to die (plant cells), but not the other (animal cells)? Can't we biological organisms all get along with out killing and eating each other? Why didn't God make us all autotrophs?

SOCRATES:
This shows that Adam's sin resulted in the curse on the whole creation, of which Adam was head.


POWELL:
If the actions of Adam caused predation to begin, Socrates, why didn't the actions of Christ cause it to stop? Why do animals still eat each other 2000 years after the time of Christ?

SOCRATES:
And further evidence of no animal death before sin is:

- Vegetarianism in both humans and animals before the Fall (Gen. 1:29-30).


POWELL:
Did predators have different digestive systems when they were eating only plants? For example, did the pre-sin T-Rex and lion have the teeth and stomach of a herbivore?

SOCRATES:
- The living creatures (Hebrew nephesh chayyah) rescued on the Ark did not include plants (or invertebrates), meaning there is a qualitative difference between the deaths of the (vertebrate) animals and plant death.


POWELL:
Why didn't God save plants, dinosaurs, and other creatures? Didn't God love them as much?

SOCRATES:
- The restored paradise will have no bloodshed in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9, 65:25).


POWELL:
Does that mean the digestive systems of predators like the lion will revert to a "plant - only" system at that time?

SCIENCE MUST MATCH BIBLE PARADIGM

SOCRATES:
However, there is something illogical about this. What happens when the plain meaning of the Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing and truthful God who was there, disagrees with the theories of some fallible scientists who weren’t there (cf. Job 38:4) and who are usually strongly anti-Christian? It is always Scripture that is ‘re-interpreted’ to fit in with man’s wisdom. But God’s word never changes, while it is hard to find a five-year-old science textbook that is not outdated! So we should be questioning the ‘science’ not Scripture.


POWELL:
Fine, Socrates. You think that when Science contradicts the Bible then Science must be wrong. Without re-interpreting of the Bible in light of scientific advances we'd probably only have flat-Earth or geocentric Christians today.

Should we trust the science that tells us that "darkness" is actually filled with non-visible wavelengths of light that are more essential to our life than mere visible light or should we trust the Bible that darkness is something that can be physically moved around like visible light, separated from each other, and that it is being without light, and that it's bad or at least less valuable than visible light?

Should we trust the science that tells us the sky is blue due to the scattering properties of our thin atmosphere or should we trust the Bible that the sky is blue because it's water held up by a transparent firmament that has windows to let rain water down?

Should we trust the science that tells us that snakes eat rodents and such things and didn't lose their legs in recent times or the Bible which tells us they eat dirt and all lost their legs when one of them spoke to Eve a few thousand years ago?

Should we trust the science that tell us the year is about 365.2422 days long or should we trust the Bible that speaks of 360-day years?

Could it be that science books keep changing because science is progressing in knowledge while scriptures remain as wrong as they always were?

Apparently many educated religious people are trying to retain their religious beliefs in the face of scientific advancements that make the old beliefs less and less tenable.

Mormonism is one such effort. I'll let my former believing self explain.

JOHN MORMON:
The Mormon explanation is that the events of Genesis are partly a description of the "spiritual" creation of Earth and such things before they were made physically upon the Earth. This allows for a long age to the Earth, but does not require it. Most Mormons accept an old age for the Earth. Some, however, think one Genesis day is 1000 Earth years.

My grandfather had an additional idea that the events in the Garden of Eden all occurred in the pre-existence. There was no death or predation in the Garden because spirits don't die or eat. The "fruit" was symbolic. At the encouragement of Satan, Adam and Eve led the rest of us in pressuring God to let us take on human-like physical bodies earlier than planned. We were in a hurry to come down to Earth. This resulted in things on Earth being less ideal than they otherwise might have been. Human warfare would have been largely avoided if we had waited a few more thousand years of pre-Earth life preparation.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[Joseph Alward]

The day is associated with evening/morning. Again, everywhere else in Scripture, this is a clear indicator of an ordinary day. Since day has BOTH a number AND evening/morning, it seems like God is going out of His way to tell us that they are ordinary days!

JOE ALWARD
An "ordinary" day is one in which the earth, bathed in light from the sun, rotates on its axis about once every twenty-four hours. How could the first three "days" of creation have been "ordinary" days when there was no sun?

If those "days" were not ordinary days, then they must have been extraordinary days, which means they could have been longer than about twenty-four hours. Could they not have been millions of years long?

[lostseptember]

I agree with Woman. Does it really matter how old the Earth is?
As for the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis, how do we account for the fact that it is nearly a carbon copy of the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian story of creation)? I believe the Genesis stories put our existance in its proper context, but in order to believe they are literal hisory, I would have to believe that God really thought He and Adam would find Adam's wife among the animals!(A point made once by an astute Bible professor).

[dizzle]

FYI - I have spoken with Socrates and he hopes to post another round next week. He is on vacation with limited computer access.

[wienerdog]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82413#post82413)
lostseptember:

I agree with Woman. Does it really matter how old the Earth is?
I don't think it does, but I'm an old earther. I know some young earthers who really think this is a central issue.

As for the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis, how do we account for the fact that it is nearly a carbon copy of the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian story of creation)?
I think you're really exaggerating their parallels. They certainly have some commonalities, but Genesis 1 is far from being a "carbon copy" of the Enuma Elish.

I believe the Genesis stories put our existance in its proper context, but in order to believe they are literal hisory, I would have to believe that God really thought He and Adam would find Adam's wife among the animals!(A point made once by an astute Bible professor).
Well, I disagree. I think Adam may have believed that he could find a helper among the animals. But I suspect God was doing this in order to demonstrate to Adam that he needed another human being.

[lostseptember]

Hi Weinerdog,
Mea culpa on the carbon copy mistake. Having never read it myself, I was taking the word of people who have. Looked it up on the internet after your reply and boy is it a doozy! The translator still maintains the opinion that the Enuma Elish is a primary source for Genesis.

As far as what God was trying to do when he brought the animals to Adam to be named and to find a mate for Adam, my translation of the Bible (The Harper Collins Study Bilbe NRSV) has God 1)deciding that Adam needs a mate, 2) creating the animals, 3) bringing the animals to Adam and 4) creating woman after no suitable match is found.

It seems to me that we're not really concerned with how old the Earth is or why God made animals or women. The whole debate appears to be about Biblical inerrancy. My position is that the message is innerant but the literature is not.

[dizzle]

Hey John, could you possibly not direct questions to the debate participants? They cannot answer here at this point. Perhaps you can make your points another way?

[John Powell]

WARREN:
Hey John, could you possibly not direct questions to the debate participants? They cannot answer here at this point. Perhaps you can make your points another way?


POWELL:
Good idea. My style seems to have unintentionally lured two different debaters (JasonG recently in his debate and Socrates earlier on in this debate) to break the arena posting rules. I'll try making it more clear that they aren't supposed to answer, but that I'm speaking to the others in the arena.

John Powell

[Jason Gastrich]

Socrate's opening post was excellent! It is unfortunate that his opponent didn't try a point by point rebuttal of Socrate's claims. I'll try and catch up on the whole exchange, soon.

God bless,
Jason G

P.S. Anybody interested in the domain name "GenesisinQuestion.com"?

[Robin Goodfellow]

This is a fascinating debate and I'm anxious for it to continue. Does anyone know when Socrates will return from vacation?

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
Unless I hear otherwise, I am assuming that this debate has stalled.

Very tactfully put, Dee Dee. But I wonder if we're really giving John Ransom his due.

Socrates picked this fight by replying to a post of John's with such remarks as:

“What nonsense!”

“I already answered that!! It is NOT poetic since it lacks parallelism. It has all the earmarks of being historical narrative with the waw consecutive.”

“No, judging from this post, it's your mind that lacks logical order.”

“Pay attention if you desire credibility. There was a LIGHT source created on Day 1.”

I don't think any of us would question Socrates' toughness as a debater. But if he can't answer the bell now, John Ransom and his non-literal position are left with considerably more credibility than Socrates seemed originally to be suggesting.

It would be interesting to know whether Socrates is a big enough man to acknowledge that.

Robin Goodfellow

[dizzle]

I spoke with JohnRansom and he wants to continue. I asked him to communicate with Soc and see what is up.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112170#post112170)
Dee Dee Warren:

I spoke with JohnRansom and he wants to continue. I asked him to communicate with Soc and see what is up.

Excellent!

Incidentally, there’s a lesson in this that I hope isn’t lost on TheologyWeb’s young people as they contemplate possible careers. Don’t sell the field of chemistry short. If vacation time is any indication, some of the benefits packages offered to chemists would seem to be worthy of serious consideration.

Robin Goodfellow

[Passant]

I was very suprised to find that Socrates is posting to other threads. Has this debate been terminated? It was just getting good!

[dizzle]

I have asked the debate participants to communicate with each other. I have to take the silence to mean that Soc does not wish to continue. I have no further information.

[Abigail]

Light and Luminaries
Soc appears to feel I am questioning his rationality in my comments on the provision light in the first three days of creation. While this was never my intent, the comment is hardly original with me; Origen said the following in The Fundamental Doctrines:









For who that has understanding [emphasis mine] will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?… I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.




I am of course well aware of the lighting of the new Jerusalem (not of the heavens and the earth, as Soc states) in Revelation 21. But this is irrelevant, as the light in Genesis 1 is quite clearly a created light and not the glory of God itself. In any event, surely the light of God’s glory would not be a point source, but omnipresent and therefore not likely to produce a day-night cycle (unless God is somehow capable of reducing his glory, which seems improbable).

Soc, and Calvin too, completely avoided the argument that since the light created on day one was declared good, the suggestion that God replaced it on day four with a different source calls God’s wisdom into question.

Personally I consider the day one/day four dichotomy insurmountable for the literal view.To me the 'light' in Genesis 1:3 is the presence of God ie His revelation and instruction as is experienced from the world's point of view. So while God does not reveal Himself to us or instruct us in the way to go then we, and the world are in darkness. That God would decribe His sharing of Himself by overseeing and instructing as 'good' is consistent with what we see in the Bible. So when God is engaging with us, revealing Himself to us and instructing us then we are in daylight, but when God is witholding His presence from us in some way this our night. The scene in Revelation is one of continuously being in the presence and instruction of God and therefore there is no night(both literally and spiritually). I do not believe this can be scored as a 'symbolic' point by OEC's TE's because of the very nature of revelation and instruction.

Each day of the creation story has God saying 'let there be...' or 'let the...' and to me that sounds like instructions. Each day it seems like those instructions are followed through perfectly and all is as God wants it to be and this pleases Him and He pronounces the situation as 'good'. It is only after someone (Adam and Eve) do not heed the instructions of God that we see God is displeased. They have almost like put themselves in darkness because they have refused instruction.

Therefore I believe JR's objection to the literal day/night cycle of Day 1 is weak.

[reyvin]

To me the 'light' in Genesis 1:3 is the presence of God ie His revelation and instruction as is experienced from the world's point of view. So while God does not reveal Himself to us or instruct us in the way to go then we, and the world are in darkness. That God would decribe His sharing of Himself by overseeing and instructing as 'good' is consistent with what we see in the Bible. So when God is engaging with us, revealing Himself to us and instructing us then we are in daylight, but when God is witholding His presence from us in some way this our night. The scene in Revelation is one of continuously being in the presence and instruction of God and therefore there is no night(both literally and spiritually). I do not believe this can be scored as a 'symbolic' point by OEC's TE's because of the very nature of revelation and instruction.

Therefore I believe JR's objection to the literal day/night cycle of Day 1 is weak.

Funny you should resurrect such a thread as I'd been reading through it myself and thinking on this very problem as of late. I personally think that JR's objection strong and the idea that the light in Gen 1:3 is God's glory to be a weak assumption forced on the text. Gen 1 is about creation and God's glory lighting up the creation isn't part of the natural order. Further, Soc trying to bring in a proof text to back himself up:

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

First of all, the text explicitly says that the glory of God is what causes the light. Genesis doesn’t say any such thing. It’s an imposition read back into the text. Secondly, it is instructive to look to the next chapter for further illumination (no pun intended):

Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

This text makes clear that during this time there is no night. So clearly, God’s glory does not cause a night/day cycle.

[Abigail]

Funny you should resurrect such a thread as I'd been reading through it myself and thinking on this very problem as of late. Yes, you linked it in another thread and I followed the link

I personally think that JR's objection strong and the idea that the light in Gen 1:3 is God's glory to be a weak assumption forced on the text. Ok, but I didnt say it was the glory of God but rather his 'instruction' which was the light source here. I think His glory and His instruction are tied up with each other but can be seperated too. Gen 1 is about creation and God's glory lighting up the creation isn't part of the natural order. Further, Soc trying to bring in a proof text to back himself up:I agree Genesis 1 is about creation and here we see the creation of what one day would consist of - night and day, evening and then morning. Remember God would have defined what a day would consist of and how long it would be and the earth/sun revolution would be subordinate to this decree.

[reyvin]

Yes, you linked it in another thread and I followed the link

Ok, but I didnt say it was the glory of God but rather his 'instruction' which was the light source here. I think His glory and His instruction are tied up with each other but can be seperated too.I agree Genesis 1 is about creation and here we see the creation of what one day would consist of - night and day, evening and then morning. Remember God would have defined what a day would consist of and how long it would be and the earth/sun revolution would be subordinate to this decree.

But we know that God ordains the sun which ordains the light. Jeremiah 31:35: Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name.

The word light in this verse is identical to the one used in Gen 1:3.

[Abigail]

But we know that God ordains the sun which ordains the light. Jeremiah 31:35: Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name.

The word light in this verse is identical to the one used in Gen 1:3.
Did you see my signature verse Psalm 119:105? 'Light' there is also the same

[reyvin]

Did you see my signature verse Psalm 119:105? 'Light' there is also the same

Yes and I'm not arguing that but Jeremiah and Genesis are both speaking about what God created.

[Abigail]

Yes and I'm not arguing that but Jeremiah and Genesis are both speaking about what God created.
no, I think it is more involved than that. The Jeremiah passage is alluding to the covenant. So can you say for certain that is NOT what was being created in Genesis 1:3 - a kind of covenant with the earth and all creation.

[lucaspa]

Okay this thread is opened to discuss the debate located here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=33002#post33002



Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

Also, this subject has aroused great passion here in the past, and has escalated at times to an extent where any semblance of mutual respect has been lost. Please do not do that and govern yourselves accordingly.Dee Dee, the question of the debate is somewhat artificial. Let's review it:

"Resolved: that the text of Genesis 1-2 requires a literal interpretation of a creation in six 24-hour days and is not to be construed as a literary framework for a creation in some other manner."

The authors of the text can want the creation narrative to be 24 hour days without the narrative being historical. So ... that answer is that
1. Yes, "yom" in Genesis 1 means 24 hour days.
2. Since the reason yom meant 24 hours was theological, creation did happen in some other manner.

Socrates blew it here:
"
Yôm can mean something longer than or other than a 24 hour period, but only when there is a modifier that tips of the reader, e.g. beyôm in Gen. 2:4 (“when”). And since such a modifier is missing in Gen 1, there is no basis for any day-age view."
"beyom" does not mean an indefinite "when". I've looked in 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries and "be" when applied to "yom" always means "in the". So we have a period less than 24 hours. Notice that "beyom" is also used in discussing the 7th day in Genesis 1 so that there is no indefinite amount of time used for rest. It is 'beyom' that gives the 24 hour period to the 7th day.

This of course, means that Genesis 2:4b contradicts all of Genesis 1 when you read literally. Genesis 2:4b states "in the day that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth." So, after telling us that it took at least 4 days in Genesis 1 to create the heavens and the earth, Genesis 2:4b turns around and, when read literally, tells us it took less than a day to do so!

Such a blatant contradiction is a sure textual message that neither creation story -- Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 -- was ever meant to be read literally. Socrates has shown, via the text, that God had to create by some other method.

[lucaspa]

To me the 'light' in Genesis 1:3 is the presence of God ie His revelation and instruction as is experienced from the world's point of view. ???? Genesis 1:3 is very clear that light is separate from God. God creates light. Your statement has light being an intrinsic property of God. I'm afraid your statement does not jive with the text.

That God would decribe His sharing of Himself by overseeing and instructing as 'good' is consistent with what we see in the Bible. Let me give you another possibility. The religions around Israel all had the world being "evil" and subject to the whims of the gods. By declaring creation to be "good", Genesis 1 is both affirming a difference between Judaism and the pantheons of her neighbors, but affirming an aspect of God, that God is good because He only creates good.

So when God is engaging with us, revealing Himself to us and instructing us then we are in daylight, but when God is witholding His presence from us in some way this our night.This is powerful symbolism, but it is not based in the literal Genesis 1 text. This is how it may seem to us as an analogy, but it is not literally true.

Each day of the creation story has God saying 'let there be...' or 'let the...' and to me that sounds like instructions.You noticed that God creates by speaking in Genesis 1. Even people are spoken into existence in verse 25 "let there be ..". However, in Genesis 2 Adam is formed from clay and Eve from a rib. The animals and birds are formed from clay. God doesn't create by speaking. You have 2 separate creation stories here: one in Genesis 1 and another in Genesis 2. The difference in how God creates is one of the many ways you know this.

[lucaspa]

Is this really debateable? Is the Bible not the word of God? YES, it is! Therefore it is the universal truth from cover to cover, and not subject to the truth according to Garp!Better tell Jesus that. In Mark 10 and Matthew 14 he tells us that humans (Moses) wrote the Pentateuch and that parts of it are wrong. Also, Paul tells us that 1 Corinthians 7 is written by himself alone, without inspiration.

I'm afraid you have made the Bible a false idol to worship. But be happy, there is still time for you to repent.

How many times is the word DAY used in the Bible? 6? 60? 600?
My point is this, the word day is used many many times throughout the Bible and every time it is used, it referes to a 24 hour piriod.Not every time. A couple of times 'yom' is used for an interval of time -- festival -- that is greater than 24 hours.

Why then would the first six days be any different?In Genesis 1 the authors meant "yom" to be 24 hours, but not because creation happened that way. They need an (unecessary) justification for the Sabbath. So they constructed creation in 6 days with rest on the 7th. Then the editor that put the Torah together inserted the appropriate verses at Exodus 20:11 and other places to complete the justification circle.

Remember, the Bible is theologically true, but there is no need, and several reasons not to, to claim it as "universal truth". That way leads to bibliolatry.

[Abigail]

???? Genesis 1:3 is very clear that light is separate from God. God creates light. Your statement has light being an intrinsic property of God. I'm afraid your statement does not jive with the text. God being involved with us is still God being seperate from us ...try reading more carefully

Let me give you another possibility. The religions around Israel all had the world being "evil" and subject to the whims of the gods. By declaring creation to be "good", Genesis 1 is both affirming a difference between Judaism and the pantheons of her neighbors, but affirming an aspect of God, that God is good because He only creates good. Your opinion based on your commitment to evolutionary worldview

This is powerful symbolism, but it is not based in the literal Genesis 1 text. This is how it may seem to us as an analogy, but it is not literally true.Read my signature verse

You noticed that God creates by speaking in Genesis 1. Even people are spoken into existence in verse 25 "let there be ..". However, in Genesis 2 Adam is formed from clay and Eve from a rib. The animals and birds are formed from clay. God doesn't create by speaking. You have 2 separate creation stories here: one in Genesis 1 and another in Genesis 2. The difference in how God creates is one of the many ways you know this.I disagree with your opinion that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate creation stories

[lucaspa]

Socrates: "Scripture should be used to judge any ‘scientific’ view of Earth history. "

A denial that God created. Also a call to bibliolatry. What did God create? The physical universe. What does science study? The physical universe.

There has long been in Christianity a doctrine called the "two books" doctrine. That is, God gave us two books. The Bible and Creation. Since both are from God, they should agree and neither is above the other.

Now, however, we are told to turn our back on God and one of His books and rely only on a fallible, human interpretation of the Bible. Sorry, you can turn your back on God if you want, but I really don't think that is a good idea. I would rather question and change my fallible, human interpretation of the
Bible. See second quote in my signature.

[lucaspa]

God being involved with us is still God being seperate from us ...try reading more carefully Abigail, we are not talking about God being separate from us, but God being separate from light. God is not part of this universe. He is not a member of the universe. Light is a member of the universe.

Remember, God creates light. "Let there be light -- and light appeared." If light was an intrinsic property of God -- as you say -- God would not have to speak it into existence. He could just be there and light would be there. But that isn't what the text says.

Your opinion based on your commitment to evolutionary worldview :smile: Evolution is not a worldview. Evolution is NOT atheism. For Christians, evolution is simply how God created. God tells us, in His Creation, that He created by the processes you lump together as "evolution"; He did not create according to your literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

I disagree with your opinion that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate creation storiesIt's not an opinion, but a conclusion. You are free to argue that conclusion, starting with the problem of time that I posted.

That Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 represent 2 creation stories has been present in Christian thought since at least St. Augustine. The Documentary Hypothesis -- that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have separate authors -- was put forward independently by 2 ministers in 1718. At that time all scientists were creartionists.

The text itself is very clear that we have 2 separate stories. Read literally, they contradict at several points. Which tells us in the text that we should not read them literally.

BTW, Genesis 2's purpose is to tell us why each of us gets separated from God: we disobey Him. So, Genesis 2 does shed light (pun intended :smile: ) on something that you are very concerned with: being separated from God and God not involved in your life.

[Abigail]

Abigail, we are not talking about God being separate from us, but God being separate from light. God is not part of this universe. He is not a member of the universe. Light is a member of the universe.

Remember, God creates light. "Let there be light -- and light appeared." If light was an intrinsic property of God -- as you say -- God would not have to speak it into existence. He could just be there and light would be there. But that isn't what the text says. duh did you even read my aforegoing posts instead of misinterpreting all I said

:smile: Evolution is not a worldview. Well would you deny that you view on how religion developed is not at all affected by your BELIEF that we all evolved. Evolution is NOT atheism. Strawman lucaspa - where did I say this. Stop calling boogyman For Christians, evolution is simply how God created. God tells us, in His Creation, that He created by the processes you lump together as "evolution"; He did not create according to your literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Yes I am sure some Christians believe this I however do not
It's not an opinion, but a conclusion. You are free to argue that conclusion, starting with the problem of time that I posted. LOL how do you argue with someone who talks of human thought, design and purpose as evolution happening in the mind.:rofl: :lmbo: :rofl:

That Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 represent 2 creation stories has been present in Christian thought since at least St. Augustine. The Documentary Hypothesis -- that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have separate authors -- was put forward independently by 2 ministers in 1718. At that time all scientists were creartionists. :ahem: The text itself is very clear that we have 2 separate stories. Read literally, they contradict at several points. Which tells us in the text that we should not read them literally.Yes you keep telling me this is what you believe of the accounts, but as I have told you I take another view

[reyvin]

no, I think it is more involved than that. The Jeremiah passage is alluding to the covenant. So can you say for certain that is NOT what was being created in Genesis 1:3 - a kind of covenant with the earth and all creation.

Right, and its comparing something in the natural world and the solidarity of it to God's covenant. Unchangeable and instituted by him. What you, Soc and Calving are alluding to is nonsensical (ie: the total restructuring of what God instituted a mere three days later).

[lucaspa]

duh did you even read my aforegoing posts instead of misinterpreting all I saidAbigail, I quoted your post when I made my initial response. If you think I've misinterpreted, please walk me through exactly how I did so. Thank you.

Well would you deny that you view on how religion developed is not at all affected by your BELIEF that we all evolved.Abigail, I accept that we evolved because the evidence in God's Creation leaves me no choice. Acceptance of evolution is not a belief as in my belief that God exists. That is a belief.

My views on the history of Christianity comes from reading the history of Christianity. It is separate from evolution. I have not divulged my views on how religion in general developed, so you have no idea what my views on the subject are.

Strawman lucaspa - where did I say this. You called evolution a worldview. Atheism is a worldview. Theism is a worldview. But evolution is not a worldview. Evolution says nothing about about the ultimate origins or meaning of the universe. Worldviews talk about that. So, in calling evolution a worldview, I concluded that you think evolution is atheism, since you obviously don't associate evolution with theism. Am I wrong? If you don't think evolution is atheism, then you should retract that it is a worldview.

Yes I am sure some Christians believe this I however do not Again, that there are 2 different creation stories is not a belief. It is a conclusion based on the data of the text. No belief required. You may "believe" that there are not 2 creation stories, but the question is: is your belief correct?

how do you argue with someone who talks of human thought, design and purpose as evolution happening in the mind. :smile: Darwinian selection does happen in the mind. Abigail, I have concluded that Darwinian selection is the ONLY way to get design. When humans design, we do Darwinian selection in our minds. Think about how you design your sentences. It is the product of a long Darwinian selection process that started when you were a baby. Babies make random noises and watch to see the effect of those noises in their environment. Those sounds that elicit a positive response from the environment are kept. That's how you first learn to speak words. My older daughter used to say "elphedent" for "elephant" and we thought it was cute. In that environment, "elphedent" worked. But as soon as she started pre-school, "elphedent" was dropped and "elephant" was used. In the environment of pre-school, "elphedent" didn't work. Now move on to spelling and grammar. We were subjected to a process of Darwinian selection in school to select for the best designs of spelling and grammar. Wrong variations on spelling and grammar got bad grades. So now, as I sit and write these sentences to you, and you write back, we are both making variations of sentences in our minds and selecting that variation that best fits the environment of the idea we want to convey. As I typed this sentence, a couple of times I used the "backspace" key to correct variations of spelling that didn't fit the environment of what the words should be spelled.

Yes you keep telling me this is what you believe of the accounts, but as I have told you I take another view But the difference is that I keep giving you the reasons for my conclusions. You only offer denial. Fine. Deny all you want. I'm not in this to convince you. In fact, I doubt you will allow yourself to be convinced. However, that's not the point of posting. THe point is to get the ideas out there so other people, not only you, can see them and those other people can think about it and maybe I can keep them from the idolatry that has apparently already claimed you. It would be nice to bring you back into the fold and save you from destruction, but I have learned that not everyone wants to be saved. So sad, but true.

[Abigail]

If you don't think evolution is atheism, then you should retract that it is a worldview. No, I have already told you I do not think evolution and atheism are synonymous so why you are trying to insinuate I have convoluted the two is beyond me. Believing in evolution will affect the way you view the Bible and creation. It is a worldview ie how you view the world.


:smile: Darwinian selection does happen in the mind. Abigail, I have concluded that Darwinian selection is the ONLY way to get design. When humans design, we do Darwinian selection in our minds. Think about how you design your sentences. It is the product of a long Darwinian selection process that started when you were a baby. Babies make random noises and watch to see the effect of those noises in their environment. Those sounds that elicit a positive response from the environment are kept. That's how you first learn to speak words. My older daughter used to say "elphedent" for "elephant" and we thought it was cute. In that environment, "elphedent" worked. But as soon as she started pre-school, "elphedent" was dropped and "elephant" was used. In the environment of pre-school, "elphedent" didn't work. Now move on to spelling and grammar. We were subjected to a process of Darwinian selection in school to select for the best designs of spelling and grammar. Wrong variations on spelling and grammar got bad grades. So now, as I sit and write these sentences to you, and you write back, we are both making variations of sentences in our minds and selecting that variation that best fits the environment of the idea we want to convey. As I typed this sentence, a couple of times I used the "backspace" key to correct variations of spelling that didn't fit the environment of what the words should be spelled. I take it you are a Theistic evolutionist and therefore you (hopefully)believe evolution is directed by God and that God DESIGNED it this way so I do not know how you can then say Darwinian Evolution is the ONLY way to get design as by your view God would have designed Darwinian Evolution...capiche!! If you do not believe evolution is directed then all I can say is that it is MINDLESS and has nothing in common with the considered selection which our minds are capable of.
But the difference is that I keep giving you the reasons for my conclusions. Oi mate now listen here, I have read a lot of your posts over the past few days and most have been very dogmatic and nothing more than barking out what you conclude with a few (sometimes outdated) links here and there so please dont think so highly of your posts as opposed to mine.
You only offer denial. I consider your views to be your opinions and I do not wish to get into a debate on evolution. My purpose on this thread was to debate the text without appealing to science. Fine. Deny all you want. I'm not in this to convince you. In fact, I doubt you will allow yourself to be convinced.Ditto

However, that's not the point of posting. THe point is to get the ideas out there so other people, not only you, can see them and those other people can think about it and maybe I can keep them from the idolatry that has apparently already claimed you. It would be nice to bring you back into the fold and save you from destruction, but I have learned that not everyone wants to be saved. So sad, but true.teh heh heh lucaspa believes YEC's are going to Hell :ahem:

[HRG_new]

I take it you are a Theistic evolutionist and therefore you (hopefully)believe evolution is directed by God and that God DESIGNED it this way so I do not know how you can then say Darwinian Evolution is the ONLY way to get design as by your view God would have designed Darwinian Evolution...capiche!! If you do not believe evolution is directed then all I can say is that it is MINDLESS and has nothing in common with the considered selection which our minds are capable of.

Whether or not the selection is "considered" is irrelevant for the results of the selection process.

The whitish fur of polar bears has evolved because of its obvious hunting advantages; but it could equally have evolved if intelligent hunters kept killing all bears with darker fur than the average.

The fact remains - as lucaspa has mentioned - that psychologists have discovered striking parallels between Darwinian selection in nature, and creative design processes in our brains. What are brainstorming sessions but attempts to increase the rate at which ideas mutate in our brain ?

[Abigail]

Whether or not the selection is "considered" is irrelevant for the results of the selection process.

The whitish fur of polar bears has evolved because of its obvious hunting advantages; but it could equally have evolved if intelligent hunters kept killing all bears with darker fur than the average.

The fact remains - as lucaspa has mentioned - that psychologists have discovered striking parallels between Darwinian selection in nature, and creative design processes in our brains. What are brainstorming sessions but attempts to increase the rate at which ideas mutate in our brain ?
No, why should I accept your view over the view of design. We are told that we are made in the image of God and since God created all, He therefore designed the genetic code so it was able to operate in the way we see happening in the biological world ie as in selection, then this is a hallmark of God's knowledge in practise. We are made in God's image and so it is not unlikely that our minds would evidence both traits of the Creator ie the ability to actively use our knowledge to consider and manipulate our environments and also traits of being the created ie we will show characteristics of operating in a certain way due to how we were designed by God. God is omniscient and so He would not have to use trial and error to select or reject what information should be retained, but we are not omniscient and so it is to be expected that we have to go through a process of learning. You and lucaspa may attribute this to evolution if you want but to me I see only design.

[HRG_new]

No, why should I accept your view over the view of design. We are told

Not by a testable source, I'm afraid. Other sources, equally untestable, tell different stories.

that we are made in the image of God and since God created all, He therefore designed the genetic code so it was able to operate in the way we see happening in the biological world ie as in selection, then this is a hallmark of God's knowledge in practise.

Given your theist predisposition, what would not be a hallmark of your God's knowledge ?


We are made in God's image and so it is not unlikely that our minds would evidence both traits of the Creator ie the ability to actively use our knowledge to consider and manipulate our environments
and also traits of being the created ie we will show characteristics of operating in a certain way due to how we were designed by God.

I guess that with the proper ad hoc hypotheses of what God would or would not do (derived from anthropomorphism), more or less everything can be made "not unlikely".

God is omniscient and so He would not have to use trial and error to select or reject what information should be retained, but we are not omniscient and so it is to be expected that we have to go through a process of learning. You and lucaspa may attribute this to evolution if you want but to me I see only design.

Where would you not see design, given your theist predisposition ?

[lucaspa]

No, I have already told you I do not think evolution and atheism are synonymous so why you are trying to insinuate I have convoluted the two is beyond me. Believing in evolution will affect the way you view the Bible and creation. It is a worldview ie how you view the world. Abigail, a "worldview" is ": a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint " www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com) Evolution is not "comprehensive" because it does not address the existence of God. Evidence of this is that there are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are atheists, and evolutionists who are agnostics. Also, there are atheists who do not accept evolution: www.rael.com (http://www.rael.com). They don't believe the Bible or creation but don't accept evolution.

So evolution can't be a worldview.

I take it you are a Theistic evolutionist and therefore you (hopefully)believe evolution is directed by God and that God DESIGNED it this way so I do not know how you can then say Darwinian Evolution is the ONLY way to get design as by your view God would have designed Darwinian Evolution...capiche!! If God picked this method of getting the diversity of life, He did so by running Darwinian selection in His mind and selecting it over the alternatives. As I said, Darwinian selection is the ONLY way to get design. The only issue is whether Darwinian selection takes place in a mind or if it works outside of a mind.

If you do not believe evolution is directed then all I can say is that it is MINDLESS and has nothing in common with the considered selection which our minds are capable of.It has everything in common. In our minds, we set the environment. However, in "nature", the environment is set by other forces. However, the process of Darwinian selection is the same: variations, selection of variations, preservation of the best variations to fit the environment, repeat process to accumulate changes.

I consider your views to be your opinions and I do not wish to get into a debate on evolution. My purpose on this thread was to debate the text without appealing to science. But to do that you end up ignoring at least half of what God has to say. And you are violating the Rules of Interpretation. http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

"Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts." God's Creation tells you which interpretations of the text are in error.

teh heh heh lucaspa believes YEC's are going to Hell It's funny to you that YECs are going to Hell? OK, but you have a strange sense of humor. I find it tragic and immeasurably sad.

[lucaspa]

You and lucaspa may attribute this to evolution if you want but to me I see only design.ABigail, remember that Darwinian selection is design. That's what it does. Darwinian selection is an unintelligent process that produces design. Now, intelligent beings (humans and God) can use Darwinian selection in their minds to produce design but it is still Darwinian selection.
Darwinian selection acts outside minds to produce design. The proof of this is that
1. Humans use Darwinian selection to get designs that are too tough for us and we can't do.
2. When we do use Darwinian selection to get design, we don't know how the designs work!

Now, what you mean by "design" is that humans are manufactured by God in their present state.

No, why should I accept your view over the view of design. Because the evidence God left us in His Creation tells us that God did not manufacture each species -- including humans -- separately. What's worse, believing "design" ends up insulting God. So, because you listen to what God says and not what you say, and because you respect God, you should accept the view I've been talking about.

We are told that we are made in the image of God... We are made in God's image and so it is not unlikely that our minds would evidence both traits of the Creator ie the ability to actively use our knowledge to consider and manipulate our environments and also traits of being the created ie we will show characteristics of operating in a certain way due to how we were designed by God.Are you sure that this is what "in the image of God" means? Is it what is meant in the text -- remember that the text was written over 2500 years ago. Did the phrase mean what you say it means then?

since God created all, He therefore designed the genetic code so it was able to operate in the way we see happening in the biological world ie as in selection, Abigail, the genetic code does not happen in selection. The genetic code happens to
1. Preserve the genetics of the individual to the next generation.
2. Errors in copying the code result in variations from parent to child.

It appears that the genetic code -- the 3 base code for amino acids -- was designed by natural selection.
1. Alberti, S The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis. J. Mol. Evol. 45: 352-358, 1997.

God is omniscient and so He would not have to use trial and error to select or reject what information should be retained, He did if He let natural selection work to design us. Even if He manufactured us, then He used trial and errror in His mind to select which information should be retained, just as we did as we learned to first talk and then write.

Abigail, it is difficult to find transitional series of individuals in the fossil record. Therefore, it is all the more remarkable that we have such a series connecting us to H. erectus, H. erectus to H. habilis, and H. habilis to A. australopithecus. It's as if God is shouting "I did it by evolution!" Why would you ignore God?

[lucaspa]

I take it you are a Theistic evolutionist and therefore you (hopefully)believe evolution is directed by God and that God DESIGNED it this way so I do not know how you can then say Darwinian Evolution is the ONLY way to get designAbigail, read carefully. I said Darwinian SELECTION is the only way to get design. Darwin divided Darwinian selection into two areas: artificial and natural. Artificial because he could see humans setting the environment and doing the selection in breeding plants and animals. "Natural" selection simply happened outside what humans were doing.

as by your view God would have designed Darwinian Evolution.:blush: We are using "design" in 2 different ways. You are using "design" as in manufacturing something. Say, a hammer. You decide what the hammer should look like is what I call "design". But then you have to manufacture the hammer, right? Now, the two processes can be combined in natural selection. However, in the human mind (or mind of God) the design happens before the manufacture. I do the selecting of what I want to say before I type the words.

Now, did God make Darwinian evolution -- descent with modification? Or did God simply use something that exists and which He sustains? I don't know, but I favor the second. Just as I don't think God made gravity per se. But He sustains gravity and uses it to keep the planets in orbit.

If you do not believe evolution is directed then all I can say is that it is MINDLESS and has nothing in common with the considered selection which our minds are capable of.As I have indicated, natural selection has everything in common with Darwinian selection in the mind except the origin of the environment.

Now, the question is: did God direct evolution? He could have, but He does not have to. Depends on what God wants. If all God wants is a creature able to communicate with Him but doesn't care about the outward shape, then NO, God does not have to direct evolution. Natural selection, in exploring all possible designs, will eventually find one of the vast number of designs to make a creature capable of communicating with God. I personally favor this one. After all, what does God care that we look like a hairless ape? God has no physical form, does He? And He can take on any physical form He chooses, even a non-living one like a burning bush. So why would He care what we look like.

OTOH, if God wants a particular physical form, then He can interfere with evolution in at least 2 ways such that we can't detect the interference.

most have been very dogmatic and nothing more than barking out what you conclude with a few (sometimes outdated) linksI have been giving the reasons for my conclusions. You don't. Projecting your failures onto me isn't going to change anything. Which of my links are outdated?

[Abigail]

lucaspa, LAST post to you as I am busy with other things and heckling over creation versus evolution with people like you is just getting in the way.

Abigail, a "worldview" is ": a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint " www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com/) Evolution is not "comprehensive" because it does not address the existence of God. Evidence of this is that there are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are atheists, and evolutionists who are agnostics. Also, there are atheists who do not accept evolution: www.rael.com (http://www.rael.com/). They don't believe the Bible or creation but don't accept evolution.

So evolution can't be a worldview. :ahem: Your belief in evolution WILL affect how you view certain things ie it will affect how you view the world, now call this what you will but deny that fact you cannot.
If God picked this method of getting the diversity of life, Operative word - if He did so by running Darwinian selection in His mind and selecting it over the alternatives. One, you talk like Darwin invented selection or something. Darwin did not invent selection. Selection is inevitable when you have one or more options available to you (funny how evolution zealots always seem to use those little inevitabilities of life as though they somehow confirmed their theory). Darwinian selection (as understood by evolutionists) is mindless and has to take whatever hand is offered to it - it should be called darwinian 'roulette'. The only way darwinian selection triumphs is by default because those who are handed the dud hand peg off. This is NOT how we select when making considered choices between our options. We have PURPOSE and therein lies a major difference Furthermore if I as a person am lacking in knowledge I can aquire more knowledge which will increase my knowledge base and increase the options of any design I PURPOSE to make, yet besides the odd mutation here or there evolution has not been shown to have any effective mechanism of increasing it's options pool. Remember you can only select if you have more than one selections available to you and evolution has never been able to show credibly that it ever could have overcome the initial inertia against it in the early stages of life to manufacture these choices (and spare me the evidence of 'well we're here arent we' so that's evidence it must have). Remember you were effectively going from ZERO selections available. As I said, Darwinian selection is the ONLY way to get design. As I have pointed out Darwinian 'selection' is really a misnomer as it doesnt really make any selection but rather takes what it is handed and therein lies the difference between true design and your idol 'Darwinian Selection'. True design reeks of purpose. Dawinian selection is a slave to the pressures that surround it, Darwinian selection goes not where it would but where it is sent.
It has everything in common. In our minds, we set the environment. However, in "nature", the environment is set by other forces. However, the process of Darwinian selection is the same: variations, selection of variations, preservation of the best variations to fit the environment, repeat process to accumulate changes. So you say Darwinism must be true because we all have choices....mmmhh sounds fallicious to me. I agree there is selection in the biological world. God purposely designed us this way...you however have gone way beyond your authority in insisting we all believe we came from one cell.

"Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts." God's Creation tells you which interpretations of the text are in error. So what's the equation there then huh sounds to me like a direct proportion between how many facts we know and how much Bible we can understand. Truly scarey when one thinks about just how little we know and how many times we are told what was thought to be correct is actually now known to be wrong :ahem:

It's funny to you that YECs are going to Hell? OK, but you have a strange sense of humor. I find it tragic and immeasurably sad.No, what is really funny is that you would actually believe that of YEC's.

[lucaspa]

:ahem: Your belief in evolution WILL affect how you view certain things ie it will affect how you view the world, now call this what you will but deny that fact you cannot. Abigail, evolution doesn't affect how you view ultimate reality -- your worldview. THAT view comes from outside science. Accepting evolution will perhaps affect whether you view the Bible as literal, but that is not a worldview. Nor is that even inevitable. After all, St. Augustine in the 400s and John Calvin in the 1500s did not view the Bible as literal, and neither had ever heard of evolution.

Operative word - if One, you talk like Darwin invented selection or something.Out of context quoting. Please, I thought better of you.
"If God picked this method of getting the diversity of life, He did so by running Darwinian selection in His mind and selecting it over the alternatives." The quote was directed at your comment on God not using Darwinian selection. Now, if God created by special creation, as you believe, God still designed each species by running Darwinian selection in His mind to get the individual designs of each species. Either way God created, He used Darwinian selection.

Darwin discovered Darwinian selection, that's why I use the name. I also use "Darwinian" selection so that we don't have the argument over artificial vs natural selection.

Selection is inevitable when you have one or more options available to you Not really. After all, if you can do all the options, then there is no selection, is there? For instance, if my date and I have the option of going to dinner and a movie, if we do dinner and then go to a movie, we haven't done any selection, have we?

Darwinian selection (as understood by evolutionists) is mindless and has to take whatever hand is offered to it - it should be called darwinian 'roulette'. The only way darwinian selection triumphs is by default because those who are handed the dud hand peg off. This is a misconception and misrepresentation of Darwinian selection. Darwin was very clear that Darwinian selection is a means of preserving the best designs.
"But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

This is exactly how we select: we preserve the design that we think is best. So does natural selection.

We have PURPOSE and therein lies a major difference So does natural selection. The immediate purpose is to pick the designs that do best in that particular environment. What natural selection lacks is a long term purpose. But then, so do most human designs. After all, how long term was the Edsel?

Furthermore if I as a person am lacking in knowledge I can aquire more knowledge which will increase my knowledge base and increase the options of any design I PURPOSE to make, yet besides the odd mutation here or there evolution has not been shown to have any effective mechanism of increasing it's options pool.:lol: ever hear of sexual recombination. Lots more variation than mutation. Even so, the options available are staggering. Mutations occur at the rate of a little over 1 per genome. You are a mutation. I am a mutation. Each of us represents a mechanism of increasing the option pool. in this generation alone the human population has 6 billion options. That's a lot.

Remember you were effectively going from ZERO selections available. Who said that? The best scenario of teh origin of life is protocells. And each protocell is an option. Since each protocell is the size of a bacteria, a cup of water can have 6 x 1025 selections! That's a lot.

True design reeks of purpose. Dawinian selection is a slave to the pressures that surround it, Darwinian selection goes not where it would but where it is sent. Uh, when you choose the spelling of the words you used in this post, do you go where you would, or do only go where you are sent by your teachers (environment) that graded you "F" when you misspelled? Can a car designer go anywhere? Or are there economic, physics, and taste preferences that limit his designs? After all, can a car designer go where he wants and make a car run on fusion? Nope. So, even human designs have limitations. In another thread, Glenn Morton is arguing that the parameters of the universe are fine-tuned for human life. So, if God wants humans or similar creatures to appear, even He is limited to the design of the universe. He can't pick just any old parameter for the strength of gravity. If He picks just 1% differently, stars don't form and we don't exist.

So, design by natural selection also reeks of purpose. And human and God designs have limitations.

So you say Darwinism must be true because we all have choices NO. Let's read what I wrote again:
"In our minds, we set the environment. However, in "nature", the environment is set by other forces. However, the process of Darwinian selection is the same: variations, selection of variations, preservation of the best variations to fit the environment, repeat process to accumulate changes."

See the steps? See the "preservation of the best variations"? Having choices isn't enough for Darwinian selection. You must also have competition among the choices and you must have preservation of the choices made.

God purposely designed us this way...you however have gone way beyond your authority in insisting we all believe we came from one cell. I never said that. I did say that we are a product of descent with modification with Darwinian selection being the direct mechanism of design. And I don't insist that you "believe". I say the data that God left us in His Creation tells us this is what happened. This is God speaking, not me. You haven't yet told me why you are so insistent on turning a deaf ear to God.

lucaspa
"Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts." God's Creation tells you which interpretations of the text are in error. So what's the equation there then huh sounds to me like a direct proportion between how many facts we know and how much Bible we can understand. You don't seem to be arguing that the Rule of Inference should be used to decide interpretation. Some interpretations you know to be wrong. For instance, you know that a literal interpretation of Luke 2:1 is in error because you know, from outside the Bible, that Japanese, Inuits, and Zulus were not enrolled in Caesar's census. Thus, the "whole" world interpretation is wrong, even tho that's what the text literally says.

Truly scarey when one thinks about just how little we know and how many times we are told what was thought to be correct is actually now known to be wrong And what is known to be wrong doesn't change, does it? After all, no one is going to change that the earth is not flat. Just so, no one is going to change that the earth is not young and that each species was not specially created. So yes, YEC is something that was once thought to be correct but was shown -- by Christians -- to be wrong.

No, what is really funny is that you would actually believe that of YEC's. Abigail, YECs are used to viewing themselves as the good guys. They are not. YEC is often heresy and is idolatry. Bibliolatry to be exact. The second violates the 2nd Commandment. I don't see how placing a man-made literal interpretation of the Bible over God can lead to anywhere other than Hell. Do you?

[Abigail]

LAST LAST LAST post




Not really. After all, if you can do all the options, then there is no selection, is there? For instance, if my date and I have the option of going to dinner and a movie, if we do dinner and then go to a movie, we haven't done any selection, have we? Yes you did because the selections were doing nothing, going to dinner, going to a movie or going to dinner and a movie

This is a misconception and misrepresentation of Darwinian selection. Darwin was very clear that Darwinian selection is a means of preserving the best designs. It only preserves by default because the rest are wiped out.
"But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.] You would be better calling it natural deselection as what is actually being selected are the ones to die.

So does natural selection. The immediate purpose is to pick the designs that do best in that particular environment. What natural selection lacks is a long term purpose. But then, so do most human designs. After all, how long term was the Edsel? no, it does not pick the ones to survive what it does do is select those for death ie their number comes up as it were.

:lol: ever hear of sexual recombination. Lots more variation than mutation. this is not novel (as in totally new) options as in sexual recombination all we see is a realization of the potential that was always there. Mutations occur at the rate of a little over 1 per genome. You are a mutation. I am a mutation. Lucaspa mutations have not been shown to have the momentum you guys would wish as from what we see their net creativity power tends towards nothing
Who said that? The best scenario of teh origin of life is protocells. And each protocell is an option. Since each protocell is the size of a bacteria, a cup of water can have 6 x 1025 selections! That's a lot. yes and I am sure that my ramshackle old terrace house is less complicated than the first cell and yet my house certainly didnt just get lucky and happen. Why not!

Uh, when you choose the spelling of the words you used in this post, do you go where you would, or do only go where you are sent by your teachers (environment) that graded you "F" when you misspelled? Can a car designer go anywhere? Or are there economic, physics, and taste preferences that limit his designs? After all, can a car designer go where he wants and make a car run on fusion? Nope. So, even human designs have limitations. In another thread, Glenn Morton is arguing that the parameters of the universe are fine-tuned for human life. Lucaspa it is in the parameters where purpose can be identified in my opinion. Parameters can be obstacles and obstacles need purpose, drive and innovation to be overcome. Now I can design and create something to operate within certain parameters which I choose and that is easy to do because I create my parameters as boundaries to contain and order my design. The design and the boundaries are made to mesh ie my purpose is to design only that which fits in the boundaries. However from your point of view the parameters are not just boundaries you set to contain your design but they are OBSTACLES you must overcome for your design to even get off the ground in the first place. You now are limited because you dont get to choose the boundaries and so boundaries to you are obstacles which you may or may not be able to overcome. The obstacles (boundaries) life had to overcome to start and get running were immense from the point of view of evolution. You cannot appeal to purpose because evolution is mindless and so you have to appeal to time and luck. Because things that die dont survive (:ahem:), you then say well it had to be compatible with the boundaries as otherwise it wouldnt have survived and yes this is true but you cannot use that as proof that Darwinism happened. You have made claims that you have overcome boundaries and you have to put up proof of how you did indeed overcome these boundaries and pointing to what we see about us is not proof that we got here through Darwinism.

NO. Let's read what I wrote again:
"In our minds, we set the environment. However, in "nature", the environment is set by other forces. However, the process of Darwinian selection is the same: variations, selection of variations, preservation of the best variations to fit the environment, repeat process to accumulate changes." As I said when you are not the one setting the boundaries (environment) then to you those boundaries become obstacles and you then have to show how you overcame those obstacles.

This is God speaking, not me. You haven't yet told me why you are so insistent on turning a deaf ear to God. Lucaspa when I read the Bible I see God telling us he made man for a purpose and you seem to be the one saying God didnt say this

You don't seem to be arguing that the Rule of Inference should be used to decide interpretation. Some interpretations you know to be wrong. For instance, you know that a literal interpretation of Luke 2:1 is in error because you know, from outside the Bible, that Japanese, Inuits, and Zulus were not enrolled in Caesar's census. Thus, the "whole" world interpretation is wrong, even tho that's what the text literally says. You are arguing by default again. Of course a proper understanding of the world will be consistent with the Bible, but for you to imply that we can only come to a proper understanding of the Bible through a proper understanding of the physical world is where our paths diverge.

And what is known to be wrong doesn't change, does it? er yes it does sometimes for you get 'known' and you get 'known'. We are speaking of interpreted knowledge lucaspa. YEC is something that was once thought to be correct but was shown -- by Christians -- to be wrong. YEC is interpreted by certain Christians to be wrong

I don't see how placing a man-made literal interpretation of the Bible over God can lead to anywhere other than Hell. Do you?Well be careful of your own words for you are placing your own interpretation of the physical world on a very high pedastal

[lucaspa]

LAST LAST LAST postPromises, promises. You are the one who got on this track. I started out discussing scriptural text. You sidetracked it to this with your question.

Yes you did because the selections were doing nothing, going to dinner, going to a movie or going to dinner and a movieYou are trying to rewrite the rules. Decisions are made sequentially, not simultaneously. I had stated that the selection to go out had already been made.
1. Option: go out or stay home. Decision: go out. Selection made.
2. Go to dinner or a movie. Decision: do both. No selection made.

Abigail, I said sometimes there is no selection. Not always.

It only preserves by default because the rest are wiped out.No. In any generation there is a competition for scarce resources. The ones with the better designs do better in a generation. But there are usually enough resources so that some of the individuals with poorer designs still get by. It takes several generations before an allele becomes "fixed" in a population. Fixed means that every individual in the population has it.

In some situations, a balance between the two designs is reached. A classic example is sickle cell trait in Africa. Both alleles -- normal hemoglobin and sickle cell hemoglobin -- are in the population, and even in each individual.

You would be better calling it natural deselection as what is actually being selected are the ones to die.Sorry, Abigail, but you really need to look at population genetics to understand. What is being preserved are the best designs.

this is not novel (as in totally new) options as in sexual recombination all we see is a realization of the potential that was always there.You are looking at one level -- the genetic. Yes, the potential for combination of alleles is present, but when you look at the level of the plant or animal, the trait from that combination is totally new. It is not a blend of A and B, but a new trait C.

Lucaspa mutations have not been shown to have the momentum you guys would wish as from what we see their net creativity power tends towards nothing ???? I think this is the standard shell game. Variation provides the raw material on which selection works. Remember, natural selection is a two-step process!
1. Variation.
2. Selection.

Neither one alone will do the job. You need both. "But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life" Some mutations are useful. Those individuals lucky enough to have them have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life (selection). Selection without variation doesn't work. Variation without selection doesn't work.

Mutations have been shown, again and again in the lab, to provide new, novel traits and abilities that selection can act upon. I can give you dozens of references so you can see for yourself, instead of just making empty assertions from ignorance.

yes and I am sure that my ramshackle old terrace house is less complicated than the first cell and yet my house certainly didnt just get lucky and happen. Why not!The first cell did not "just get lucky and happen" either. It was designed by chemistry. Abigail, this is the strawman the professional creationists have given you: evolution is pure chance. It isn't. Neither is abiogenesis (life from non-life). The designs in your body didn't "just get lucky and happen". You were designed by natural selection. Not chance. Selection is not chance.

Lucaspa it is in the parameters where purpose can be identified in my opinion. Parameters can be obstacles and obstacles need purpose, drive and innovation to be overcome. Now I can design and create something to operate within certain parameters which I choose and that is easy to do because I create my parameters as boundaries to contain and order my design.Do you create the parameters? Did you create the rules of spelling and grammar? NO! They exist outside of you. You design your sentences within those parameters.

In nature, the parameters are the laws of physics and chemistry plus the interactions with other living beings. And thus you get the "purpose" of natural selection: find the designs that work best in that particular environment.

You cannot appeal to purpose because evolution is mindless and so you have to appeal to time and luck. This is something that the professional creationists have misled you about. Natural selection has no long term purpose, but it certainly does have a short term purpose: find the designs that work in that particular environment. An unintelligent process yet with "purpose".

The design and the boundaries are made to mesh ie my purpose is to design only that which fits in the boundaries. However from your point of view the parameters are not just boundaries you set to contain your design but they are OBSTACLES you must overcome for your design to even get off the ground in the first place. You now are limited because you dont get to choose the boundaries and so boundaries to you are obstacles which you may or may not be able to overcome. The obstacles (boundaries) life had to overcome to start and get running were immense from the point of view of evolution.
Ah, now you are mixing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution by natural selection happens after you have the first life. To get the first life you use chemistry. The first cell arose by chemistry:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

As I said when you are not the one setting the boundaries (environment) then to you those boundaries become obstacles and you then have to show how you overcame those obstacles. Lucaspa when I read the Bible I see God telling us he made man for a purpose and you seem to be the one saying God didnt say this Abigail, God did make us for a purpose. But the way He made us was thru evolution. He didn't just zap us by speaking or fashion us like a clay pot. He created by using evolution as His method of creation.

How did you overcome the obstacles of grammar and spelling that your teachers set you? By putting up variations of spelling and grammar in your mind and then selecting the best design for the obstacle! You design by Darwinian selection! All humans do ALL design by Darwinian selection.

Of course a proper understanding of the world will be consistent with the Bible, but for you to imply that we can only come to a proper understanding of the Bible through a proper understanding of the physical world is where our paths diverge. The first may not be true. Because when you say "the Bible" you mean "a human interpretation of the Bible." A proper understanding of the world may not be compatible with some interpretations of the Bible. But yes, if God's Creation contradicts our fallible, man-made interpretation of the Bible, then it is our interpretation that is at fault. Christians have always done this. Christians took verses that they interpreted to mean the earth was flat. All the early Christian Fathers were flat earthers. When our understanding of the physical world showed it to be round, we re-interpreted the verses. The Bible says in plain Hebrew that the earth does not move. Christians interpreted that as saying the earth was the center of the universe and our sun, the planets, and the stars revolved around the earth. When we had a proper understanding of the physical universe, those verses were re-interpreted.

Now we have a group of Christians who interpret Genesis 1-3 a literal way of a young earth and instantaneous formation of plants and animals in their present form. But the physical universe shows that did not happen. But rather than re-interpret their man-made view of the Bible, these "Christians" reject God's universe.


And what is known to be wrong doesn't change, does it? er yes it does sometimes for you get 'known' and you get 'known'. We are speaking of interpreted knowledge lucaspa.Give me an example where something known to be wrong has been shown to be right. Abigail, what 'interpreted knowledge' are we speaking of?

YEC is interpreted by certain Christians to be wrongYEC is wrong. It was first shown to be wrong by Christians. Abigail, true statements can't have false consequences. YEC has literally mountains of false consequences. Therefore it can't be true and must be wrong.

Well be careful of your own words for you are placing your own interpretation of the physical world on a very high pedastalNot "my interpretation", Abigail. God's. Remember how science works:
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Who created external reality, Abigail? GOD! If our ideas about how things ought to be -- such as YEC -- were compared to God's Creation, then God will show us they are wrong. Just like He showed that YEC is wrong. IF (and it's a big "if") evolution is wrong, God will show us. So far, despite all the effort to find evolution wrong, it hasn't been shown to be so. In fact, the series of transitional individual fossils in our own lineage linking us -- H. sapiens -- thru 2 intermediate species to a third species not even in our genus is God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

I still say you ignore God at your peril.

[lilsingnchk13]

Ok i just have a question for anyone who can help me...My name is Lindsey and i am doing a report on Evolutionism for school and i was just wondering if anybody has any facts about how the earth came to be and other stuff proving that God doesnt exist according to evolutionism? is so could u please post s reply on this thing or better yet send me it in an e-mail.... Smurf10079@aol.com thank you so much for your time and please get this to me ASAP!! i would really a ppreciate it

Sincerely Lindsey

[Dr.GH]

I would suggest that you look for material related to your school assignment at the American Scienific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org/) which is an organization of Christian who are also professional scientists. There is a paper on their website that might be a good one for you, TAKING DARWIN AND CREATION SERIOUSLY (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/2001Roberts.html#Bible%20and%20Science). I am not sure what year of school you are in, but that paper isn't very difficult.

Now, it does turn out that there is no scientific support for such biblical interpretations as a 6000 year-old universe, or that the Noah's flood was actually covering the whole Earth. This means that when we read the Bible, or any ancient text, we need to keep in mind the level of scientific understanding of the people who wrote the original text.

Good luck on your report.

[rogero]

Ok i just have a question for anyone who can help me...My name is Lindsey and i am doing a report on Evolutionism for school and i was just wondering if anybody has any facts about how the earth came to be and other stuff proving that God doesnt exist according to evolutionism? is so could u please post s reply on this thing or better yet send me it in an e-mail.... Smurf10079@aol.com thank you so much for your time and please get this to me ASAP!! i would really a ppreciate it

Sincerely Lindsey
Lindsey,

I don't know what happened to Dr.G.H.'s post, but he was telling you about the American Scientific Affliation (ASA) website on Creation and Evolution: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html

The ASA is an organization of Christians who are active in the science research or teaching. Hopefully, you will their opinions different from the usual two-sided fight of creationists versus evolutionists.

Best wishes and God's Peace to you!

Roger