Why don't OEC's accept evolution? [Archive]

Constantine

February 22nd 2005, 05:55 PM

It seems a stupid question, but let me explain. If one accepts that the days in Genesis 1-3 were non-literal and accepts the Big Bang and the mainstream view of geologic history how do you not accept biological evolution?

When I was coming out of YEC I made a brief mental stop at OEC (after reading Fred Heeren's book "Show Me God"). But I moved on to TE after thinking about it for a while. Why would God have 3.8 billion years of creating and destroying life? Why did he make T-Rex if he was just going to kill him off with an asteriod in the Yucatan?

Why make sabertooth tigers? Why is there a pattern of extinction and new species in the fossil record? Wouldn't God do it right the first time around? Isn't the record of the rocks exactly what evolution would predict? Some new species have appeared after man (like modern dogs and tigers and lions), did God just "poof" them into existence? Why create soul-less Homo erectus?

It seems the God of old earth creationism was just fooling around for over 3 billion years. What was the purpose of the majority of his creations going extinct?

So I am a bit puzzled, hopefully some OEC's can clear things up for me. Thanks.

Minnesota

February 22nd 2005, 06:06 PM

From the following POLL (http://poll.pollhost.com/dXRhaHJhcHRvcgkxMDY0ODg3Mjc0CUZGRkZGRgkwMDAwODgJVGltZXMrTmV3K1JvbWFuCUFzc29ydGVk/) hosted by the OE web site Answers in Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/), it's evident (if I understand "theistic evolution" properly) that there is a good percentage of OE people who do accept evolution. Now, whether or not "Old Earth, Theistic Evolutionists" and "Old Earth, Gap Theorists" would consider themselves to be creationists, as the poll question assumes, is another matter. Personally, I rather doubt it.

Jedidiah

February 22nd 2005, 06:09 PM

Why would God have 3.8 billion years of creating and destroying life?
Why did he make T-Rex if he was just going to kill him off with an asteriod in the Yucatan?
Why make sabertooth tigers?
Why is there a pattern of extinction and new species in the fossil record? Wouldn't God do it right the first time around? You can't understand God so you jump to TE? I fail to see the logic.

Isn't the record of the rocks exactly what evolution would predict? And it is equally consistent with OE creation. I don't understand your logic here.

Some new species have appeared after man (like modern dogs and tigers and lions), did God just "poof" them into existence?Dogs, lions and tigers came into existence after mankind? Why do you believe this, it is contrary to my understanding. And we see that God "poof"ed the entire cosmos int existence, what is the problem with dogs?

Why create soul-less Homo erectus?

It seems the God of old earth creationism was just fooling around for over 3 billion years. What was the purpose of the majority of his creations going extinct?Go back and read Job.

beeman

Minnesota

February 22nd 2005, 06:24 PM

Dogs, lions and tigers came into existence after mankind? Why do you believe this, it is contrary to my understanding. And we see that God "poof"ed the entire cosmos int existence, what is the problem with dogs
Actually, dogs, Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris (downgraded to subspecies) according to recent reclassification, is considered to have been selectively bred from wolves about 15,000 years ago in East Asia.

The genus Panthera evolved around 3 million years ago and these have become the modern day big cats ("roaring cats" or "biting cats").

Tiger: Panthera tigris

Lion: Panthera leo

Leopard, Panthera pardus

Jaguar, Panthera onca

Recent DNA studies of several populations suggest that modern humans:

originated in Africa
appeared in one founding population
evolved around 170,000 years ago
migrated to other parts of the world to replace other hominids.

George Murphy

February 22nd 2005, 06:45 PM

EvoUK

February 22nd 2005, 10:55 PM

Yeh, it seems to me the main reason why some OECs don't also accept evolution is for theological/egotistical reasons;

"Me?! An animal?! Why- the very idea is absurd!"

etc.

Constantine

February 23rd 2005, 01:23 AM

You can't understand God so you jump to TE? I fail to see the logic

Because all the questions I posted pose a theological problem. Why would an all knowing, all loving God create the Dodo bird? Why would that same God create ebola or pathogenic bacteria? Why did He make ticks and tapeworms?

I don't pretend to understand God, but there are things with OEC that I think are grave theological problems. They make God inept, and even mean. Not the merciful God I know from the Bible.

Evolution solves those theological problems. God started the Big Bang and set the universal constants just right so that humanity or something like it would inevitably evolve. Giving the universe its own kind of free will, letting it evolve as it may....thus those nasty things are now by products of free will and a mechanical process and not direct creations of God. We would have been preserved from such unpleasent creatures in Paradise....if we hadn't got ourselves kicked out.

And it is equally consistent with OE creation. I don't understand your logic here.

So Old Earth Creation assumes that God would fail miserably at creating successful life multiple times and then have to constantly replace His failures?

Evolution predicts that we should see a clear progression from simple to more complex, from more robust to more specialized. That is exactly what is seen. According to biological evolution we should also see extinct species replaced with similar but slightly better ones, and again this is exactly what is in the fossil record. Of course it also predicts to find intermediate fossils between major taxonomic groups, and they are there as well. How do transitional forms between major taxonomic groups (like reptiles and mammals, or fish and tetrapods) fit in OEC?

Dogs, lions and tigers came into existence after mankind? Why do you believe this, it is contrary to my understanding. And we see that God "poof"ed the entire cosmos int existence, what is the problem with dogs?

I certainly don't deny that God could poof anything he wanted to into existence. But saying God "poofed" all matter and energy into existence and caused the Big Bang is alot different then saying He continued to poof individual species into existence after mankind was created. After all, wasn't he done on the 6th "day"? Or do OEC's believe we are still in that 6th "day"?

If we are, would you expect some of the species going extinct now to be miraculously replaced by God? Could we then watch it happen or would it be too subtle for us to notice?

Go back and read Job

How do extinct animals Glorify God's creative genius if they aren't part of God's directed evolution?

For the record I'm not entirely against God intervening in evolution to ensure us getting here. But I tend to believe that God set everything up at the begining to happen as He willed it so He could preserve Free Will. For reference to a similar idea I would read Dr. Kenneth Miller.

Yeh, it seems to me the main reason why some OECs don't also accept evolution is for theological/egotistical reasons;

"Me?! An animal?! Why- the very idea is absurd!"

Sounds like my dad. Major (perhaps only) reason for him notaccepting evolution is "I'm not related to monkey's and my ancestor didn't live in a tree". He know's that it isn't evidence based and doesn't care. He also doesn't care that I believe in evolution because he sees it as a non-issue (as in why he never really looked into it much).

A Beautiful Truth

February 23rd 2005, 01:25 AM

It seems a stupid question, but let me explain. If one accepts that the days in Genesis 1-3 were non-literal and accepts the Big Bang and the mainstream view of geologic history how do you not accept biological evolution?

Many OEC (the Reasons to Believe variety) actually believe the days in Genesis are literal. They just believe in long days aka "day-age".

When I was coming out of YEC I made a brief mental stop at OEC (after reading Fred Heeren's book "Show Me God"). But I moved on to TE after thinking about it for a while. Why would God have 3.8 billion years of creating and destroying life? Why did he make T-Rex if he was just going to kill him off with an asteriod in the Yucatan?

The "onion layer" theory. Each progressive stage of life's development depends on previous stages. Additionally, these contribute to mankind's world today. Top soil, fossil fuels, marble, etc.

Why create soul-less Homo erectus?

I've only seen a couple of answers and don't know if they have since been replaced. One is that these creatures helped prepare the ecology for the impact of humans. Another is that the bacteria for human's stomachs had to grow somewhere...?

But all in all, I think the main reason OEC's hold onto man's special creation is the theology. What do you do with Paul if Adam and Eve are not literal. I know you believe in man's evolution, and Adam's literalness, but I still wonder at you having worked out some of the problems believing that way. Problems like, how is it that Adam's sin transferred to all mankind if not all mankind are his direct descendents? I think some biologists here have made the point that it would be impossible for all the diversity we see in humanity to come from a single pair of humans. They believe it was a population.

As for me, I have not yet worked such things out. The science seems beyond me at this point, so I am still open that the OEC's may be right. But all the arguments seem to be won by the TE's as far as I can see in my limited knowledge. And as you said, evolution does seem theologically superior. Especially so when one considers Free Will and Natural Law as an apologetic for evil and suffering.

grmorton

February 23rd 2005, 07:32 AM

Yeh, it seems to me the main reason why some OECs don't also accept evolution is for theological/egotistical reasons;

"Me?! An animal?! Why- the very idea is absurd!"

etc.

I think you are right but they forget something Ecclesiastes says:

Eccl. 3:18-20 I said in my heart, It is because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts. 19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity. 20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

As the YECs often say, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" (but not for them on this issue). YECs must think these verses are wrong.

grmorton

February 23rd 2005, 08:02 AM

Many OEC (the Reasons to Believe variety) actually believe the days in Genesis are literal. They just believe in long days aka "day-age".

My problem with the long ages is that when I ask for a detailed correlation of each day with what we see in the geologic record (when did the 2nd day begin and end? when did the 3rd day begin and end?). They then talk about overlapping days. Ok, I am open minded, tell me the order and when and how the days overlapped. I never get that answer from the OECs.

Hugh Ross thinks that God created each and every variant we find in the fossil record and then allowed them to die off. That makes little sense to me. As Constantine noted it makes God look a wee bit inept as if He couldn't quite get it right. And if the claim is made that each of these variants prepares the world in its small way for man, I would like to know exactly what each of these species did. Hugh has said that the mindless, soulless hominids were created to prepare the world for the shock of the advent of mankind. I find this idea silly.

“The step-by-step approach to bipedal approach to bipedal primate creation that we can see in the recent fossil record may reasonably reflect God’s understanding of the difficulty other life forms would encounter in adapting to sinful humans. The ecocrises we see in so many places of the world provide abundant testimony to that difficulty. Given this context, we can see that the bipedal primates predating Adam and Eve reflect care rather than waste. Their presence and activities helped prepare the other animals to adapt for future shock—the arrival of human beings.”

I guess seeing an animal walking on its hind legs is more than they can take and they faint straight way at the sight.

The problem with this entire idea is that the hominids did everything our technologically primitive ancestors (and the modern technologically primitive peoples) did. They controlled fire, they made complex stone tools, they sailed the sea, they invented things like coal-mining, anoxic chemistry, carved statues--but Hugh, for theological reasons requires that they not be human.

The "onion layer" theory. Each progressive stage of life's development depends on previous stages. Additionally, these contribute to mankind's world today. Top soil, fossil fuels, marble, etc.

There were some significant hydrocarbon resources in the Cambrian, generated by Precambrian rocks. Top soil takes less than 100,000 years to form even in the slowest areas. So, these are no reasons to delay the advent of mankind by 500 million years, which OECs seem to want to do.

But all in all, I think the main reason OEC's hold onto man's special creation is the theology. What do you do with Paul if Adam and Eve are not literal. I know you believe in man's evolution, and Adam's literalness, but I still wonder at you having worked out some of the problems believing that way.

What one can do is what I have done. What one shouldn't do is force the beleiver to do mental gymnastics and force them to deny what is clearly visible in the geologic record.

As for me, I have not yet worked such things out. The science seems beyond me at this point, so I am still open that the OEC's may be right. But all the arguments seem to be won by the TE's as far as I can see in my limited knowledge. And as you said, evolution does seem theologically superior. Especially so when one considers Free Will and Natural Law as an apologetic for evil and suffering.

This was the same conclusion I came to in the mid-1980s. The evolutionists were winning the scientific argument. The anti-evolutionary crowd simply doesn't present a defendable case, if one looks at the details of earth history. Look at how few of my geology posts get substantive YEC replies.

Jack777

February 23rd 2005, 03:16 PM

Why don't OEC's accept evolution?

The Bible.:smile:

Warcraft3

February 23rd 2005, 03:39 PM

Because then they would be called OEE's......and thats just silly.

Minnesota

February 23rd 2005, 03:44 PM

Why don't OEC's accept evolution?
The Bible.

Okay, but then why don't they accept the idea that god does bad things on occasion?. . . taking the story of Job as a prime example. (And please, no "We cannot know the mind of god, so even though what might appear bad to us is really god's love at work.")

Jack777

February 23rd 2005, 03:48 PM

I think the things in Job are true. God tells us lots of stuff we don't want to think, but oh well. People want to think God and Jesus are some kind of macaroni spined kinds of people. God is God. He does things that we don't like and think we have to make out different, but we don't. When He does His smackdown thing people will whine about that too. (Judgment)

Warcraft3

February 23rd 2005, 03:52 PM

Why don't OEC's accept evolution?

The Bible.:smile:

It is rather difficult to defend not accepting evolution based on scripture......

Alien

February 23rd 2005, 03:59 PM

Evolution solves those theological problems. God started the Big Bang and set the universal constants just right so that humanity or something like it would inevitably evolve. Giving the universe its own kind of free will, letting it evolve as it may....thus those nasty things are now by products of free will and a mechanical process and not direct creations of God.

I see that this removes all the "bad stuff" that has occurred throughout the history of the universe one stage from God, in that He didn't directly cause it to happen, but if you believe He is (and was) omnipotent then He still at one point said, "If I kick the universe off this way then all this bad stuff will happen ... oh well, I'll do it anyway". Put another way, if you drop a rock off a building, you can't blame gravity when it lands on someone's head!

The "free will" argument is ingenious, but it has always made sense to me only in the context of humans. Accepting that premise means you consider that God values free will above the prevention of evil. That works if you see His purpose as creating beings (us) that are capable of freely choosing Him in some way, but I don't see how that applies to all the other species that don't appear to even have a concept of "god", and least of all mechanical processes.

That said, I tend to go with TE as it seems to fit the evidence best. I do though sometimes toy with the idea of weakening one or more of the "omni" attributes of God. That solves it all quite nicely! :smile:

Jack777

February 23rd 2005, 04:04 PM

God's will our choices. We chose to get kicked out of a cushy location. Oh well.

The onus is on evolution to be proven. I have not run across a scientific case for evolution in the Bible. I also do not rely on the Bible for other stuff like that.

Warcraft3

February 23rd 2005, 04:15 PM

Hey Alien...

Im glad I crossed paths with you once again.....

I do though sometimes toy with the idea of weakening one or more of the "omni" attributes of God. That solves it all quite nicely! :smile:

I totally agree....

In fact I do not think that scripture even supports an "omni" God.....

I think scripture makes alot more sense if we drop the "omni" requirement from God...

Russ

rogero

February 23rd 2005, 04:42 PM

God's will our choices.

What does this mean?

We chose to get kicked out of a cushy location. Oh well.

I didn't choose that. What are you talking about?

The onus is on evolution to be proven.

There's plenty of evidence for biological evolution if you're willing to study it. This may help you explain how "things got better, life came back" following those periods of mass extinction that you accept as happening in the geological past.

I have not run across a scientific case for evolution in the Bible.

Why would the Bible give a "scientific" case for evolution? I didn't think the Bible was a science book.

I also do not rely on the Bible for other stuff like that.
Exactly. It's not a book of science. It just tells us that God creates. A systematic study of nature may reveal how God creates.

Jedidiah

February 23rd 2005, 05:17 PM

Because all the questions I posted pose a theological problem. Why would an all knowing, all loving God create the Dodo bird? Why would that same God create ebola or pathogenic bacteria? Why did He make ticks and tapeworms?No you have pointed to no theological problem except one, we are not able to understand God, or his creation well enough to answer any of your questions. It is arrogance to say, "God really messed up in this case so what you special creationists say is wrong." Your failure to comprehend does not make God inept, it only reveals your limitations. You can not define mercy for God, and expect Him to abide by your limits. Sorry.

So Old Earth Creation assumes that God would fail miserably at creating successful life multiple times and then have to constantly replace His failures?No, this only reveals your failure to understand OEC.

It is quite alright for you to be a TE, but please do not put up a paper tiger OEC.

beeman

Jedidiah

February 23rd 2005, 05:20 PM

Hugh Ross thinks that God created each and every variant we find in the fossil record and then allowed them to die off. That makes little sense to me. Your failure to comprehend is of significance how?

beeman

A Beautiful Truth

February 23rd 2005, 06:00 PM

Hey Alien...

Im glad I crossed paths with you once again.....

I totally agree....

In fact I do not think that scripture even supports an "omni" God.....

I think scripture makes alot more sense if we drop the "omni" requirement from God...

Russ

Not all-knowing, all-loving, all-good, or all-powerful--which one?

Does not the definition of "God" break down if you do not allow Him these attributes?

I know in some cases God limits Himself as far as all-knowing--Jesus does not know the day or hour, for example. But what do you mean?

~Charleen

A Beautiful Truth

February 23rd 2005, 06:20 PM

I see that this removes all the "bad stuff" that has occurred throughout the history of the universe one stage from God, in that He didn't directly cause it to happen, but if you believe He is (and was) omnipotent then He still at one point said, "If I kick the universe off this way then all this bad stuff will happen ... oh well, I'll do it anyway". Put another way, if you drop a rock off a building, you can't blame gravity when it lands on someone's head!

And put yet another way, if I send my Son to earth, He will die. Good or bad?

When a greater good is seen by God but not nessesarily to those of us who have to endure the lesser evil, we may be tempted to blame God out of our ignorance. That is no fault of God's but of those who would blame Him without giving God the allowance of being all wise and all good.

But if God had humanity's greater good in mind (Salvation) by providing the ability (free will) and the "stage" (natural laws) in which to act out moral freedom, then we see the evil, both natural and moral, as the nessesary path for the greater goal.

The "free will" argument is ingenious, but it has always made sense to me only in the context of humans. Accepting that premise means you consider that God values free will above the prevention of evil. That works if you see His purpose as creating beings (us) that are capable of freely choosing Him in some way, but I don't see how that applies to all the other species that don't appear to even have a concept of "god", and least of all mechanical processes.

If God would allow natural evil to be present in order to preserve an environment of moral freedom, the sacrifice of the other species is worth it. It reminds me of the soldiers say of WWII who fought for our freedoms. In the context of our bettered lives because of their sacrifice, do I deem their sacrifice as "bad"? It is bad that they died, but it is a greater good that we as a people have freedom. They realized that and were willing to give themselves for it. Life is bittersweet. If there were no promise of the sweet how could we endure the bitter?

That said, I tend to go with TE as it seems to fit the evidence best. I do though sometimes toy with the idea of weakening one or more of the "omni" attributes of God. That solves it all quite nicely! :smile:

But would that still be a God worthy of our worship?

rogero

February 23rd 2005, 07:10 PM

Not all-knowing, all-loving, all-good, or all-powerful--which one?

Does not the definition of "God" break down if you do not allow Him these attributes?

I know in some cases God limits Himself as far as all-knowing--Jesus does not know the day or hour, for example. But what do you mean?

~Charleen I think Steadele's and Alien's point is that the specific use of the "omni"s is a theoretical theological-philological simplification. Of course, none of the "omni"s are mentioned explicitly in scripture, although some may argue they can be inferred. IMHO, these terms are approximations at best of the notion of the God of the Bible.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that we mortal finite human beings can't get our heads around the concept of God, thus we must use concrete words which are approximations at best of his nature and substance.

AFAIK, we have no definition of "God", at best we have approximations and analogies, and it's a precarious path to insist that extra-biblical terms like the "omni"s are axiomatic. I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a weeny hedge, but, ultimately, there is a great deal of mystery associated with the Divine.

Your last sentence refers to the kenotic concept of understanding the dual nature of Jesus. A real theologian could expand on this -- in fact I think this has been discussed before in Tweb's theology fora.

Peace.

R

grmorton

February 23rd 2005, 10:31 PM

Your failure to comprehend is of significance how?

beeman

I liked your question. Maybe the problem is with me but I fail to see

1. why God couldn't get it right the first time?
2. why God wouldn't be better off doing the magician trick of instantaneously creating all things with an appearance of age and creating the fossils?
3. Why God has had a hobby for the past 500 million years creating slightly variant life forms and then killing them off? (Sounds like a disturbed kid).
4. Why this is a better explanation than evolution? a more parsimonious view?
5. Where this activity is stipulated in the Bible-supposedly our source for the concept that there is no evolution?
6. How I can be so sure that we humans are not preparing the earth for something to come later and our delusional view that we are special to God is part of the preparation for that world to come?
7. Why does it take a special creation to change a few nucleotides in a genome to make that separate species? Can't a gamma ray or alpha particle do it?
8. How exactly does the sight of a mindless bipedal hairy ape prepare the world for anything?
9. Does God have to create every variant life form on every island on earth?
10. New mouse and rat species are found on islands which did not have indigenous rats and mice before 1492. Are those species, which appeared on the island only AFTER the first European ship visited the island, direct creations of God?
11. Following up on 10, does this mean that the visit of a European ship was just coincidental with the time that God decided to create the new rat species with unique chromosomal arrangments?
12. Which this raises the question of why was God following those European ships around the Atlantic and Pacific creating rats and mice behind them?
13. Why does God only create marsupials in Australia? Does Australia look like a Marsupial-kind of continent?
14. What happened about 3 million years ago to change God's mind about only creating marsupials in South America before that time but creating placentals only after that time?
15. Following up on 14, it makes me wonder if a 3 million year old South American marsupial gave God the finger, and God wiped them out and replaced them with placentals!
16. Why did God like a 2 1 3 3 dental pattern in the Americas for American monkeys but a 2 1 2 3 pattern in Africa for monkeys?
17. Why didn't god create a single 2 1 2 3 monkey in South America?
18. Why did God kill off all camelids in the Americas but then recreated them at a slightly later date in the Old World?
19. Why did God kill off all the equids in the New world about 10,000 years ago but let other created forms live in the Old World.
20. What would make someone who is so blindly accepting of the anti-evolutionary paradigm so unable to ask questions like I did between #1 and #19, that they would ask a question like that at the top of this post?

Constantine

February 24th 2005, 03:43 AM

I see that this removes all the "bad stuff" that has occurred throughout the history of the universe one stage from God, in that He didn't directly cause it to happen, but if you believe He is (and was) omnipotent then He still at one point said, "If I kick the universe off this way then all this bad stuff will happen ... oh well, I'll do it anyway". Put another way, if you drop a rock off a building, you can't blame gravity when it lands on someone's head!

Well Humanity was originally intended to live in Paradise free from all the suffering. If you put a pillow on someones head before the stone hits, then no harm done right? And to add to that Charleen said:

When a greater good is seen by God but not nessesarily to those of us who have to endure the lesser evil, we may be tempted to blame God out of our ignorance. That is no fault of God's but of those who would blame Him without giving God the allowance of being all wise and all good.

But if God had humanity's greater good in mind (Salvation) by providing the ability (free will) and the "stage" (natural laws) in which to act out moral freedom, then we see the evil, both natural and moral, as the nessesary path for the greater goal.

Very, very cool. Thankyou for this insight.

No you have pointed to no theological problem except one, we are not able to understand God, or his creation well enough to answer any of your questions. It is arrogance to say, "God really messed up in this case so what you special creationists say is wrong." Your failure to comprehend does not make God inept, it only reveals your limitations. You can not define mercy for God, and expect Him to abide by your limits. Sorry.

We understand God through His attributes described in the Bible. The things I pointed out are inconsistent with the God of the Bible.

Also don't you think it is a cop out answer to just say we can't understand the mind of God? I agree that God is beyond our comprehension but to invoke our ignorance as a theological argument is terribly weak. Those nasty things I talked about have killed countless innocents. Would you explain away God's direct and intentional creations killing children as us not being able to understand God? Would you use that as an apologetic if trying to convert an atheist?

Jedidiah

February 24th 2005, 04:37 AM

We understand God through His attributes described in the Bible. The things I pointed out are inconsistent with the God of the Bible.Only if your understanding is equal with that of God.

Also don't you think it is a cop out answer to just say we can't understand the mind of God? I agree that God is beyond our comprehension but to invoke our ignorance as a theological argument is terribly weak. Those nasty things I talked about have killed countless innocents. Would you explain away God's direct and intentional creations killing children as us not being able to understand God? Would you use that as an apologetic if trying to convert an atheist?How did God answer Job on such a question?

beeman

Warcraft3

February 24th 2005, 08:30 AM

Hey Charleen.....

(Did you get my last PM?)

Not all-knowing, all-loving, all-good, or all-powerful--which one?

I know in some cases God limits Himself as far as all-knowing--Jesus does not know the day or hour, for example. But what do you mean?

Okay let me try and explain....

All Knowing : When I read scripture it seems like God doesnt exhaustively know the future. The explanations I have heard from the "All Knowing" side of the issue have not convinced me. So I currently do not believ that God knows the entire future.

All Loving : I never really understood what this phrase is supposed to mean...what does "all loving" really mean?

All Good: Isnt everything God does good by definition? If God defines good then He really cant sin, since sin is "missing the mark" and the "mark" is Gods desires/will/nature.

All Powerful: I dont believe that God can do something that is a logical contradiction.......like create a rock so big that He couldnt lift it......if He cant life the rock then He isnt all powerful, but if He cant make such a rock then He isnt all powerful. This may seem like a game of semantics, but Im totally serious here.

Does not the definition of "God" break down if you do not allow Him these attributes?

I dont believe so...no.

The God I see in scripture is one that gets jealous, angry (and sometimes acts in anger), doesnt know the future, sometimes regrets decisions, and takes risks (like during the incarnation).

Not believing in an omni God doesnt make me love God any less or worship Him any less, although it sometimes does create tension with fellow Christians. I have met people in church before who had some very strong feelings about my thoughts here....

Russ

Warcraft3

February 24th 2005, 08:36 AM

Hey there rogero...

I think Steadele's and Alien's point is that the specific use of the "omni"s is a theoretical theological-philological simplification. Of course, none of the "omni"s are mentioned explicitly in scripture, although some may argue they can be inferred. IMHO, these terms are approximations at best of the notion of the God of the Bible.

Exactly. And, of course, my understanding or "mental picture" of God could be way off base.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that we mortal finite human beings can't get our heads around the concept of God, thus we must use concrete words which are approximations at best of his nature and substance.

Yes....approximations at best and at worst they may be way off the mark.

AFAIK, we have no definition of "God", at best we have approximations and analogies, and it's a precarious path to insist that extra-biblical terms like the "omni"s are axiomatic. I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a weeny hedge, but, ultimately, there is a great deal of mystery associated with the Divine.

I totally agree with you there.....the Divine is a big mystery and often I have an understanding of certain things that is difficult to express in words.....sometimes my "understanding" of God isnt something I really understand myself, yet its there.

Some good thoughts there, rogero.

Russ

Pantheist_Oracl

February 24th 2005, 08:50 AM

Actually, dogs, Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris (downgraded to subspecies) according to recent reclassification, is considered to have been selectively bred from wolves about 15,000 years ago in East Asia.

The genus Panthera evolved around 3 million years ago and these have become the modern day big cats ("roaring cats" or "biting cats").

Tiger: Panthera tigris

Lion: Panthera leo

Leopard, Panthera pardus

Jaguar, Panthera onca

Recent DNA studies of several populations suggest that modern humans:

originated in Africa
appeared in one founding population
evolved around 170,000 years ago
migrated to other parts of the world to replace other hominids.

Not to sidetrack this, but I was given to the understanding that features found in Chinese and Javan erectus were also found in modern Chinese and Native Australian populations, respectively. I know at least one such feature is supposed to be "Sundadont" incisors, characterized by their particular shape. Is this interpretation no longer in vogue?

A Beautiful Truth

February 24th 2005, 12:38 PM

Hey Charleen.....

(Did you get my last PM?)

Yes, I'll PM you, and I am very happy about your soon return to the States... I can only imagine what it has been like...

Okay let me try and explain....

All Knowing : When I read scripture it seems like God doesnt exhaustively know the future. The explanations I have heard from the "All Knowing" side of the issue have not convinced me. So I currently do not believ that God knows the entire future.

Is this what they call "middle knowledge"?

All Loving : I never really understood what this phrase is supposed to mean...what does "all loving" really mean?

I guess it may be the same as all-good.

All Powerful: I dont believe that God can do something that is a logical contradiction.......like create a rock so big that He couldnt lift it......if He cant life the rock then He isnt all powerful, but if He cant make such a rock then He isnt all powerful. This may seem like a game of semantics, but Im totally serious here.

And can God make a married bachelor or a square circle? These are logical contradictions and because God "cannot" do them does not mean He is not all-powerful. Because God can't do the illogical does not mean He is not all powerful. That would be like saying since God cannot lie then He is not all powerful. It is not a valid challenge. Only with a valid challenge could we determine His not being all-powerful. Squared circles, created rocks too heavy, and married bachelors are invalid challenges to His omnipotence.

The God I see in scripture is one that gets jealous, angry (and sometimes acts in anger),

Is this then unrighteous?

doesnt know the future,

Do you mean Jesus?

sometimes regrets decisions,

So He would have originally done it differently having "learned" from His mistake?

and takes risks (like during the incarnation).

That's interesting. I think this runs more along the mystery of free will/ predestination. I believe both are true as God is not at all confined or limited to our space-time.

He may limit Himself (as in Christ), or allow us to pray to Him to "change His mind". But again, it is the free will/ predestination paradox again. I think it would be a contradiction *only if* God was restricted in our space-time. He is not, however, He can either be outside of our time dimension or in our time dimension. Perhaps the wording of the scriptures reflect both these aspects of God, or of God's desire to be looked to as a Father who is moved upon by our prayers. Would our prayers have any meaning if this were not so? I believe these mysteries are answered in God's transcendence of our space/time.

Not believing in an omni God doesnt make me love God any less or worship Him any less, although it sometimes does create tension with fellow Christians. I have met people in church before who had some very strong feelings about my thoughts here....

No tension here, though. :kiss:

A Beautiful Truth

February 24th 2005, 12:44 PM

I think Steadele's and Alien's point is that the specific use of the "omni"s is a theoretical theological-philological simplification. Of course, none of the "omni"s are mentioned explicitly in scripture, although some may argue they can be inferred. IMHO, these terms are approximations at best of the notion of the God of the Bible.

Fine.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that we mortal finite human beings can't get our heads around the concept of God, thus we must use concrete words which are approximations at best of his nature and substance.

True.

AFAIK, we have no definition of "God", at best we have approximations and analogies, and it's a precarious path to insist that extra-biblical terms like the "omni"s are axiomatic. I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a weeny hedge, but, ultimately, there is a great deal of mystery associated with the Divine.

Yes, and what He has revealed to us in the scriptures...

But not even when we are in Heaven will we know the length, width, height, and depth of God...

rogero

February 24th 2005, 11:23 PM

...

Yes, and what He has revealed to us in the scriptures...

But not even when we are in Heaven will we know the length, width, height, and depth of God... I concur. Although, the kind of existence in the timeless future is unknown to us now. I will make the unsupported conjecture that we will be able to know in full eventually. (Isn't there some scripture to support this? -- Man, I wish they had had Bible Quizzing competitions when I was a young'un!)

Here's a weak and dopey analogy for anyone who's had a cat or dog. How much of your thoughts and actions does your pet understand? Sometimes Fido will tilt his head and give what you consider to be a pensive look directly into your eyes. Is he trying to figure out what you're thinking? How much of your thoughts/insight/motivations does he comprehend?

Answer: probably not much! Rover the Dawg or Buffy the Kat can possibly understand some modicum of affection and physical contact, but their Weltanschauung is very narrow -- I doubt it encompasses more than the fulfillment of their physical needs.

How much more is the nature of the Divine unknown and/or incomprehensible to us puny Yuman beans?

I'd like to at this time put in a plug for my buddy George Murphy and his theological theory that the Theology of the Cross solves the bulk of the problems of theodicy and of an aloof uncaring omnipotent God enjoying himself in an insular and apathetic paradise while we lowly Yuman beans live out our brief miserable lives aspiring to something we can never achieve.

Well, I hope that cheered all of y'all up. :blush::wink: :lol:

R

A Beautiful Truth

February 25th 2005, 11:54 AM

I concur. Although, the kind of existence in the timeless future is unknown to us now. I will make the unsupported conjecture that we will be able to know in full eventually. (Isn't there some scripture to support this? -- Man, I wish they had had Bible Quizzing competitions when I was a young'un!)

Hold on, let me ask my kid who is a Bible Quizzer...

(Have you even seen those kids go at it?! We just started junior Bible quizzing last Fall, I am totally amazed at those kids...)

I'd like to at this time put in a plug for my buddy George Murphy and his theological theory that the Theology of the Cross solves the bulk of the problems of theodicy and of an aloof uncaring omnipotent God enjoying himself in an insular and apathetic paradise while we lowly Yuman beans live out our brief miserable lives aspiring to something we can never achieve.

I would like to see such things discussed in a forum like Theology 201 or Philosophy, I would like to see what others could contribute to the discussion. I don't frequent those forums very much, perhaps he already brought it up there?

~Charleen

Alien

February 25th 2005, 12:10 PM

I realise that I haven't answered those (particularly Charleen) who replied to my original post. I apologise. I have been busy, and I see that Russ and Rogero have covered the subject very well. If anyone wants a response to any specific point from me, please say so and I will be happy to address it.

Russ - good to see you will soon be home. Keep your head down in the meantime!

A Beautiful Truth

February 25th 2005, 01:04 PM

I realise that I haven't answered those (particularly Charleen) who replied to my original post. I apologise. I have been busy...

No problem, I know about being busy. Look forward to seeing you around.

grmorton

February 25th 2005, 11:56 PM

I rarely play the bump game, but I would be interested in any OEC response to this post. Are y'all also going to act like the YECs and go silent when the tough questions come out?

Beeman and I were discussing the fact that I couldn't understand why the OECs took the position they did. He asked why my inability to understand it was of relevance. I answered with the following, but got no response. these are serious questions that progressive creationists need to answer. They are not merely rhetorical nonsense there to be ignored. Questions 10-12 and 14 are of particular interest to me. Come on OECs don't act like YECs.

I liked your question. Maybe the problem is with me but I fail to see

1. why God couldn't get it right the first time?
2. why God wouldn't be better off doing the magician trick of instantaneously creating all things with an appearance of age and creating the fossils?
3. Why God has had a hobby for the past 500 million years creating slightly variant life forms and then killing them off? (Sounds like a disturbed kid).
4. Why this is a better explanation than evolution? a more parsimonious view?
5. Where this activity is stipulated in the Bible-supposedly our source for the concept that there is no evolution?
6. How I can be so sure that we humans are not preparing the earth for something to come later and our delusional view that we are special to God is part of the preparation for that world to come?
7. Why does it take a special creation to change a few nucleotides in a genome to make that separate species? Can't a gamma ray or alpha particle do it?
8. How exactly does the sight of a mindless bipedal hairy ape prepare the world for anything?
9. Does God have to create every variant life form on every island on earth?
10. New mouse and rat species are found on islands which did not have indigenous rats and mice before 1492. Are those species, which appeared on the island only AFTER the first European ship visited the island, direct creations of God?
11. Following up on 10, does this mean that the visit of a European ship was just coincidental with the time that God decided to create the new rat species with unique chromosomal arrangments?
12. Which this raises the question of why was God following those European ships around the Atlantic and Pacific creating rats and mice behind them?
13. Why does God only create marsupials in Australia? Does Australia look like a Marsupial-kind of continent?
14. What happened about 3 million years ago to change God's mind about only creating marsupials in South America before that time but creating placentals only after that time?
15. Following up on 14, it makes me wonder if a 3 million year old South American marsupial gave God the finger, and God wiped them out and replaced them with placentals!
16. Why did God like a 2 1 3 3 dental pattern in the Americas for American monkeys but a 2 1 2 3 pattern in Africa for monkeys?
17. Why didn't god create a single 2 1 2 3 monkey in South America?
18. Why did God kill off all camelids in the Americas but then recreated them at a slightly later date in the Old World?
19. Why did God kill off all the equids in the New world about 10,000 years ago but let other created forms live in the Old World.
20. What would make someone who is so blindly accepting of the anti-evolutionary paradigm so unable to ask questions like I did between #1 and #19, that they would ask a question like that at the top of this post?

maudman

February 26th 2005, 12:50 AM

Do the precepts of evolution destroy precepts of creationism?

The term evolution in my opinion doesn’t destroy creationism in fact it is impossible to separate them in all practical experience. If we ignore the fact that creativity is an evolutionary process from simple to more complex or from less efficient to more efficient processes of production then we deny reality.

If we take 1950 model ford pickup truck and compare it to 1990 ford pickup truck and look at all the different models of the pickup truck in between the two, we could say the ford pickup truck evolved and that it is a deterministic evolution. We can say that once those who are behind the creative force have decided the form which shall be mass produced, redesigns the process of mass production to yield the determined form that has been envisioned by forces which are not directly but indirectly forcing the change.

What we can’t dig up out of the ground is the vocabulary the will and the spirit that drives the engineering and the motive which has chosen to express itself in an empirical expression.

All empirical (tangible) forms are an expression of that which has no mass. The empirical forms reveal the spiritual creative forces behind the objects created. So the object forces a vocabulary where it hasn’t existed before. All tangible objects are quantities both of matter and spirit.

The riff that seems to arise in creationist and evolution creationist is that those like the engineers of the 1950’s model truck couldn’t foresee or predict what their efforts would become or materialize into in the 1990’s truck. Could they see all the other inventions that would influence the design form and function of the later models, those inventions by others in other fields that would drive the new forms produced? Can we say from all practical experience that God (Elohim both plural and singular) doesn’t possess creative genius or that Elohim doesn’t have the power to impose their will in any way on what becomes a tangible reality? Or force its direction that best serves their will and purpose.

Where in the bible has our ignorance ever restricted God (Elohim) from exercising their creative genius? Can we ignore the fact that extinctions have occurred in the past and the present. That God redefines or temporarily suspends quality in a tangible form? That life could consist of an eternal learning process and that God is protecting us from a constant state of eternal boredom.

Can we just ignore the fact that the most important aspects of God’s Law deal with failure, mercy, forgiveness, grace, humility, longsuffering and baring one another’s burdens. These laws take us to the next level in understanding and are the jackhammer behind creativity as well as truth.

I myself do not believe that these things alone constitute life or to be truly a definition of life but demonstrates its abundance. If we take the biblical message that Christ delivered, life is a relationship with the Lord (YHVY) those that are without this relationship the biblical texts say’s they are spiritually dead and therefore are not truly alive from Genesis to Revelations this message is the fact, and that to be truly alive has nothing to do with Biology or the human spirit. but is merely a means in which the spiritual reality of the universe has chosen to express itself in a frame work of time of suspended quality in forms that make God more tangible at that point in time, and through Christ a possible connection to the infinity of God.

If in the end a Godless science is left with the belief that the universe invented a way for it to comprehend itself, we as Christians should know the all important reasons why and without that understanding we are nothing nor can we help those who see the reasons for things being the way they are because of the nature of oneself. I don’t think Christians can truly say that creative evolution never occurred nor can evolution say that creative genius isn’t responsible for objective reality when a practical reality proves different?

Because the nature of matter itself in relationship with itself invokes laws to understand itself or because spiritual reality invokes laws that help in understanding itself proves that both can force a will on that which exercises "intuitive cognition". The god of this world and the God that created it are the forces which act on the vacuum of the human spirit, one eternal life, one eternal death. If God so put it in the world that we would be without excuse? That even the eternal Godhead can even be discerned through it. Then even an evolutionary atheist understands and ignores the truth.
A real spiritual person is simply one who doesn’t. A spiritual person is one who considers the why’s of both the spiritual and empirical in relation to God and because we do this we have an edge not only because we possess spiritual truth, but the truth that the creation is a dynamic creative genius of a living God that’s not standing still.

In the end (vocabulary or the (Logos) the son of God creates everything the Father the (will) purposes it. The spirit is the medium of the expression of LOGOS the son and the (WILL) the Father. The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost the God Head, (vocabulary, will and spirit) the essential components of both God and Man. But man’s will isn’t Yahwey’s and until our will becomes his will we can’t be his incarnation.

All things were created by the word (logos/vocabulary), It precedes all tangible reality and (WILL) precedes Vocabulary (LOGOS) and the Holy Ghost binds them both and all three are one. We will truly be without excuse no matter what our views. Because all men are born with these attributes of GodHead.

Jedidiah

February 26th 2005, 01:59 AM

grmorton

February 26th 2005, 12:03 PM

I chose not to bother because you did not speak to my question at all. If God is omnipotent, or even much more powerful and intellegent than His creatures, how is your inability to comprehend relevant?

Job asked similar questions and what was Gods answer?

beeman

Beeman, first off, you didn't make your position clear with your question to me. Secondly, the bump wasn't entirely for your benefit. I am really curious how the OECs answer these issues that I raise. What I see is the same thing the YECs do. When faced with tough questions, instead of saying "I don't know." or creating a non-ad hoc solution, people go silent as if silence would hide the fact that they have no answers.

Any other OECs want to take those questions of mine on? If y'all can't explain the features of the geologic record any better than the YECs, how exactly is your position superior to that of the YECs?

Let's start with this one. Why did God suddenly cease creating marsupials in South America and start creating placental mammals 3 million years ago? What was he 'preparing' South America for with the Marsupials?

A Beautiful Truth

February 26th 2005, 12:23 PM

Beeman, first off, you didn't make your position clear with your question to me. Secondly, the bump wasn't entirely for your benefit. I am really curious how the OECs answer these issues that I raise. What I see is the same thing the YECs do. When faced with tough questions, instead of saying "I don't know." or creating a non-ad hoc solution, people go silent as if silence would hide the fact that they have no answers.

Any other OECs want to take those questions of mine on? If y'all can't explain the features of the geologic record any better than the YECs, how exactly is your position superior to that of the YECs?

Let's start with this one. Why did God suddenly cease creating marsupials in South America and start creating placental mammals 3 million years ago? What was he 'preparing' South America for with the Marsupials?

Glenn, I don't think there are many OEC's on Theology Web. As for me, I don't know the answers to your questions from a OEC perspective. I think good points have been brought up in the thread in Nat. Sci. thread "The Two Design Arguments."

I think the OEC can only say, "I don't know why God would suddenly cease creating marsupials in South America and start creating placental mammals 3 million years ago". But I don't think knowing the mind of God is their greatest concern.

There are things like this that "bother" me about OEC, and I think TE offers some acceptable answers. Reconciling TE with Paul seems to be my greatest concern. I know you have things worked out in your mind, but the way you work it out is unsatisfying to me for a number of reasons. So I keep pressing on looking for the reconcilitation...

reyvin

March 10th 2005, 09:02 AM

grmorton

March 10th 2005, 04:38 PM

I'm more in line with Jack Collins' analogical day view (found in Science & Faith). That being said, I don't have any stake in the evolution question. But, Beeman made mention and I'll concur: Who are you to ask God why He did or didn't do something a certain way?
Better, since you're a believer Glenn, what is YOUR answer to the questions you posed about God doing things a certain way?

My answer is that evolution was God's way of creating us and all the things I raised are compatible with evolution having taken place

edited to add: God gave us minds with which to question. If God didn't want us to question, he shouldn't have given us minds. Your last question commits the fallacy of double question. You presume that you know what God did and it wasn't evolution, therefore you ask me why I should question what God did. The first question to be answered is : what exactly DID God do? It isn't clear to me from all the questions I raised that it is ICR style creationism nor is it clear to me that it is OEC. TE fits better

grmorton

March 10th 2005, 04:43 PM

Glenn, I don't think there are many OEC's on Theology Web. As for me, I don't know the answers to your questions from a OEC perspective. I think good points have been brought up in the thread in Nat. Sci. thread "The Two Design Arguments."

I think the OEC can only say, "I don't know why God would suddenly cease creating marsupials in South America and start creating placental mammals 3 million years ago". But I don't think knowing the mind of God is their greatest concern.

There are things like this that "bother" me about OEC, and I think TE offers some acceptable answers. Reconciling TE with Paul seems to be my greatest concern. I know you have things worked out in your mind, but the way you work it out is unsatisfying to me for a number of reasons. So I keep pressing on looking for the reconcilitation...

A reconciliaton which requires lots of "i don't knows" is not a good reconciliation. (sorry for the typing problems. My son's keyboard is ergonimcally correct and impossible to type on()

I don't understand your reference to Paul.''

By the way, I will be having some extended times away from here over the next few weeks as I get ready to move to Beijing.

A Beautiful Truth

March 11th 2005, 12:41 AM

A reconciliaton which requires lots of "i don't knows" is not a good reconciliation. (sorry for the typing problems. My son's keyboard is ergonimcally correct and impossible to type on()

Actually I just read a good essay on this very matter (reconciling Paul and Genesis) and I hope you might read it and join us over in Theology 201, or just read it.... Mark Porter links the essay in post #2.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49463

I don't understand your reference to Paul.''

Romans 5, but I think the essay has provided a good argument.

By the way, I will be having some extended times away from here over the next few weeks as I get ready to move to Beijing.

Wow, Beijing. With what you must have seen already in your life time, Glenn...wow. My grandfather once told me you are really only changed in life by two things, the books you read and the people you meet. I think it is great you have had the oppurtunity to go around the world and meet so many different people.

I hope your move goes smoothly. As exciting as moving will be, I can only imagine the headache of getting all your stuff in order...its bad enough just here in the states. I hope it all goes well for you and your family.

~Charleen