[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Barbarian]

God says:
Genesis 1:24: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

"Life ex nihilo" denies God's word. That is a modern doctrine that denies God's word.

The modern doctrine is yours Barbarian.

Bible's been around a long time.

You are denying what God's word actually says.
Gen 1:25 says in part; God made
Gen 1:1 says God created.
Gen 1:2 says after that; the earth was formless and empty.
Up to this point, God has created the earth out of NOTHING.

But He says He didn't create life from nothing. And that's where YE creationism denies His word.

So God makes these wild animals and livestock from NOTHING.

Let's take a look again...
Genesis 1:24: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Nope. You're still wrong. God says that the earth brought forth living things. He says He created living things from existing creation.

1 John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.

Barbarian chuckles:
Doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Try again...

Really?

Yep. As you learned, He says He creatred life from previously-created things.

Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Barbarian chuckles:
Doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Try again...

Well if He created ALL things, VISIBLE and INVISIBLE, and THROUGH Him and FOR Him, then the "congruence between the full range of paleontological and developmental data strongly supports the hypothesis of "Life ex nihilo"

Two problems with that:
1. the verse you quote doesn't say he made life from nothing.
2. Genesis 1:24 says He made life from previously-created things.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Barbarian observes:
And that one doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Kind of a revelation, isn't it?

Bottom line still would be God made life from NOTHING.

Nope. As you learned, God says He didn't make life from nothing. He says He made life from existing things. I see a way out of this for you; why not just tell me you accept YE creationism, except the part that denies God's word?

Problem over.

(suggestion that a whale and a horse might interbreed)

Barbarian chuckles:
If it did, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.

It is already in serious trouble Barbarian....

Even honest creationists say that's not so:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and

[p. 219]

Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE creationist Kurt Wise
Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CEN Tech. J., 8(2):160-165.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

you just refuse to acknowledge that.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. That's a really extreme misrepresentation of what I said. God didn't say that he made everything out of something. He said that he made living things out of other things. Which YE creationists deny.

Well God didn't say that either

Let's take one more look:
Genesis 1:24: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

How about that? He did say it.

You simply aren't willing to listen to what He's telling you. He didn't create life from nothing. He says He created it from previously created things.



Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
The people who awarded me my degrees in biology thought so.
Instead of an informal dictionary, here's what it actually means:
Definition: Any transmissible change in the genetic material of an organism, which can result from radiation, viral infection, transposition, treatment with mutagenic chemicals and errors during DNA replication or meiosis. As many of the simpler alterations to DNA may be repaired, such changes are only heritable once the change is fixed in the DNA by the process of replication. Mutations may be associated with genetic diversity or with pathologies including cancer.

Well I don't know how many years it took for you to get your degrees in biology, but you obviously are very vested in the time and effort it took you

I've spent a lifetime observing and learning about it. I've spent a lifetime learning the Bible, too.

It's not too late to go back and take another look.

 

[jesseedavis]

Barb, did God say He created living things out of previous lifeforms? Did He create them out of other kinds of living things? Your chiming statements of Him making them out of "previous creations" is slightly wrong. He created them out of earth. Just as He created man from the dust so did He make everything from plants to animals from dust, from the earth. Keep in mind that you seem to be denying the many chiming phrases in this passage of "after its kind..." Another thing, show me the connection in this passage or any passage that shows evolution from aquatic life to land life. If I remember right, doesn't it say that flying animals and water animals were created first, before land animals? How does that make sense of dinosaur to bird evolution? Forgive my skepticism, but you refuse to answer my questions and I genuinely want to learn what God has taught you about this from His Word.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb, did God say He created living things out of previous lifeforms?

He says that the first living things were brought forth from the Earth. This rules out YE creationism, which claims living things were created from nothing.

God doesn't say how He produced living things, only that it was done out of nature, which He created.

Your chiming statements of Him making them out of "previous creations" is slightly wrong. He created them out of earth.

You don't think He created the Earth? He said He did.

Keep in mind that you seem to be denying the many chiming phrases in this passage of "after its kind..."

I accept that He did this. YE creationism does not. Exactly how He used nature to make kinds, He doesn't say. He left some things for us to find out for ourselves.

Another thing, show me the connection in this passage or any passage that shows evolution from aquatic life to land life.

See above. He doesn't say how protons formed, either. That's not what scripture is for.

If I remember right, doesn't it say that flying animals and water animals were created first, before land animals? How does that make sense of dinosaur to bird evolution?

As Christians have noted, Genesis isnt' about literal days, but about categories of creation. We know this, because it is logically impossible to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun.

But none of this removes the fact that YE creationism stands opposed to God's word in Genesis. Life was not created from nothing. God says He used pre-existing things in nature to make living things.

Forgive my skepticism, but you refuse to answer my questions

I think rather, you don't like what God has said to you in Genesis. You got answers, just not the ones you were hoping for. Let God be God.

and I genuinely want to learn what God has taught you about this from His Word.

Just read it with an open heart. That's what I do.

 

[jesseedavis]

He says that the first living things were brought forth from the Earth. God doesn't say how He produced living things, only that it was done out of nature, which He created. You don't think He created the Earth? He said He did. Life was not created from nothing. God says He used pre-existing things in nature to make living things.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

I accept that He did this. YE creationism does not. Exactly how He used nature to make kinds, He doesn't say. He left some things for us to find out for ourselves. He doesn't say how protons formed, either. That's not what scripture is for.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good food
2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air

As Christians have noted, Genesis isnt' about literal days, but about categories of creation. We know this, because it is logically impossible to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I think rather, you don't like what God has said to you in Genesis. You got answers, just not the ones you were hoping for. Let God be God. Just read it with an open heart. That's what I do.

Same here, we just seem to notice different things that it says based on what we "know."

We know this, because it is logically impossible to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun.

I see light and darkness not being equivalent to the sun and the moon. Please explain how you made this connection for me.

 

[cupid dave]

I see light and darkness not being equivalent to the sun and the moon. Please explain how you made this connection for me.

Of course said let there be light does not equate to our sun, here on earth.

Right after the Big Bank there was a Dark Cosmic Age because atoms had not yet formed.
Atoms are both the reqyuired and necessary source for the emission of visible light.


400 million years after God had created the heavens, the protons that moved through Space began attracting the slower moving free electrons and formed Hydrogen Atoms.
Light then was possible as those electrons moved up and down the seven principle Quantum numbered shells around the nucleus.

 

[cupid dave]

Hi Barb,

This kind of threw me off guard. As you know, I'm a YE Creationist, so you'll have to show me how I interpret the text to deny God's work in Genesis.

That would be a most interesting discussion. .

What YE ignore is that the 24 hour days was not "invented" by God until "day" four.

God made the Sun the auhority over the Solar Clock in Gen 1:14.
So we can trust that the seven creative days of God where not those 24 hour durations.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
We know this, because it is logically impossible to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun.

I see light and darkness not being equivalent to the sun and the moon.

However, morning does require a Sun to have one. And that's the point I made. Not "light and darkness."

Please explain how you made this connection for me.

I didn't. You just thought it up and want me to take authorship for it.

 

[cupid dave]

Barbarian observes:
We know this, because it is logically impossible to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun.



However, morning does require a Sun to have one. And that's the point I made. Not "light and darkness."



I didn't. You just thought it up and want me to take authorship for it.

The evenings coming before the mornings suggests the use of a literary technique called a simile, meaning that the bginning of one geological era follows on the closing of the last.

 

[jesseedavis]

Barbarian observes:
We know this, because it is logically impossible to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun. However, morning does require a Sun to have one.

Alright, so I'll let you explain it for yourself. How can this passage make sense, Barb?

 

[Barbarian]

Alright, so I'll let you explain it for yourself. How can this passage make sense, Barb?

Over a thousand years ago, Christians had this figured out:

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

YE creationism is a very modern revision of Christianity.

 

[jesseedavis]

Over a thousand years ago, Christians had this figured out:

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

YE creationism is a very modern revision of Christianity.

You know, I wondered if your view came from BioLogos. Did you know that YE creationists, OE creationists and theistic evolutionists all say the same thing for their views? Maybe you can help me with this, but I can't seem to find on the BioLogos site just what references they have for this claim.

You are right that evolution has been around for a long time. Epicureans were big proponents of it. However creationism has been around for a LONG, LONG time.

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.†The Epistle of Barnabas 15, Early Christian Writings, p. 214, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin Classics © 1968

“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….†Lactantius, On the Creation of the World, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, p.341, T & T Clark Eerdmans © Reprinted 1994

Even your beloved Augustine wrote:
“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.†Augustine, City of God, 11: 6 – 7

Also:
"Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal. And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? They reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!" Augustine, City of God, 12:10

And again:
"As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity. Consequently, if there had elapsed since the creation of man, I do not say five or six, but even sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty times as many, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many, or this sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressed in numbers, the same question could still be put, Why was he not made before? For the past and boundless eternity during which God abstained from creating man is so great, that, compare it with what vast and untold number of ages you please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of this term of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutest drop of water with the ocean that everywhere flows around the globe. For of these two, one indeed is very small, the other incomparably vast, yet both are finite; but that space of time which starts from some beginning, and is limited by some termination, be it of what extent it may, if you compare it with that which has no beginning, I know not whether to say we should count it the very minutest thing, or nothing at all. For, take this limited time, and deduct from the end of it, one by one, the briefest moments (as you might take day by day from a man's life, beginning at the day in which he now lives, back to that of his birth), and though the number of moments you must subtract in this backward movement be so great that no word can express it, yet this subtraction will sometime carry you to the beginning. But if you take away from a time which has no beginning, I do not say brief moments one by one, nor yet hours, or days, or months, or years even in quantities, but terms of years so vast that they cannot be named by the most skillful arithmeticians,— take away terms of years as vast as that which we have supposed to be gradually consumed by the deduction of moments—and take them away not once and again repeatedly, but always, and what do you effect, what do you make by your deduction, since you never reach the beginning, which has no existence? Wherefore, that which we now demand after five thousand odd years, our descendants might with like curiosity demand after six hundred thousand years, supposing these dying generations of men continue so long to decay and be renewed, and supposing posterity continues as weak and ignorant as ourselves. The same question might have been asked by those who have lived before us and while man was even newer upon earth. The first man himself in short might the day after or the very day of his creation have asked why he was created no sooner. And no matter at what earlier or later period he had been created, this controversy about the commencement of this world's history would have had precisely the same difficulties as it has now." Augustine, City of God, 12:12


I really want to thank you Barb, in causing me to do my own searching through the Scriptures and through Church history on several different sides of this topic, you have really strengthened my view of the recent creation of all that exists, namely the view of 6,000 years. Especially those fathers who are most often quoted among organizations like BioLogos and Reasons.org and people such as yourself, I've learned much from Augustine's writings and who he was writing to and why he wrote what he did. Again, thank you for your neglectful and vague answers to my questions and your periodical chuckles and lack of seriousness in your discussions with those such as Spartikis. I'm sure many have also been strengthened, for this I praise the wonderful Creator God!

 

[Barbarian]

You know, I wondered if your view came from BioLogos.

I was a Christian long before BioLogos was around. So was St. Augustine.

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Did you know that YE creationists, OE creationists and theistic evolutionists all say the same thing for their views?

Comes down to what Scripture actually says. Which rules out YE creationism. But the others are consistent with the Bible.

Maybe you can help me with this, but I can't seem to find on the BioLogos site just what references they have for this claim.

http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf

You are right that evolution has been around for a long time. Epicureans were big proponents of it. However creationism has been around for a LONG, LONG time.

It was clear to people that some kind of evolution had to be true. Even St. Augustine discussed it. On the other hand, YE creationism is a very modern revision to Christianity, being invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century.

Pious charlatans, firebrand demagogues and scientific cranks stalk the pages of this scholarly, thoroughgoing, at times plodding history of the modern revival of creationism. Unlike 19th-century creationists, who rejected Darwinian evolution but acknowledged that life on earth has spanned millions of years, today's creationists believe that God made woman and man in a single act of creation within the last 10,000 years. They draw inspiration for their beliefs from George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist who in the 1920s pioneered "flood geology," which traces most fossils back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Numbers, a professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin, unravels the tangled religious roots of creationism.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists-Evolution-Scientific-Creationism/dp/0520083938

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.†The Epistle of Barnabas 15, Early Christian Writings, p. 214, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin Classics © 1968

Suffice to say that God says no one will know the time when the Lord returns.

Even your beloved Augustine

Temper, temper.

(Augustine rejects a literal six-day creation)

“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day.

In fact, "morning" means the Sun comes up, and "evening" means it sets. That's all it has ever meant, something Augustine alludes to, in his book. See below.

"Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race.

Augustine admits that people of his time had no understanding of the specific way the human race appeared.

I really want to thank you Barb, in causing me to do my own searching through the Scriptures and through Church history on several different sides of this topic, you have really strengthened my view of the recent creation of all that exists, namely the view of 6,000 years. Especially those fathers who are most often quoted among organizations like BioLogos and Reasons.org and people such as yourself, I've learned much from Augustine's writings and who he was writing to and why he wrote what he did.

I would have thought that you would have been offended by his argument that the world was created in an instant, and developed into what it is today thereafter:

But another explanation might be offered. Although this work of God was done in an instant, did the light remain, with-out night coming on, until the time of one day was complete; and did the night, following upon the daylight, continue while the hours of the nighttime passed by until the morning of the following day dawned, one day, the first one, being then complete? But if I make such a statement, I fear I shall be laughed at both by those who have scientific knowledge of these matters and by those who can easily recognize the facts of the case. At the time when night is with us, the sun is illuminating with its presence those parts of the world through which it returns from the place of its setting to that of its rising. Hence it is that for the whole twenty-four hours of the sun’s circuit there is always day in one place and night in another. Surely, then, we are not going to place God in a region where it will be evening for Him as the sun’s light leaves that land for another.

As you see, you can't put a YE interpretation on this. Some forms of creationism are consistent with Augustine's writings, but not YE. As you see, he rejects a literal six-day creation week.

I think that if Jesus came to you and said, "this is how I did it", you'd try to show Him how He was wrong.

 

[jesseedavis]

I think that if Jesus came to you and said, "this is how I did it", you'd try to show Him how He was wrong.

Likewise, Brother, likewise.

I've offered to you writings from his latest book, written only a few years before his death, which he states very openly and clearly his take on the literal 6-day creation. I could probably post several hundreds of pages from ancient Jewish rabbis, centuries before even the last OT writings were completed, on the literal history of Genesis 1 and on genealogy. From the church fathers and the many arguments between the scientists/philosophers of the day and the church scholars/historians and to the present day where we continue to see those who believe Luther's take on it during the reformation (well before the SDA's).

Whether you believe this or not and whether you will agree with me or not, you have played a huge part in strengthening my belief in 6 literal days, the literal history of Genesis and many other aspects of it. Keep in mind that this issue goes well beyond science and logic, but affects every doctrine ever thought of and is very crucial to the Jewish understanding and culture as to them Genesis is the foundation of the Torah and the foundation of their existence as a nation apart from all others.

I truly and sincerely thank you for sharing the many ignorances and um behavioral issues that often underline doctrinal instability. (I apologize for the bluntness and harshness of this statement.) In the future, do yourself a favor and be a little more open and direct when answering questions about things such as the birth and resurrection of our Lord. Your indirectness on top of the way you spun it around to present it as though you don't question it, but for asking I must be questioning it. Your method of answering posts and questions show some very big flags as far as what is in your heart. Again, this has led to some curiosity about the doctrine you present as from the Spirit. (Remember our discussion about how to interpret Scripture and the Holy Spirit's part in it. Maybe take some time to be still before Him and do some rereading and examining. Alas, this is between you and the Lord.)

As for me, I have learned much about the history of these doctrinal standpoints, who believed what and why, what passages do and don't speak about the creation (thanks again by the way), and different reasons for and against each side of the issue. Needless to say, I've only begun in this search and as I've just recently moved to a place without internet (praise God!) I will have plenty more time to continue this study with greater depths. Speaking of greater depths, maybe you'll realize the seriousness of my question and start presenting me with some real answers about the Scriptures and your views for when I do occasionally pop on here? As a teacher, I'd hate to see that you reject willing students when they come to you or maybe that's the college teacher in you, I've not paid to be in your classes, therefore sorry you miss out. :/

I love you Brother!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I think that if Jesus came to you and said, "this is how I did it", you'd try to show Him how He was wrong.

Likewise, Brother, likewise.

Comes down to evidence. And you don't have it.

I've offered to you writings from his latest book, written only a few years before his death, which he states very openly and clearly his take on the literal 6-day creation.

Show me where Jesus said there was a literal 6-day creation. If you're claiming that an allegorical passage becomes literal when Jesus mentions it, show us your evidence for that, too.

Whether you believe this or not and whether you will agree with me or not, you have played a huge part in strengthening my belief in 6 literal days, the literal history of Genesis and many other aspects of it.

Understand, these discussions aren't for those who will cling to YE creationism regardless of the evidence. They are for those who are still considering the issue. So you're playing an important part as well.

Keep in mind that this issue goes well beyond science and logic, but affects every doctrine ever thought of and is very crucial to the Jewish understanding and culture as to them Genesis is the foundation of the Torah and the foundation of their existence as a nation apart from all others.

If you've been paying attention, you'd have learned that many Jewish theologians, including ancient ones, knew that Genesis wasn't literal.

I truly and sincerely thank you for sharing the many ignorances and um behavioral issues that often underline doctrinal instability. (I apologize for the bluntness and harshness of this statement.)

It's O.K. You're clearly upset. I can forgive it.

In the future, do yourself a favor and be a little more open and direct when answering questions about things such as the birth and resurrection of our Lord.

I've told you exactly what you think. I can understand your frustration about the evidence.

Your indirectness on top of the way you spun it around to present it as though you don't question it, but for asking I must be questioning it.

It did seem peculiar that you wouldn't know what a Christian believes, given that I've mentioned my beliefs numerous times here.

Your method of answering posts and questions show some very big flags as far as what is in your heart.

Funny how people think they can hide that sort of thing, isn't it?

As a teacher, I'd hate to see that you reject willing students when they come to you or maybe that's the college teacher in you, I've not paid to be in your classes, therefore sorry you miss out. I love you Brother!

That would be good for your soul, I think. Make sure, um?

 

[cupid dave]

I really want to thank you Barb, in causing me to do my own searching through the Scriptures and through Church history on several different sides of this topic, you have really strengthened my view of the recent creation of all that exists, namely the view of 6,000 years. Especially those fathers who are most often quoted among organizations like BioLogos and Reasons.org and people such as yourself, I've learned much from Augustine's writings and who he was writing to and why he wrote what he did. Again, thank you for your neglectful and vague answers to my questions and your periodical chuckles and lack of seriousness in your discussions with those such as Spartikis. I'm sure many have also been strengthened, for this I praise the wonderful Creator God!

What is important is not how Genesis makes sense to you, butthat it does.

That you accept exactly what the Bible says (in any way you pesonally find it acceptable) is not even important.
You are an adherent of the Bible.

What is more important than you and why you accept the bible is that you do nothing to negate sceince and academically trained people to also accept the Bible.

There is no reason to even debate the people who so science as supporting Genesis.

When an educated person tells Bill Maher that the six "days" were actually six long eras of time, the church people need support that believer by simply remaining silent.

When educated academically trained people demad some creditable basis for believing Genesis, it is warranted that they learn to accpt Genesis on the terms of their own understanding about evolution.

What is not warranted is opposing the teaching to science minded people that Genesisis supported by evolution.
This behavior by Christians drives educated people away from genesis, simply because they will never believe genesis for the reasons you do.

 

[jesseedavis]

Show me where Jesus said there was a literal 6-day creation. If you're claiming that an allegorical passage becomes literal when Jesus mentions it, show us your evidence for that, too.

Sorry, you misunderstood me, I meant that the City of God was written by St. Augustine in 410-420 and he died in 430. Not Jesus' last writings, but St. Augustine's.



Side note: Scientific evidences are anything but irrefutable, Barb, you know this. Not only that, but as we all can see from BioLogos, Reasons.org, AIG, ICR, other Christian sites and the countless secular sites, evidence can have innumerable interpretations even among those who are like-minded. Also, it is well noticed that scientific theories and interpretations often become refuted over time as scientific technology and means advances. We also know that there is a stark difference between historical and observational sciences, regardless of how each may influence or assist each other.

 

[jesseedavis]

Cupid, my issue is a matter of Scriptural authority, precision, and accuracy.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, you misunderstood me, I meant that the City of God was written by St. Augustine in 410-420 and he died in 430. Not Jesus' last writings, but St. Augustine's.

Show us where he denies what he wrote about the days of Genesis not being identifiable as literal ones.

Side note: Scientific evidences are anything but irrefutable, Barb, you know this. Not only that, but as we all can see from BioLogos, Reasons.org, AIG, ICR, other Christian sites and the countless secular sites, evidence can have innumerable interpretations even among those who are like-minded.

Sorry, I don't buy the postmodernist idea that reality is whatever we make it out to be. There is an objective truth and evidence can show us what it is.

Also, it is well noticed that scientific theories and interpretations often become refuted over time as scientific technology and means advances.

As we learn more, we do change it. In Augustine's time, for example, the evidence did not show Earth to be billions of years old. But since then, we've found ways to measure how old it is. Augustine, BTW, said that when we find out thing that conflict with our understanding of scripture, we should consider that we could be wrong about one or both of them.

We also know that there is a stark difference between historical and observational sciences

Turns out, that's wrong. For example, observed evolution works just the way we see it in the fossil record. Both historical and observational science shows the same thing.

 

[cupid dave]

Side note: Scientific evidences are anything but irrefutable, Barb, you know this. Not only that, but as we all can see from BioLogos, Reasons.org, AIG, ICR, other Christian sites and the countless secular sites, evidence can have innumerable interpretations even among those who are like-minded. Also, it is well noticed that scientific theories and interpretations often become refuted over time as scientific technology and means advances. We also know that there is a stark difference between historical and observational sciences, regardless of how each may influence or assist each other.

You confuse the use of scientific facts to build up an argument for various points of view with the empirical process that actually establishes Facts.
The Facts, themselves, are NOT open to revision or differences of opinion among scientists, nor will they erode or be changed over time.

In this Age of the Scientific Method, there are Facts, things which we are certain can be observed by everyone under the same laboratory conditions.
They do NOT change over time.

This is not to be confused with how scientists decide to use those Facts to build a case for something they believe would naturally follow from those Facts.

However, those scientists are forever held to the next step in the Scientific Method:
By that method those scientists must take the next step.
They must collaterate whatever it is they have asserted from the facts so used by predicting a rational consequence follow.

That is to say, if A be correct, then by another carefuly controlled experiment, B ought be found to be a Fact also.

This collateration must be by demonstrating another empirical experiment which then will either enhance and give more credibilty to their prevous arguments, or cause them to discard those ideas.

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid, my issue is a matter of Scriptural authority, precision, and accuracy.

But I challenge you reading comprehension, not the issue of scriptural authority.

When yo explain what you believe you have read in scripture, that is like your own Book Report.

You imply, erronously in many cases, that the scripture MUST say what you, privately, in your own interpretation, want others to accept as the authority on teh scripture.

This is the mistake of the Pharisees who had long banded together and insisted by their great numbers that what Jesus said was wrong according to their private ideas on the Bible.