[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Barbarian]

If there was no flood it effects the truthfulness of the Bible

No, it affects the modern re-interpretation of the Flood as being "global." Since scripture doesn't say it's global, it only affects the reliability of those who deemed themselves wise in making that re-interpretation.

 

[Knotical]

I think the problem is the word evolve. Doesn't matter as your definition (your final sentence above) is the one I hold to and that's more important. We agree that things will adapt and change (per the ID model) the way that God designed them. That's exactly what I believe too.

Then may I suggest working that word out of our vocabulary?

 

[Cygnus]

Hello calvin here,
I don't see it as you do.
For sure I believe in a global flood, but considering the possibility of a local flood, (and I am only willing to so consider because nothing is impossible for the Lord) there may have been several 'local' floods at times all over the world.
I don't think the young Earth/Old Earth issue hinges on the flood, I know many apologists do use the flood to support a young Earth, but I think there is a flaw in that logic.
But that said, I think the fossil record and geology unwittingly support a global flood because the various fossil bearing rock strata are of the same age no matter where they are located.
Sure there are fossil bearing sedimentary strata that are said to belong to different geologic ages, however that, apart from being up for dispute, doesn't alter the fact that fossils are to be found the world over in strata that is labelled with the same age.

I do want to take the time to follow those links supplied by Pappa Zoom though, so I'll go quiet for a little while.

The issue leads back to the reason for original sin....if you take the local flood, old earth path...throw in evolutionism...the reason for Christ gets thrown away.

 

[Cygnus]

No, it affects the modern re-interpretation of the Flood as being "global." Since scripture doesn't say it's global, it only affects the reliability of those who deemed themselves wise in making that re-interpretation.

Bottom line....no flood or local flood typically means old earth...which typically means man arrived by evolutionism and not the way God described it through Moses...
That theology plays havoc with the Bible.

 

[Cygnus]

The only flood possible at the time of Noah is a world-wide flood as it rained for so long, and was so deep, entire mountains were under water. There is no possible way that would be localized.

As for evolution, I do not even believe in micro-evolution. Everything in nature points to an intelligent designer. Otherwise everything would just fall apart.

If you like ID...you'll love this short video.

...lets ask our evolutionism-friends how this stuff could have evolved through a process of mutations and random chance.

 

[Barbarian]

Then may I suggest working that word out of our vocabulary?

The word "design", if used to mean anything more specific than "intention", is an implicit blasphemy, since it suggests that God had to figure things out. (which is what "design" means, in the strict sense). The informal meaning of "intent" wouldn't be so, but then that would include naturalistic evolution, and therefore would be meaningless as far as evolution was concerned.

 

[Barbarian]

Bottom line....no flood or local flood typically means old earth...which typically means man arrived by evolutionism and not the way God described it through Moses...

God doesn't specifically say how he produced humans. Most of the world's Christians acknowledge the fact that evolution is consistent with Christian faith.

That theology plays havoc with the Bible.

The Bible specifically rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism. However, it's not a salvation issue, so you're not any less Christian for believing that modern doctrine.

 

[Knotical]

The word "design", if used to mean anything more specific than "intention", is an implicit blasphemy, since it suggests that God had to figure things out. (which is what "design" means, in the strict sense). The informal meaning of "intent" wouldn't be so, but then that would include naturalistic evolution, and therefore would be meaningless as far as evolution was concerned.

Nice try, but the notion of evolution would be even worse using your logic as it suggests that things develop completely at random. By saying "design" for humans it may mean that we need to "figure things out" but for God He is able to get things right the first time. To suggest otherwise would be blasphemy.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The word "design", if used to mean anything more specific than "intention", is an implicit blasphemy, since it suggests that God had to figure things out. (which is what "design" means, in the strict sense). The informal meaning of "intent" wouldn't be so, but then that would include naturalistic evolution, and therefore would be meaningless as far as evolution was concerned.

Nice try, but the notion of evolution would be even worse using your logic as it suggests that things develop completely at random.

If you think so, you have no idea what evolution is. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

By saying "design" for humans it may mean that we need to "figure things out" but for God He is able to get things right the first time.

Which precludes design (except in the watered-down meaning of "intent"). Limited creatures design. God creates. It's not matter of degree, it's a difference in kind.

To suggest otherwise would be blasphemy. And that is why there's an implicit blasphemy in the notion of God being a mere "designer." This is why IDers say the "designer" might merely be a "space alien."

Creationism, even YE creationism, at least sees an omnipotent God who creates.

 

[Cygnus]

God doesn't specifically say how he produced humans. Most of the world's Christians acknowledge the fact that evolution is consistent with Christian faith.



The Bible specifically rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism. However, it's not a salvation issue, so you're not any less Christian for believing that modern doctrine.

God showed us how...in part...how He made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib...WHICH IS FAR, FAR FROM EVOLUTIONISM. (capital letters intentional). Considering what evolution does with original sin and our sin nature due to the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the garden....hence we sin and need Christ.

 

[Knotical]

Barbarian observes:
The word "design", if used to mean anything more specific than "intention", is an implicit blasphemy, since it suggests that God had to figure things out. (which is what "design" means, in the strict sense). The informal meaning of "intent" wouldn't be so, but then that would include naturalistic evolution, and therefore would be meaningless as far as evolution was concerned.



If you think so, you have no idea what evolution is. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.



Which precludes design (except in the watered-down meaning of "intent"). Limited creatures design. God creates. It's not matter of degree, it's a difference in kind.

To suggest otherwise would be blasphemy. And that is why there's an implicit blasphemy in the notion of God being a mere "designer." This is why IDers say the "designer" might merely be a "space alien."

Creationism, even YE creationism, at least sees an omnipotent God who creates.

I guess this is one way to try and shoe-horn your love affair with a failed explanation of how things came to be into the actual Creation event. Fine, if you don't like the word "design" then we can think of it this way. God created everything the way it currently is, and the way different things react to external forces is how it was created. Evolution is a very poor attempt at trying explain how God accomplished His creation.

 

[Barbarian]

I guess this is one way to try and shoe-horn your love affair with a failed explanation of how things came to be into the actual Creation event.

As you see, the evidence is entirely consistent with scripture. As far as Christian faith goes, it doesn't matter precisely how He created life.

Fine, if you don't like the word "design" then we can think of it this way. God created everything the way it currently is

No, that's obviously not true, since we have lots of evidence showing that things were quite different ages ago; climate, continents, living things all very different.

and the way different things react to external forces is how it was created.

Yep.

Evolution is a very poor attempt at trying explain how God accomplished His creation.

Evolution is just the way He created the diversity of living things.

 

[Knotical]

Evolution is just the way He created the diversity of living things.

No, it is the secular explanation for how God created things to adapt and change. Evolution has no place in the true understanding of Creation.

 

[Barbarian]

No, it is the secular explanation for how God created things to adapt and change. Evolution has no place in the true understanding of Creation.

Some Christians think as you do, but most of us accept that evolution is consistent with His creation. Fortunately, it doesn't matter if you don't accept the way he created things. Creationists are no less likely to be saved than other Christians.

 

[Knotical]

Some Christians think as you do, but most of us accept that evolution is consistent with His creation. Fortunately, it doesn't matter if you don't accept the way he created things. Creationists are no less likely to be saved than other Christians.

Most of who, Catholics? Sorry, but there is a large contingent of Christians that do not buy into the secular explanation for Creation.

 

[Barbarian]

Most of who, Catholics?

And Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans and almost all Lutherans, and many other Protestant denominations. Catholics are only slightly more than half of all the world's Christians. The next largest group are Eastern Orthodox, who also accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

Sorry, but there is a large contingent of Christians that do not buy into the secular explanation for Creation.

Evolutionary theory isn't about creation. It just explains the way evolution works. While evolution is God's creation, it is not the role of science to say so.

 

[Barbarian]

Then may I suggest working that word out of our vocabulary?

You might use Darwin's preference; "descent with modfification."

 

[Knotical]

And Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans and almost all Lutherans, and many other Protestant denominations. Catholics are only slightly more than half of all the world's Christians. The next largest group are Eastern Orthodox, who also accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation.



Evolutionary theory isn't about creation. It just explains the way evolution works. While evolution is God's creation, it is not the role of science to say so.

There may be those who identify as Christians who may hold to this "theory" as being part of how God facilitated His creation, but you should also understand that there are those, including Christian scientists, who consider anyone does hold to theory of evolution, in any of its iterations, as apostate, or at the very least, deceived.

 

[Barbarian]

There may be those who identify as Christians who may hold to this "theory" as being part of how God facilitated His creation, but you should also understand that there are those, including Christian scientists, who consider anyone does hold to theory of evolution, in any of its iterations, as apostate, or at the very least, deceived.

There could be people like that who consider themselves Christians, and if so, it's unfortunate. Even most creationists recognize that it's not a salvation issue. It doesn't matter either way, but trying to push people away from God only succeeds in removing one's self from God. It is very close to building an idol of creationism.

Not a good thing to do.

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here.
Maybe I'm deceived then.
But I have a thought to share with you gentlemen.
I believe that the Genesis account of creation is correct.
ie. the Lord created with purpose.
I note that after each day of creation it is judged as being good.
ie. Gen 1:4
Whether 'good' means 'perfect' or 'fully adequate for the intended purpose' I don't surely know.
Either way we have a universe full of stuff that was created by the Lord God. It did not need to evolve because either it was created perfect already or it was created fully adequate for its intended purpose.

But then, mankind fell into sin and now we have a whole new ball game.
Paul writing to the Church in Rome, observed:
Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. Esv.

So, ever since the fall of mankind, the whole of creation is subject to futility and corruption. Maybe this is where evolution comes in.
Creation originally, evolution in futility and corruption after the fall.
just saying.