[__ Science __ ] Can Creationists Accept Evolution?

[Highway54]

Why do you think he didn’t understand it? He certainly was not allowed to write more than he did being told the book was to be sealed. He received the understanding of dreams. I don’t think we can say he didn’t understand it. I don’t we can make a case either way.

And since there are wildly differing theories as to the meaning, it’s pretty clear He isn’t allowing all of us to understand it. He can’t be behind all of us understanding it if we don’t even think close to each other in interpretion.

Why do you think he didn’t understand it?

It isn't me saying it maam, Daniel said it, God had him pen it Dan 12:8,9

nd since there are wildly differing theories as to the meaning, it’s pretty clear He isn’t allowing all of us to understand it. He can’t be behind all of us understanding it if we don’t even think close to each other in interpretion.

Very true Dorothy Mae , that is an identifier, a fruit. You are aware that God was speaking about His people correct? The Bible was authored by God, penned by His people, for His people. Jesus even pointed out to his apostles that the meaning would be understandable to them, but not to many: Mt 13:11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It isn't me saying it maam, Daniel said it, God had him pen it Dan 12:8,9

Well, the answer to the question he put to the angel he didn’t understand, just that answer which was not straightforward. He understood enough to ask a question. Now the details he would not have known but some of the things in Daniel are elsewhere in the old testament so this wasn’t all knew. But I suspect he knew more than some today and less than others.

Very true Dorothy Mae , that is an identifier, a fruit. You are aware that God was speaking about His people correct? The Bible was authored by God, penned by His people, for His people. Jesus even pointed out to his apostles that the meaning would be understandable to them, but not to many: Mt 13:11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Yes I agree. Not all “you” words in the NT means the reader. But yes I agree.

 

[Barbarian]

No, it wasn't. You keep ignoring Exodus 20:11, Moses wrote that down thousands of years ago and it takes Genesis at its word as a six day creation.

And I'm pointing out that if a figurative verse is cited in a later verse, that does not convert it to a literal history.

And as you see, most creationists in the 19th and 20th centuries were old Earth Creationists, until George McCreedy Price evanglized fundamentalists with the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrines of YE creationism.

From: The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism:
George McCready Price (1870-1963) was the leading young-life creationist of the first half of the twentieth century. Largely self-taught, Price shared his creationist views in more than two dozen books and more than 800 articles—mostly intended for the lay believer. Price argued that true science involves deriving absolute truths by inductive syllogism from known truths. Price believed the Creation Week was 144 consecutive hours in length, six or seven thousand years ago, and everything on the earth was created in that Creation Week. Price believed the creation was created in the state of perfection and that natural evil entered the world at the Fall of man. Price believed the only natural group of organisms, the created kind (what he called the ‘natural species’ when he was being careful), was at about the taxonomic level of genus or family, and could be identified by successful hybridization. Except in the high altitudes, Price believed the entire pre-Flood world enjoyed a sub-tropical climate and supported a biota of much greater size and beauty than the biota of the present world. Price believed the Genesis Flood was global and was caused by some sort of upheaval of the oceans—possibly the sloshing back and forth of the oceans as the earth sustained a sudden, axis-changing astronomical impact. Price believed that all Phanerozoic sediments were formed in the Flood, and organisms were buried close to their pre-Flood habitation. Price believed that the global biostratigraphic column was artificially arranged according to organismal development, reversals of that order are due to normal sedimentation (not post-depositional thrust faults), and most so-called ‘extinct’ organisms are actually identical to modern organisms. Price believed that a sudden freeze was somehow associated with the Flood (to explain frozen mammoths), and the warm pre-Flood ocean water in inland seas caused a regional ice age in the years following the Flood. Price believed created kinds diversified largely by splitting and differentiation following the Flood. Price believed the post-Flood Cro-Magnon people are the oldest humans from which we have evidence, and all other hominoids (fossil and living, ape and human) are degenerate humans. Price also believed that God created languages and races and gave them to different people groups spreading out from Babel. Finally, Price believed that human civilization has degenerated from its highest form in Eden.

Price’s geological ideas formed the core of the geological arguments of Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood, but without appropriate citation. Many of the discussions of modern creationism are similar to ideas Price shared a century or more ago. Although many of current creationist discussions are likely to be derived from Price, not only is this not obvious, but much valuable discussion has been lost. Creationists should reconstruct their intellectual history and thus enrich current discussions.

A host of Price’s claims are echoed in modern creationist discussions. Many of those discussions may turn out to be derived from Price’s ideas and this intellectual heritage should be studied in detail. Price’s philosophy of science, for example, seems to be echoed in such things as the creationist tendency to present anti-evolutionary arguments rather than build models, the preference of quantitative over non-quantitative research approaches, and the adoption of positivist definitions of science. Price’s climatology seems to be echoed in such things as adherence to the canopy model, associations of warm climate with large body size, and discussions about the nature and timing of the ice age. Price’s biology seems to be echoed in such things as creationists’ use of Mayr’s biological species definition, references to ‘natural limits to variation’ and ‘living fossils’, and post-Flood diversification by segregation of genetic information. Price’s geology seems to be echoed in such things as the rejection of the biostratigraphic column and disputes about the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the stratigraphic record.

Contributions to Creationism by George McCready Price

George McCready Price (1870-1963) was the leading young-life creationist of the first half of the twentieth century. Largely self-taught, Price shared his creationist views in more than two dozen books and more than 800 articles—mostly intended for the lay believer. Price argued that true...

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

 

[Highway54]

Well, the answer to the question he put to the angel he didn’t understand, just that answer which was not straightforward. He understood enough to ask a question. Now the details he would not have known but some of the things in Daniel are elsewhere in the old testament so this wasn’t all knew. But I suspect he knew more than some today and less than others.

Yes I agree. Not all “you” words in the NT means the reader. But yes I agree.

But I suspect he knew more than some today and less than others.

I would imagine you believe we are living during those last days, so logically the prophesies found in Daniel are understood by God's people today.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I would imagine you believe we are living during those last days, so logically the prophesies found in Daniel are understood by God's people today.

No, actually I think the prophesies of Daniel are by and large the past same as Revelation. Of course Jesus has not returned bodily. But the terrible events I believe were over when God was done judging the people who crucified the Son of God.

 

[Highway54]

No, actually I think the prophesies of Daniel are by and large the past same as Revelation. Of course Jesus has not returned bodily. But the terrible events I believe were over when God was done judging the people who crucified the Son of God.

I don't expect Jesus to return bodily, in fact the Bible stated that he will return the way he left, invisible to most. Acts 1:11 But that is not to say that people will be ignorant of his return since it will affect everyone left 2 Thes 1:6-9

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't expect Jesus to return bodily, in fact the Bible stated that he will return the way he left, invisible to most. Acts 1:11

Act 1:11 doesn’t say he became or was suddenly invisible. It says they actually saw him. He was never invisible to anyone in scripture. If you think so, where?

But that is not to say that people will be ignorant of his return since it will affect everyone left 2 Thes 1:6-9

I do agree that not everyone will see him.

 

[Highway54]

Act 1:11 doesn’t say he became or was suddenly invisible. It says they actually saw him. He was never invisible to anyone in scripture. If you think so, where?

I do agree that not everyone will see him.

We have been conversing for a while now Dorothy Mae , and as far as I know I have always stated truth to you, but you have questioned some simple things, and I am beginning to question your motives maam. You are quite correct verse 11 does not say he was invisible to them, but verse 9 did. Clearly it is not a big deal if they continued in seeing him or not, and you already acknowledge that not everyone will see him when he returns. But everyone will know when he does that it is his return.

What is your motive behind the question maam, if you are seriously trying to learn, please do not keep you from making full proof of my ministry 2 Tim 4:5, because I will do my utmost to help one who is sincerely trying to learn.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

We have been conversing for a while now Dorothy Mae , and as far as I know I have always stated truth to you, but you have questioned some simple things, and I am beginning to question your motives maam. You are quite correct verse 11 does not say he was invisible to them, but verse 9 did.

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

That is not invisible. If I walk away from a group of people, after a time I am out of THEIR sight but did not become invisible. Your statement that Jesus became invisible I’ve never heard before. Please don’t question my character. You are misunderstanding instead.

Clearly it is not a big deal if they continued in seeing him or not, and you already acknowledge that not everyone will see him when he returns. But everyone will know when he does that it is his return.

Maybe. Does it matter? Of course sooner or later everyone will know.

What is your motive behind the question maam, if you are seriously trying to learn, please do not keep you from making full proof of my ministry 2 Tim 4:5, because I will do my utmost to help one who is sincerely trying to learn.

I thought you were the one wanting to learn. ?

 

[Highway54]

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

That is not invisible. If I walk away from a group of people, after a time I am out of THEIR sight but did not become invisible. Your statement that Jesus became invisible I’ve never heard before. Please don’t question my character. You are misunderstanding instead.

Maybe. Does it matter? Of course sooner or later everyone will know.

I thought you were the one wanting to learn. ?

I thought you were the one wanting to learn. ?

I don't like the way I phrased that closing remark Dorothy Mae, what I meant to say was, that I appreciate that you point out when I say something you disagree with, to hold me accountable to explain it better. Please continue to do so. We have of course settled the invisibility of Jesus, each stating our opinions on it, now time will be the revealer of who is correct.