[_ Old Earth _] Clearing something up.

[Barbarian]

Recently, one poster was taken by surprise to learn that I'm a Christian. And another person asked me in private communication what I believe. So I think maybe it's right for me to talk about it.

I'm a Christian, specifically a Roman Catholic. I'm pretty much an orthodox trinitarian Christian, and I believe that anyone who believes the statement of faith in the Nicene Creed is a Christian.

I believe God is the creator of all things, and that nature is His creation, unplanned and undesigned, the product of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator Who is eternal and unchanging. I agree with Paul that creation itself is sufficient to make it clear that God is; hence natural law, to which all men are held accountable, even those who do not believe.

I believe that God judges on hearts rather than by theology. I also believe that God is intimately connected to every mote of the physical universe, which would not even exist if He took His attention from it.

The richness and elegance of the natural laws by which the world works speaks to me of His goodness and wisdom. And I believe He did it in the best possible way.

 

[stovebolts]

Do you believe God created the earth in six literal days?

 

[theLords]

Barb, if you go to "Forum Actions" at the top of the bar and then "General Settings" and scroll down, you have the option of choosing "Yes/No" to whether you are a Christian. Then they'll be no more misunderstandings.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you believe God created the earth in six literal days?

No, that's a modern revision of Scripture. St. Augustine, who is widely respected by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant theologians alike, pointed out that Genesis cannot be interpreted to make it six literal days.

It's so new that the creationism presented in the Scopes trial was old Earth creationism. At the time, few but the Seventh-Day Adventists were YE creationists.

Even Charles Spurgeon, the great Baptist evangelist, declared the truth of millions of years of creation.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb, if you go to "Forum Actions" at the top of the bar and then "General Settings" and scroll down, you have the option of choosing "Yes/No" to whether you are a Christian. Then they'll be no more misunderstandings.

Already had that. Maybe a sig...

 

[Mike]

Barbarian, do you believe in original sin that separated us from God? If so, how does this figure into our condition if Creation is not as Genesis describes? Just asking honestly.

I realize this is taking us away from a discussion on "science", but this is a unique thread to the Science Forum anyway. I believe it's approprate to be in this forum, given that you are a fixture in it.

 

[Barbarian]

Creation is as Genesis describes. It's just not the way some modern Christians describe it, which was what St. Augustine was writing about. There's nothing in science that says Adam and Eve weren't real people or that the fall did not happen.

And maybe it's not so off-topic. The key is that nature is God's way of doing most things in this world, and we should respect that.

 

[stovebolts]

No, that's a modern revision of Scripture. St. Augustine, who is widely respected by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant theologians alike, pointed out that Genesis cannot be interpreted to make it six literal days.

It's so new that the creationism presented in the Scopes trial was old Earth creationism. At the time, few but the Seventh-Day Adventists were YE creationists.

Even Charles Spurgeon, the great Baptist evangelist, declared the truth of millions of years of creation.

Barbarian,

I've read many of Augustine's works and I find him as a very brilliant man. But I also have seen him allegorize allegory within the parables and completely miss the original intent of the passage, and so with Augustine I've learned to sift and sort, because after all, he was a master of rhetoric, as well as the church's master apologist. And what I have found, is that the one that is best at presenting his argument isn't always the one who's right.

But anyway, I don't know that I would say it's a modern revision of scripture because I can point to the sages well before Jesus who viewed and supported a young earth based on the biblical texts.

Anyway, and I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I don't see what's so hard about interpreting creation as a literal 6 days. It doesn't change the visible data that both creationist and evolutionist view. But it does challenge the way the data is interpreted.

So my next natural question for you might read something like this. Your a very smart man, but have you ever seriously looked at anything that Answers in Genesis has put out or is it a bunch of babble to you?

thanks!

 

[stovebolts]

And maybe it's not so off-topic. The key is that nature is God's way of doing most things in this world, and we should respect that.

And I think that this is an extremely viable biblical view. One that we should really expand on.

Lets use this for example: And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.†And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I've brought this up elsewhere, but look at what it says. How did God create all that stuff? He empowered the land. All the living creatures were produced through the land. So you have to ask the rudementary question... How did all that come from the land? And I have to believe that the question lays somewhere around the answer that God created the earth with potential, and then he commands that potential to be expressed.

But I want to point out another thing as an example. The texts says kinds when it refers to the animals. In other words, I don't think that God had the earth bring forth a lion and a house cat. No, the earth only had to bring forth a genetically rich pair of that family, and that family was packed with so much potential, so much genetic diversity, that it could later adapt to it's environment etc which is why we now see such a diverse group within the cat family.

What do you think about this idea?

 

[jasoncran]

And I think that this is an extremely viable biblical view. One that we should really expand on.

Lets use this for example: And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.†And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I've brought this up elsewhere, but look at what it says. How did God create all that stuff? He empowered the land. All the living creatures were produced through the land. So you have to ask the rudementary question... How did all that come from the land? And I have to believe that the question lays somewhere around the answer that God created the earth with potential, and then he commands that potential to be expressed.

But I want to point out another thing as an example. The texts says kinds when it refers to the animals. In other words, I don't think that God had the earth bring forth a lion and a house cat. No, the earth only had to bring forth a genetically rich pair of that family, and that family was packed with so much potential, so much genetic diversity, that it could later adapt to it's environment etc which is why we now see such a diverse group within the cat family.

What do you think about this idea?

creationist dogma and jeff is right the jews of today still debate the renderings of genesis.

the problem here barb is let forget the arguments and those that put them forth and look to what the wording of the bible says and not add words, just simply read them.


that is why i believe in yec pov.

 

[Barbarian]

And I think that this is an extremely viable biblical view. One that we should really expand on.

Lets use this for example: And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.†And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I've brought this up elsewhere, but look at what it says. How did God create all that stuff? He empowered the land. All the living creatures were produced through the land. So you have to ask the rudementary question... How did all that come from the land?

Scientists are closing in on that question. God didn't see fit to tell us, because it has nothing to do with the message He was giving us.

And I have to believe that the question lays somewhere around the answer that God created the earth with potential, and then he commands that potential to be expressed.

That was Augustine's point. He believed the initial creation was instantaneous, with the potential to produce everything else, which developed over time. The remarkable thing is, just a very few rules, or maybe just one, was sufficient to bring forth all of this as He intended. This speaks of an infinitely wise and capable God.

But I want to point out another thing as an example. The texts says kinds when it refers to the animals. In other words, I don't think that God had the earth bring forth a lion and a house cat. No, the earth only had to bring forth a genetically rich pair of that family, and that family was packed with so much potential, so much genetic diversity, that it could later adapt to it's environment etc which is why we now see such a diverse group within the cat family. What do you think about this idea?

The problem is that no animal could contain that much genetic diversity. If all the genes (much less alleles) found in cats were in one organism, it would die.

And that's not surprising. Humans can have, at most, two alleles for every gene locus. Yet most have dozens or more. Adam and Eve could have contributed at most, four alleles. All the rest must have evolved by mutation.

But I think the idea of "potential" is precisely the answer to the elegance and power of God's creation.

 

[Barbarian]

the problem here barb is let forget the arguments and those that put them forth and look to what the wording of the bible says and not add words, just simply read them.

This is why YEC is incompatible with Genesis. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE is counter to God's account, in which he says life was produced by the Earth.

 

[jasoncran]

heres where i disagree,


is god laws seen as a reality? they should point to him if he is indeed real.

when the athiest come up with silly reasons not to believe or huff away and have illogical and irrational arguments that only makes me sad first and also proves that god is a person of his word.

you seem to put gods word belows mans.

and you interprets the word like a gentile in thought. its hard for you to stop that intellectually thining but the jews didnt and dont look at scripture like we do in this so called gentile age.


they have block logic we dont. they have parables that we dont fully grasp as that is foreign to us in the way we talk and communicate ideas.

 

[jasoncran]

This is why YEC is incompatible with Genesis. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE is counter to God's account, in which he says life was produced by the Earth.

uh, wheres that from? where did it say in genesis god made man from the lower life forms. no he took him from the dust.

and abiogenisis isnt what did it.

no evolution needed. and ok he spoke it here"

let the the earth bring forth life..

uh when god spoke it came from nothing., molecules dont just sundenly evolve and make something with direction.

the abiogenisis denies that, natural selection aint god as that is blind buddy. so you missunderstand


and i believe ex niliho includes the whole universe and barb, the creationist site icr.org has No articles on that.

and i found none at aig.

so either they never claimed that or they recanted. i dont know but all matter came that way.

 

[Jam]

uh when god spoke it came from nothing., molecules dont just sundenly evolve and make something with direction.

20 And God saith, 'Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.' 21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that it is good. 22 And God blesseth them, saying, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and the fowl let multiply in the earth:' 23 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fifth. 24 And God saith, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so.

I'm struggling to see where God says that animals came from nothing, here... it is specifically stated that it is the earth that brings forth land animals by God's will. I'm gonna have to partially agree with Barbarian here and say that the doctrine of creation of life ex-nihilo conflicts with Genesis. Not all YECs believe this, though, and I wouldn't say that YEC itself is imcompatible with scripture.

I personally consider myself agnostic wrt the question of the Earth's age, and I am happy to remain that way. Whether or not God created the Earth 6 thousand or 4.6 billion years ago does not in any way affect my relationship with God.

 

[stovebolts]

The problem is that no animal could contain that much genetic diversity. If all the genes (much less alleles) found in cats were in one organism, it would die.

And that's not surprising. Humans can have, at most, two alleles for every gene locus. Yet most have dozens or more. Adam and Eve could have contributed at most, four alleles. All the rest must have evolved by mutation.

But I think the idea of "potential" is precisely the answer to the elegance and power of God's creation.

Before I address the above, I just wanted to say that I think Augustine was a brilliant man, and I don't reject all of his writings.

Anyway, I was thinking about wheat fields and mules. We are altering the genetic diversity within our food supply exponentially. The grain is bigger and where 90 bushels was a bumper crop just 30 years ago, now 120 bushels is now standard.

As we refine (eliminate) the genetic diversity within our crops within a certain environment, I have to wonder, how if left within it's own means it's offspring would be. Sorry, I don't know the terms. But I know that a mule, because it's cross bred, is sterile, and while I'm not sure, I think that our wheat is going in about the same direction.

Is it possible then, that if we can genetically alter the stored up diversity within a kernal of wheat and coddle it within a regulated environment to a point where the wheat on it's own outside of it's controlled environment becomes no longer viable and will not grow, will not cross germinate in other areas?

Now then, I don't know anything about alleles or locus, but what your describing is how things are now, today after evolving and adapting to their new environments. But ask yourself this question. If one family could be packed into one core, what would it look like? Maybe this view would open up a whole new world. A world that could cure cancer or eliminate the common cold.

 

[Barbarian]

Anyway, I was thinking about wheat fields and mules. We are altering the genetic diversity within our food supply exponentially. The grain is bigger and where 90 bushels was a bumper crop just 30 years ago, now 120 bushels is now standard.

Diversity has been greatly reduced thereby, and it's a concern for scientists. Some companies are looking at deliberately putting some variation in the strains they select, to prevent a world-wide version of the potato famine.

As we refine (eliminate) the genetic diversity within our crops within a certain environment, I have to wonder, how if left within it's own means it's offspring would be.

As you might know, fitness only applies in regard to environment. The crops we see are more fit, given their environment, than other sorts. But if we were to leave them to a natural environment that would be different. Corn, for example, even the primitive kinds, would disappear in a generation.

Is it possible then, that if we can genetically alter the stored up diversity within a kernal of wheat and coddle it within a regulated environment to a point where the wheat on it's own outside of it's controlled environment becomes no longer viable and will not grow, will not cross germinate in other areas?

Agribusiness is big business, and they purposefully produce sterile varieties, to keep farmers from saving some of the seed for next year. No evil intent, just business.

Now then, I don't know anything about alleles or locus, but what your describing is how things are now, today after evolving and adapting to their new environments.

To be otherwise, it would be a dramatically different kind of life than that which we have on Earth.

But ask yourself this question. If one family could be packed into one core, what would it look like?

Dead, mostly. Too many interfering genes. I can't think of any exception, except maybe in plants.

 

[Roof]

Agribusiness is big business, and they purposefully produce sterile varieties, to keep farmers from saving some of the seed for next year. No evil intent, just business.

Some terminator genes are desired in the market place. Like Seedless watermelons.

 

[jasoncran]

no man could die and be raised yet barb believes that and not the creation account.

same faith.

with god all things are possible.

the problem for you barb is this. if God wanted to have augustine to be true why then didnt the sages who argued holy writ like we do think that? surely God can communicate cant he?

you regulate the god of the world to some corner in a church. when he to the hebrews was everywhere and that is supposed to be continue. satan blinds men and when the blinders are remove then only then can we see.

properly exegesis this:

the heavens declare the glory of the lord.


i know a man who got saved one day by pondering the stars and what his life was and the sadness and began to ask the questions what if God is real?

 

[Barbarian]

the problem for you barb is this. if God wanted to have augustine to be true why then didnt the sages who argued holy writ like we do think that?

They do. Augustine was just the most prominent among them. Even today, most Christians acknowledge that fact.

surely God can communicate cant he?

And did. That's Augustine's point.

You regulate the god of the world to some corner in a church.

Read my statement again. I'm arguing just the opposite of that.

when he to the hebrews was everywhere and that is supposed to be continue. satan blinds men and when the blinders are remove then only then can we see.

It's important for us to always remember we can fool ourselves. All of us.

i know a man who got saved one day by pondering the stars and what his life was and the sadness and began to ask the questions what if God is real?

It doesn't matter by what path you come to Him, so long as you get to Him. Unfortunately, I know many people who were brought up to believe doctrines not in scripture or tradition, who lost their faith when they realized those added doctrines could not be true. Creationism is an add-on that puts an additional stumbling block in the path of prospective Christians. And it causes some Christians to lose their faith. This is the real harm of creationism.