[_ Old Earth _] Evolution Goes To Court

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote: God is not like the Wizard of Oz, pulling strings behind a curtain. He's a lot more powerful and intelligent than creationists are willing to admit.

How does creating dirt and water planets and other celestial bodies, then standing back to watch what evolves, take more power and intelligence than creating everything in a literal 6 day period and keeping up with the rigors of upkeep and advancements needed to allow it to continue for 5-6 thousand more years even though it continues to fill with violence and seems to be hell-bent on self-destruct at times?

The Barbarian wrote:There are two different errors one can make. One is the deist, who thinks God wound up the universe, and walked away to let it run. The second is the anthropomorphizer who thinks God shoves the clouds around to make thunderstorms. And there is an entire spectrum of error in between.

Alright, I must have misunderstood yours. I take it is outside these two extremes? And I guess mine is solidly in the error just to the left of the cloud puncher. I don’t mind. My view of God is always been a hands-on kind of Father figure who is as close as skin.

The Barbarian wrote: As Pope Benedict XIV observes, God is God, and can use contingency just as easily as He uses anything else for His purposes.

I don’t deny that is true except that isn’t what he said when it comes to creation. He said 6 days and I see no reason to question it.

The Barbarian wrote: It is powerful and wonderful beyond any "hey presto!" creator.

The creation is powerful and wonderful no matter how God did it. I just happen to believe the account he gave. If I get to see his face and stand before him, I won’t be ashamed to say I believed it literally without reservation. That is all I feel is important.

The Barbarian wrote: One of the consequences of omnipotence is omniscience. And God is beyond time, which means nothing to Him, and does not limit Him.

I hate to ask, but where do you find that in scripture?

The Barbarian wrote: If you let the text speak for itself, you will see that it is indeed absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

As I explained in another thread, which you may not have read yet, the evening and morning were halves of God’s workday, not dependant upon the sun or moon light. God was the one who instituted the sun and moon to be dominant over these segments of time and from our perspective, it becomes a very subjective reality.

The Barbarian wrote:
Unfortunately, there are errors, and sme are clearly figurative.

I made a time line from the list in Jasher which was very accurate compared to the Bible and even cleared up a misconception associated with an improper reading of Genesis as to the age of Abraham’s father when he was born. Do you have specific errors in mind?

The Barbarian wrote: I'll see if I can find you the verse.

Yup, me and your ToE god are sitting here waiting for the next big development in Barbarian evolution. :

The Barbarian wrote: But lots of new information, from which new things appear.

Just because they look new, doesn’t change the fact they are built from the same original letters. ‘Kinds’ are God’s divisions. If you divide them into other groupings, you haven’t changed that the original kinds were created by God. Do what you wish with them. You may be right or 180 off. Genesis is not very specific about those but quite specific about the 6 days taken to create them and their environment.

The Barbarian wrote: Not alien, mutated.

Could be. I haven’t been convinced of any new evolutionary creatures. All are descendents of the original ‘kinds’ as far as I can tell and don‘t seem to vary too dramatically within those. For example, Archaeopteryx may have been a feathered reptile, a toothy bird, or a flamboyant dinosaur but if he flew or not, he’s a ‘winged fowl’ in Genesis right along with bats and butterflies.

The Barbarian wrote: Seems odd to say God can't do what man can.

Except I’m not saying God can’t do it. I’m just saying he wouldn’t want it done. He created them after their kinds for a reason and if man messes with genetics and confuses them, he may find out why God put those boundaries upon the ’kinds’ he made to keep their DNA from mutations. Who knows what evil lurks to be unleashed by new mixtures of alleles never meant to be united?

The Barbarian wrote: You are difficult to handle; very resiliant. But I like that.

High praise coming from you, Barbarian. I find your challenges interesting for the most part as well. :-D

 

[Barbarian]

How does creating dirt and water planets and other celestial bodies, then standing back to watch what evolves, take more power and intelligence than creating everything in a literal 6 day period and keeping up with the rigors of upkeep and advancements needed to allow it to continue for 5-6 thousand more years even though it continues to fill with violence and seems to be hell-bent on self-destruct at times?

The difference between adding up a million numbers by hand, and building a computer to do it. Both require involvement on the part of the maker, but one is considerably more intelligent.

Barbarian observes:
There are two different errors one can make. One is the deist, who thinks God wound up the universe, and walked away to let it run. The second is the anthropomorphizer who thinks God shoves the clouds around to make thunderstorms. And there is an entire spectrum of error in between.

Alright, I must I misunderstood yours. I take it is outside these two extremes? And I guess mine is solidly in the error just to the left of the cloud puncher. I don’t mind. My view of God is always been a hands-on kind of Father figure who is as close as skin.

Mine is more intimately involved than pushing. The universe, it seems, works by just a few rules, perhaps just one. That's where God is involved. He also works a a different level with us, because we are beings like Him and capable of fellowship with Him.

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Benedict XIV observes, God is God, and can use contingency just as easily as He uses anything else for His purposes.

I don’t deny that is true except that isn’t what he said when it comes to creation. He said 6 days and I see no reason to question it.

The text itself makes it clear that the days are figurative.

Barbarian on creation: It is powerful and wonderful beyond any "hey presto!" creator.

The creation is powerful and wonderful no matter how God did it. I just happen to believe the account he gave. If I get to see his face and stand before him, I won’t be ashamed to say I believed it literally without reservation. That is all I feel is important.

He won't care if you took it literally. It has nothing whatever to do with your salvation.

Barbarian observes:
One of the consequences of omnipotence is omniscience. And God is beyond time, which means nothing to Him, and does not limit Him.

I hate to ask, but where do you find that in scripture?

By definition, if you can do anything, you can do anything. And all things are possible with God.

Barbarian observes:
If you let the text speak for itself, you will see that it is indeed absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

As I explained in another thread, which you may not have read yet, the evening and morning were halves of God’s workday, not dependant upon the sun or moon light.

That's not what those words mean. If we use English, we have to use English meanings.

Barbarian observes:
Unfortunately, there are errors, and sme are clearly figurative.

I made a time line from the list in Jasher

I was speaking of Scripture, not apocryphal material.

Barbarian observes:
But lots of new information, from which new things appear.

Just because they look new, doesn’t change the fact they are built from the same original letters.

And the Gettysburg Address was written from the same letters as everything else in English. Yet it is unique, and new information.

‘Kinds’ are God’s divisions. If you divide them into other groupings, you haven’t changed that the original kinds were created by God.

"Kind." He says "kind."

Do what you wish with them. You may be right or 180 off. Genesis is not very specific about those but quite specific about the 6 days taken to create them and their environment.

I don't see how. Better men than you and I have tried to reconcile that idea with Genesis, and have failed.

Barbarian observes:
Not alien, mutated.

Could be. I haven’t been convinced of any new evolutionary creatures.

Want to see one? Look in the mirror. We are a very recent addtion.

All are descendents of the original ‘kinds’ as far as I can tell and don‘t seem to vary too dramatically within those. For example, Archaeopteryx may have been a feathered reptile, a toothy bird, or a flamboyant dinosaur but if he flew or not, he’s a ‘winged fowl’ in Genesis right along with bats and butterflies.

I recall one ancient Chinese document divided animals into two kinds: Those that belonged to the emperor, and those that did not. Still horses and donkeys are related by common descent, no matter who owns them.

Barbarian observes:
Seems odd to say God can't do what man can.

Except I’m not saying God can’t do it. I’m just saying he wouldn’t want it done.

Since we see it happen in nature, I'm inclined to think He did it that way.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: The difference between adding up a million numbers by hand, and building a computer to do it. Both require involvement on the part of the maker, but one is considerably more intelligent.

I agree with that. Creating billions of complicated genetic codes and chemical components in 6 literal days is more on the computer level of speed and accuracy than taking billions of years to make a lizard sprout a feather. Seems to me that your god is quite s l o w. Maybe for Christmas you could get him an accelerator or a tutor. Perhaps a nice book on ‘Creation for Dummies.’ :

Barbarian wrote: Mine is more intimately involved than pushing. The universe, it seems, works by just a few rules, perhaps just one. That's where God is involved. He also works a a different level with us, because we are beings like Him and capable of fellowship with Him.

That’s your opinion. The God in the Bible has demonstrated that he knows more of the rules for the care and feeding of this planet than all of science has discovered in the history of man. I suppose you could boil it down to a simple ‘obey God’ but there are thousands or millions of operational laws that you and I have no clue about. If we did, we would never die, we could cure the common cold, rebuild missing limbs, walk through walls and span the universe in the blink of an eye. The fact that we call miracles that God can do ‘impossible’ things, illustrates our poverty of knowledge.

Barbarian wrote: The text itself makes it clear that the days are figurative.

Archaic logic of a silly objection, just as the ToE theories will be viewed in the future. The Bible truths, however, will never be discarded. Truth never changes.

Barbarian wrote: He won't care if you took it literally. It has nothing whatever to do with your salvation.

What you believe effects how you live. How you live effects your eternal destiny. If Jesus thought Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden, and he was wrong, why would you trust him to lead you into the way to eternal life?

Barbarian wrote: By definition, if you can do anything, you can do anything. And all things are possible with God.

It is impossible for God to lie. He is limited by his word when he makes a promise.
There are things that are logically impossible. All things that are not logically impossible can be done by God but that doesn‘t mean he will do them or wishes to. Just because time has no aging effect on God, and he will continue to exist unchanged in character throughout time, and his attributes remain constantly dependable, doesn’t mean that he is beyond time or that he is not limited by it.

Barbarian wrote: That's not what those words mean. If we use English, we have to use English meanings.

The text defines the meanings. The evening and morning constituted the first day and the sun and moon were not part of that paradigm until God made them so on the fourth day. Yes, ever since the fourth day, they have been intrinsically locked into the meaning for us here on earth. Was there ‘time’ before our little sun was created? Did God ever have a good morning before he made sunshine? LOL A day without the sun is like a day without sunshine. You simply have to get your thinking updated from the early 400’s. Augustine may have been a brilliant man but he didn’t own the patent on truth. The evening and the morning were the first day on day one. Surely a person of your intelligence can get your brain around that concept?

Barbarian wrote: I was speaking of Scripture, not apocryphal material.

Jasher should be included in scripture but men of small minds can not see it’s value apparently. The early church in Ethiopia included it. It has the same list as is in Genesis and is almost identical. I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Anything man does has mistakes.

Barbarian wrote: And the Gettysburg Address was written from the same letters as everything else in English. Yet it is unique, and new information.

Same letters, same alphabet, same kind of beast. It’s an English alphabet writing, not Hebrew or Greek. If you can read with the English alphabet, you can read anything from See Dick and Jane Run to Northwest Passage. They are the same kind. Within English literature you can fill a library with divisions according to specifications you construct. It won’t change the fact they are all an English ‘kind’ built from the same ‘kind’ of letters.

Barbarian wrote: "Kind." He says "kind."

Every one is to reproduce after their own “kindâ€Â. There are more than one ‘kind’ created. Several are named, btw.

Barbarian wrote: I don't see how. Better men than you and I have tried to reconcile that idea with Genesis, and have failed.

You lost me. What idea have these men tried to reconcile with Genesis and failed? What men and what idea?

Barbarian wrote: Want to see one?( new evolutionary creature ) Look in the mirror. We are a very recent addtion.

I don’t know about you, but I am a descendant of the original man created as a man on day six. Unless you consider that ‘American Hardhead’ is some kind of subspecies of Adam, I’m not any new evolutionary creature.

Barbarian wrote: I recall one ancient Chinese document divided animals into two kinds: Those that belonged to the emperor, and those that did not. Still horses and donkeys are related by common descent, no matter who owns them.

And that is a recent division according to another emperor, the ToE. God’s divisions are according to the “kind†of animals he made in Genesis (barring any genetic mutations due to interference from man or demon.)

Barbarian wrote: Since we see it happen in nature, I'm inclined to think He did it that way.

Why on earth would God create animals and plants that reproduced after their various kinds if he didn‘t want them to be specific kinds? That’s exactly what we see in nature, too. Animals and plants reproduce after their own kind. There may be ( note: may be, not are ) instances of animals that changed so dramatically that they don’t even seem like the same ‘kind’ but since we don’t know what constitutes a ‘kind’ what are we saying? That God didn’t create ‘kinds’ or that they are no longer reproducing after those original ‘kinds’ or that we don’t know how much variety was built into their genetic codes? :roll:

 

[Quid]

So it seems things aren't going so well for the defendant. Closing arguments were heard yesterday and it looks like the judge has been unimpressed with the evidence brought forth by the IDers. I'm betting science will be kept in the science class if all goes well.

 

[ThinkerMan]

So it seems things aren't going so well for the defendant. Closing arguments were heard yesterday and it looks like the judge has been unimpressed with the evidence brought forth by the IDers. I'm betting science will be kept in the science class if all goes well.

While I think most layperson YEC's are well-intentioned, if uninformed, it seems we have witnessed time and time again those who lead the charge, report the "science" and make the arguments to be dishonest about their claims. Even when one retreats and admits a false claim, that claim nontheless continues to be parroted by subscribers and fails to be objected to by the former proponent.

How anyone can defend actions like this is beyond me. I never thought that Machiavellianism was a Christian trait.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Flagged up by popular demand 8-)

Here's an amazing menu of online evidence for a young Earth & universe:-:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp



Do hit their website - & the comprehensive 1 @ http://www.creationism.org

& a 2nd menu of articles there - http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm


& details of 21 books:- http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm


& the ID one @ http://www.discovery.org/csc

& more books here:-
http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php

Here's their "Top Questions" link:-
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

i]This 1 may be especially helpful:-[/i]
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... nEvolution

& this 1:-
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... gentDesign

 

[unred typo]

Wow… that was a blast from the past, Ian. You have been a busy one this morning. I forgot this last post of mine was still waiting for an answer from Barbarian. Apparently it wasn’t “Flagged up by popular demand†on the part of the opponents of ID. They seem to have summarily dismissed my thoughts as if I were just another one of your links. I feel so discarded. : I hope you won’t mind me bumping up my recent answer to Barbarian below. It seems to be quite buried now. :crazyeyes:

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, missed this. The first link is a supposed "scientific" exposition of a young Earth:

The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).

Horsefeathers. Such things appear everywhere. In some of the layers in the grand canyon, we have crossbedded desert sand dunes, which somehow had time to form and fossilize in the middle of the "flood deposits."

There are, along the Paluxy river in Texas, numerous dinosaur tracks on the upper layer of limestone along the river. Once touted as evidence for "man tracks" among the dinosaurs, an investigator for the ICR concluded that they needed this kind of evidence like they needed a hole in their heads, since it was impossible to explain what people and dinosaurs were doing tramping about underwater.

Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years).

This is just a misrepresentation. There are such fossils forming in a lake near my house, which was flooded by a dam. Millions of years from now, the rapidly accumulating layers of sediment will produce polystrate fossils.

The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.

Would have. But it isn't always that slow.

Soft-sediment deformationâ€â€that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.

Just a silly misunderstanding of the way rocks deform. You see, a mile deep pile of different kinds of mud neatly stacked up on itself, will simply churn and mix when compressed. And we have examples of rock that was compressed too fast, which fractured. You see, hard rock can deform over long ages if it's gradual enough.

Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved.

That's sort of like saying all hit-and-run victims show signs of blunt trauma. If a body isn't quickly buried, it tends to rot. However, there are examples of slow burial. Archaeopteryx was one of these. In that case, it fell into hypoxic waters, which preserved it while a fine limey mud very gradually buried it.

Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted.

Mostly birds and dinosaurs. After death, the tendons and muscles contract, producing contortion.

The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood†and “young earth.†The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions.

And of course, the argument that AIG is the model of disinterested objectivity, and science is "indoctrinated." Such rants usually precede a really big woofer...

The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Or maybe they just accept the Bible as it is, without the additions AIG introduced.

There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.

But unfortunately, they forgot what they were, or something, and can't show them to us. Pity.

Creationists still have many challenges regarding the scientific evidence for a young universe,

Ya think?

but distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents, as this DVD by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D. in astrophysics) shows: Distant Starlight.

It's the classic rock and a hard place. If the universe is young, then God is showing us pictures of exploding supernovae that never existed. So if the universe is young, God is deceptive. And since God the liar is impossible to square with Christian belief, the conclusion is obvious.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian on Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:53 pm
Ah, missed this. The first link is a supposed "scientific" exposition of a young Earth:

You still missed mine. I’m beginning to get an inferiority complex. No problem. I could try to answer your objections to these, whoever wrote them. I have a slight advantage because I don’t limit truth to just the 66 books that survived the elimination of some very interesting scriptures of the OT times, like the book of Jasher, for instance, but I‘m more interested in the conversation we were having before Mr.Versatile48 popped in with his links list. I‘ll wait til you get around to mine.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree with that. Creating billions of complicated genetic codes and chemical components in 6 literal days is more on the computer level of speed and accuracy than taking billions of years to make a lizard sprout a feather. Seems to me that your god is quite s l o w.

So He says. A thousand years, is to Him as a day, a figurative statement, of course, but indicative of His lack of concern for time.

Maybe for Christmas you could get him an accelerator or a tutor. Perhaps a nice book on ‘Creation for Dummies.’

As I said, time isn't a concern for Him.

Barbarian observes:
Mine is more intimately involved than pushing. The universe, it seems, works by just a few rules, perhaps just one. That's where God is involved. He also works a a different level with us, because we are beings like Him and capable of fellowship with Him.

That’s your opinion.

Yep. True, too.

The God in the Bible has demonstrated that he knows more of the rules for the care and feeding of this planet than all of science has discovered in the history of man. I suppose you could boil it down to a simple ‘obey God’ but there are thousands or millions of operational laws that you and I have no clue about. If we did, we would never die, we could cure the common cold, rebuild missing limbs, walk through walls and span the universe in the blink of an eye. The fact that we call miracles that God can do ‘impossible’ things, illustrates our poverty of knowledge.

None of which removes the obvious; God produced the universe with a command, and then used nature for the way it elaborated over time. My guess is that the few rules, when we get down to it, will be simply different aspects of a single rule, the command by which He created it.

Barbarian observes:
The text itself makes it clear that the days are figurative.

Archaic logic of a silly objection,

Augustine was a very bright guy, and not just a theologian. He was a lot of things, but not silly. The point seems to have weathered the ages pretty well; it's still the consensus opinion among the world's Christians.

Barbarian observes:
He won't care if you took it literally. It has nothing whatever to do with your salvation.

What you believe effects how you live.

In general, those who accept evolution tend to behave better than those who don't. Granted, that's partially due to educational and economic status, but still...

How you live effects your eternal destiny. If Jesus thought Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden, and he was wrong, why would you trust him to lead you into the way to eternal life?

If He said pigs can fly, it would have damaged my trust in Him, too. BTW, what makes you think evolution means Adam and Eve couldn't have been real people?

Barbarian wrote:
By definition, if you can do anything, you can do anything. And all things are possible with God.

It is impossible for God to lie. He is limited by his word when he makes a promise.

Nope. He's omnipotent. He can lie, if He wills to do it. It's just not what He does.

The text defines the meanings. The evening and morning constituted the first day and the sun and moon were not part of that paradigm until God made them so on the fourth day. Yes, ever since the fourth day, they have been intrinsically locked into the meaning for us here on earth.

That's why the words mean what they do. Before the sun, no morning.

Augustine may have been a brilliant man but he didn’t own the patent on truth.

It's logically solid. Words mean things.

Barbarian observes:
And the Gettysburg Address was written from the same letters as everything else in English. Yet it is unique, and new information.

Same letters, same alphabet, same kind of beast.

If so, all living things are the same kind, since they all use the same letters, same alphabet. And indeed they are, as God says in Genesis. It doesn't say "kinds" it says "kind."

Every one is to reproduce after their own “kindâ€Â.

But it doesn't say that, does it? Nowhere in Genesis does it say they reproduce according to kind, or according to kinds. It's just not there.

Barbarian observes:
Since we see it happen in nature, I'm inclined to think He did it that way.

Why on earth would God create animals and plants that reproduced after their various kinds if he didn‘t want them to be specific kinds?

Of course it doesn't say that. It merely says that the earth brought them forth. There's nothing immutable in species; they are constantly changing, sometimes into new species.

There may be ( note: may be, not are ) instances of animals that changed so dramatically that they don’t even seem like the same ‘kind’ but since we don’t know what constitutes a ‘kind’ what are we saying?

We're saying "kind" is a religious idea, not related to biology. Hence, we use "species" because it is more precise, and testable, unlike "kind."

That God didn’t create ‘kinds’ or that they are no longer reproducing after those original ‘kinds’ or that we don’t know how much variety was built into their genetic codes?

We know how much could have been. If you assume (for example) that all of us are descended from Adam and Eve, they could have had, at most, four alleles for each gene locus. But most human gene loci have dozens of alleles. The rest must have evolved.

 

[MrVersatile48]

These 20 videos help greatly:-

http://www.creationism.org/videos/index.htm - (even though this public PC can't open audio/video) :infinity:

These are good too:-

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

& http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm


Ian :

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: That's why the words mean what they do. Before the sun, no morning.

Nope, before the coffee there’s no morning. Morning is really a subjective term, since morning here is not morning there and mornings in heaven don’t start until God wakes up and he hasn’t slept yet. The way the term is used defines it’s meaning. The evening and the morning were the first day means God split the days into two time segments, not four, not sixty, just two. The first half he called morning, the second half he called evening. The words he used probably were not even ’morning’ or ’evening’ since English probably isn’t his native tongue. What was the question again? Why do we care?


As for the rest, I really don’t know enough about alleles and genes to continue this discussion, nor do I want to, actually. Why you think we have only four possible is interesting to a point but since I’m doing more speculation than anything, I’m going to concentrate my writing time on more important issues. As you can tell, I don’t give a green caterpillar muffin about what the experts say most of the time. Most of the time the next generation of experts is going to prove them daft anyways.

You were absolutely right about God in Genesis not saying that different species of animals should reproduce after their kinds. I guess that would explain a lot of diversity right there. But that doesn’t change the story on humans. Of all the animals God made, there was not a suitable mate found so God made one from Adam’s rib. I guess the orangutan’s great, great aunt wasn’t pretty enough for Adam.

When you say the rest must have evolved, do you mean that God created Adam in his image and that was ape-like, or do you mean that some of Adam’s children looked more like monkeys than modern man? Are the cavemen in the commercials right? Have we devolved into a sub species of the perfect specimen originally created by God? Did Adam have a huge brow and hunched over appearance? I guess I would feel like that if I had just been banished from a perfect garden to work in thorns and briars.

Barbarian observes:
He won't care if you took it literally. It has nothing whatever to do with your salvation.

[quote:007bf]What you believe effects how you live.

In general, those who accept evolution tend to behave better than those who don't. Granted, that's partially due to educational and economic status, but still…[/quote:007bf]

I may agree with that. Some people who preach the error that salvation is simply a matter of saying a prayer that keeps one eternally secure have given their followers a reasonable argument that what we do and say has little bearing on our salvation. This is like saying what you eat, or how much, has little bearing on your health and weight, so please eat right anyway. Like our pigs, it’s not going to fly.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope, before the coffee there’s no morning. Morning is really a subjective term, since morning here is not morning there and mornings in heaven don’t start until God wakes up and he hasn’t slept yet. The way the term is used defines it’s meaning. The evening and the morning were the first day means God split the days into two time segments, not four, not sixty, just two. The first half he called morning, the second half he called evening. The words he used probably were not even ’morning’ or ’evening’ since English probably isn’t his native tongue. What was the question again? Why do we care?

Because unless we have sunlight, it's not a morning. Words mean things. When it becomes subjective, we throw any chance of analysis out the window.

As for the rest, I really don’t know enough about alleles and genes to continue this discussion, nor do I want to, actually. Why you think we have only four possible is interesting to a point

Humans have only two at each gene locus (only two chromsomes).

You were absolutely right about God in Genesis not saying that different species of animals should reproduce after their kinds. I guess that would explain a lot of diversity right there. But that doesn’t change the story on humans. Of all the animals God made, there was not a suitable mate found so God made one from Adam’s rib. I guess the orangutan’s great, great aunt wasn’t pretty enough for Adam.

Sounds pretty much like an allegory to most Christians. However, evolutionary theory doesn't absolutely rule out a sort of cloning by God in some kind of supernatural way. It's just unnecessary to explain humans.

When you say the rest must have evolved, do you mean that God created Adam in his image and that was ape-like, or do you mean that some of Adam’s children looked more like monkeys than modern man?

We look like apes, but God doesn't look like anything. He's a spirit, and only has an appearance when it suits Him. I don't know what species Adam was, and I don't think we will ever know. Seems almost certain to be our genus, but almost certainly not our particular species.

Are the cavemen in the commercials right?

I think they are representing Neandertals. We almost certainly didn't descend from them. Modern humans and Neandertals evolved into different species from more primitive humans. Early Neandertals looked very much more like modern humans.

Have we devolved into a sub species of the perfect specimen originally created by God? Did Adam have a huge brow and hunched over appearance?

Maybe the brow; the brow is not necessary, since the front of the cranium now protects the eyes the way brows did in H. erectus or H. habilis. Our line hasn't been hunched over since the evolved Australopithicines.

Barbarian observes:
He won't care if you took it literally. It has nothing whatever to do with your salvation.

What you believe effects how you live.

Barbarian observes:
In general, those who accept evolution tend to behave better than those who don't. Granted, that's partially due to educational and economic status, but still…

I may agree with that. Some people who preach the error that salvation is simply a matter of saying a prayer that keeps one eternally secure have given their followers a reasonable argument that what we do and say has little bearing on our salvation.

Since God says in Matthew 25 that our eternal home depends on our works, I think not. However, it doesn't say that salvation depends on knowing the details concerning our creation.

This is like saying what you eat, or how much, has little bearing on your health and weight, so please eat right anyway.

I don't see how.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote on Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:39 pm:
Because unless we have sunlight, it's not a morning. Words mean things. When it becomes subjective, we throw any chance of analysis out the window.

OK then, whose morning was it on day 4 or 5? The one in Bangkok or the one on Mars? God isn’t going to adjust his watch to suit the new creation, he’s going to make our times and seasons and revolutions mark the time that he has originated by timing how long he can accomplish something before he will rest. He determined how long he wanted a day to be and then he made a timepiece out of the revolutions of the various planets and suns. A day is one revolution of the earth, which he set to make about half sunshine and half darkness. Six revolutions worth of creation and it’s time for a rest.
If you want to be picky, why don’t you start with the fact that there was no light and darkness until day 1? Without light and darkness, is there no time? If you sit in a space with no light or darkness for an undetermined amount of time, exactly how long was it? Will you get free anytime minutes?
But if you time yourself and you say this is evening and 12 hours later, you say this is morning, you have created your own day. Then if you make the sun to rule the evening and the moon to rule the morning, you’ll really make Barbarians confused, so you do it the other way around. :

The Barbarian wrote:
Humans have only two at each gene locus (only two chromsomes).

Do you think we only ever had two, and if we lost a dozen, and were down to our last two, how would we know? Maybe you’re just in denial. Maybe when we’re left with only one, the curtain comes down and it’s over for the human race. How do you spell ‘gack’?

The Barbarian wrote
Sounds pretty much like an allegory to most Christians. However, evolutionary theory doesn't absolutely rule out a sort of cloning by God in some kind of supernatural way. It's just unnecessary to explain humans.

Not to me. Sounds like a pretty accurate account written in common terms for people who don’t know too much about alleles. You sound like you know more about alleles than allegories.

The Barbarian wrote
We look like apes, but God doesn't look like anything. He's a spirit, and only has an appearance when it suits Him. I don't know what species Adam was, and I don't think we will ever know. Seems almost certain to be our genus, but almost certainly not our particular species.

God has an image and he created us in that image. So if Adam looked like an ape, then maybe we have lost some of our good godliness appearance. Why would you think he looked so different when according to the rather specific genealogies, he was only a few thousand years from us?

Barbarian wrote:
Since God says in Matthew 25 that our eternal home depends on our works, I think not. However, it doesn't say that salvation depends on knowing the details concerning our creation.

I agree. You ust have misunderstood my statement about eating though. I think you would agree if you read it again..

 

[Barbarian]

The Barbarian wrote on Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:39 pm:
Because unless we have sunlight, it's not a morning. Words mean things. When it becomes subjective, we throw any chance of analysis out the window.

OK then, whose morning was it on day 4 or 5?

Just an allegorical one. The "days" were to explain the categories of creation, not an historical timeline.

If you want to be picky, why don’t you start with the fact that there was no light and darkness until day 1? Without light and darkness, is there no time? If you sit in a space with no light or darkness for an undetermined amount of time, exactly how long was it? Will you get free anytime minutes?

Makes no sense, um? But there is still time going on, measurable by such things as rates of radioactive breakdown, motion of molecules, and so on.

The Barbarian wrote:
Humans have only two at each gene locus (only two chromsomes).

Do you think we only ever had two, and if we lost a dozen,

Not possible we are diploid, and only have two alleles for each locus. A population could have more, of course, but if you start with Adam and Eve, you can have at most, four.

and were down to our last two, how would we know? Maybe you’re just in denial. Maybe when we’re left with only one, the curtain comes down and it’s over for the human race. How do you spell ‘gack’?

In a few cases, we do have one. It's called "fixation."

Barbarian observes:
Sounds pretty much like an allegory to most Christians. However, evolutionary theory doesn't absolutely rule out a sort of cloning by God in some kind of supernatural way. It's just unnecessary to explain humans.

Not to me. Sounds like a pretty accurate account written in common terms for people who don’t know too much about alleles.

An allegory, because people would not have understood the mechanics, which were not important to the issue, anyway. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not how He managed creation.

You sound like you know more about alleles than allegories.

At different times in my life, I've put in a lot of hours learning about both of those.

Barbarian observes:
We look like apes, but God doesn't look like anything. He's a spirit, and only has an appearance when it suits Him. I don't know what species Adam was, and I don't think we will ever know. Seems almost certain to be our genus, but almost certainly not our particular species.

God has an image and he created us in that image.

The "image" is in mind and spirit. God has no nose, no ears, no fingernails. He is a spirit.

So if Adam looked like an ape, then maybe we have lost some of our good godliness appearance.

A lot, it seems; everything about us anatomically, is also found in apes.

Why would you think he looked so different when according to the rather specific genealogies, he was only a few thousand years from us?

Bible scholars have pointed out that there are many gaps and discrepancies in Biblical geneologies. And the two given for Jesus in the NT are contradictory.

Barbarian observes:
Since God says in Matthew 25 that our eternal home depends on our works, I think not. However, it doesn't say that salvation depends on knowing the details concerning our creation.

II agree. You ust have misunderstood my statement about eating though. I think you would agree if you read it again..unred typo

Missed that one, somewhere.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian on Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:45 am wrote:
Makes no sense, um? But there is still time going on, measurable by such things as rates of radioactive breakdown, motion of molecules, and so on.

God called the first part of the first day, ‘evening,’ the second part he called, ‘morning‘ or the equivalent of it in whatever language he used. It makes perfect sense to understand that God can tell the time of day without the sun or the moon which really aren’t of any consequence to him anyway. He created the rotation of the earth in sync with his day and the sun and moon make the light for those time frames. The sun and moon are for our benefit, not his. He didn’t need them on day ‘one’ to have a fine evening and morning of creating right there in space. The use of ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ before the creation of the sun and moon are not reason to assume the account is allegorical. I have noted many an evening without seeing the moon, yet it is still evening. A day or a morning without sunshine is a still a morning or a day.

The Barbarian wrote:
Humans have only two at each gene locus (only two chromsomes).
Not possible. we are diploid, and only have two alleles for each locus. A population could have more, of course, but if you start with Adam and Eve, you can have at most, four.
In a few cases, we do have one. It's called "fixation."

We may be ‘diploid’ now. Who can say what we were created as. If in some cases we have one, it could be we are going slowly downhill.

The Barbarian wrote:
An allegory, because people would not have understood the mechanics, which were not important to the issue, anyway. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not how He managed creation.

Genesis is about our beginnings. I don’t see how the evolution story is any harder to comprehend than the creation one in Genesis. If that’s how God did it, why didn’t he just say so? Why try to make the Genesis account sound factual with names of fathers and sons? If you look at Genesis five, for instance, you have the ages of the fathers when they had their sons, not just names of both.

The Barbarian wrote:
The "image" is in mind and spirit. God has no nose, no ears, no fingernails. He is a spirit.

I haven’t found anywhere that says a spirit doesn’t have a body, only that it doesn’t have a flesh and blood body. God walked with Adam in the garden. That requires a body, and a spiritual body would qualify. I think we should consider the possibility that when God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, he may have given their naked spiritual bodies a flesh and blood primate body to be clothed with. That would explain a lot.

 

[MrVersatile48]

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/

Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously.

To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time.

To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, “I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment.â€Â

In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.

Some take a more thoughtful approach and attempt to develop some sort of belief system.

In other words, they know what they believe and are often very committed to those beliefs. Yet, they are not so different from those who ignore the question, though they may conceive themselves as being different by virtue of the fact that they at least answer the first half of the question: what do you believe?

They are not so different because setting forth what one believes is not enough.

What one believes is irrelevant if he does not know why he believes it. If one does not know why he believes something then he is his own authority and has relegated himself to a position of relativism, or, to put it more aptly, arbitrariness. That is, he is philosophically uncertain about anything because he has no ground for what he believes.

He simply believes it because he believes it.

Others are more thoughtful still. Not only have they answered the first half of the question, but they have wrestled with the second half as well.

These individuals know what they believe and offer some justification for it. In other words, they have attempted to answer the question: why do you believe it?

They have consciously committed themselves to a particular worldview. Of course, those who ignore the question and those who answer only the first half have committed themselves to their respective worldviews to be sure.

The difference between those individuals and the one who wrestles with the “why†question is that the former are unconsciously committed to their worldviews and the latter is consciously committed to his worldview. The latter is attempting to make some sense out of his world.

There is yet another category to be brought forth momentarily.

The concept of “worldview†must be dealt with first. A “worldview†quite obviously has to do with the way a person looks at the world. In one sense, it is the totality of what one believes.

In another sense, it is the lens through which a person views the world or ultimate reality. It consists of one’s presuppositions or assumptions about the nature of our world.

A worldview is made up of those presuppositions that individuals believe without evidence or outside support; they are merely taken for granted or on faith.

Then there are those presuppositions or beliefs that persons hold to based on some kind of rationale. A person will always speak from his particular worldview whether he is conscious he is doing so or not, whether he is consistent or not, or whether he has determined to do so or not.

Everyone brings his worldview to the marketplace of ideas.

To pick up on the opening question once again is to put these issues in sharper focus. It is not difficult to see that the individual who has ignored the question has no ground for what he believes. And, it is perhaps quite clear that the one who has only set forth what he believes without asking why he believes it has no ground for what he believes either.

And yet, it is also true that the one who has answered both sides of the question, the one who knows what he believes and why, has no rational, philosophical ground for what he believes if he holds to any worldview other than a biblical worldview.

In other words, the one who does not presuppose the God of the bible has no ground for believing what he believes about anything. He has relegated himself to a life of intellectual futility and philosophical inconsistency.

By way of example, one committed to an evolutionary/naturalist worldview must live with philosophical contradictions.

He conceives of the universe as a box. The only things that exist are those things within the box. One may not go outside of the box to search for answers to anything or to explain anything. There is only the physical universe in which we live. There is nothing metaphysical. Thus, he says there is no God.

Yet, there are a number of things that he cannot justify on his worldview.

He presupposes laws of logic to engage in scientific method or have a conversation, etc...

But laws of logic are immaterial, that is, metaphysical and cannot be justified on his worldview.

He cannot justify concepts like honesty on his worldview though he presupposes those concepts in the reporting of data or in formulating hypotheses or theories, etc.

He violates his own worldview by presupposing the uniformity of nature though he says the origin of the universe was a random chance accident.

He posits a natural law that says matter and energy cannot come from nothing yet he says just that: the universe came from nothing.

He posits a natural law that says that life cannot come from non-life yet in the beginning life did in fact come from non-life says he.

On an evolutionary worldview, we are but an accident with no real purpose for being here. On that worldview, values mean nothing and there is no life after death.

Evolutionists do indeed attempt to inject meaning into our existence. But, they have no justification for doing so on their worldview.

Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.

The question must be put to him, “how do you know there is no God?â€Â

On his worldview, one of observation and data, he does not know. He has not searched every corner of the universe. He has limited knowledge and limited investigative ability.

He posits a statement of absolute fact concerning the existence of God but he is relegated to a position of complete uncertainty on his worldview. He cannot justify his claim...

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/ - 2 more pages there

Ian

 

[unred typo]

Ian, I know you mean well, but multiple posting like this is not very effective. Who is going to wade through all those duplicates to find a real discussion? Do you actually read all these things that you dump load onto here? If you do, why don’t you comment on what it means to you at least? If you don’t, why put it out here? Who knows what it’s saying. Maybe you would actually disagree if you read it.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Ian, I know you mean well, but multiple posting like this is not very effective. Who is going to wade through all those duplicates to find a real discussion? Do you actually read all these things that you dump load onto here? If you do, why don’t you comment on what it means to you at least? If you don’t, why put it out here? Who knows what it’s saying. Maybe you would actually disagree if you read it.

Actually, I both read the post & caught up on all the threads where it just fit in so amazingly... :

As does today's CT offering:- 8-)

Evangelical Minds

David Dockery on Christian Higher Ed's Key Challenges

Plus: Fearing secularization and "fundamentalization" and whether "Christian economics" exist.
Hunter Baker


Book Report: David Dockery's Renewing Minds

David Dockery is president of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Co-editor of two earlier books on Christian higher education (Shaping a Christian Worldview and The Future of Christian Higher Education), he has now written his own book on the subject. Renewing Minds: Serving Church and Society through Christian Higher Education, will be published by Holman Academic in October.


CT: You've already edited two books on Christian higher education, and have written extensively on the subject. What motivated you to take it up again in a new volume, especially as there have been so many other books on Christian higher education in recent years?

Dockery: The world in which we live is characterized by change. At the heart of these paradigmatic changes we see that truth, morality, and interpretive frameworks are being ignored if not rejected.

The challenges posed for Christian higher education by these cultural shifts are formidable indeed. I believe that those of us who are called to serve in Christian higher education at this time in history must step forward to address these issues.

Renewing Minds is a call to reclaim the best of the Christian intellectual tradition.

In this context we need more than just new and novel ideas and enhanced programs; we need distinctively Christian thinking. It seems to me that the integration of faith and learning involves, as T.S. Eliot said so appropriately, being able to think in Christian categories.

CT: One of the significant divides in terms of conceiving the Christian university is between the "two spheres" model that aims to provide an excellent secular education in a Christian environment and the integrationist model that aims at distinctively Christian education. You endorse the latter. Why?

Dockery: A two-sphere model recognizes the place of chapel, campus ministry, mission trip opportunities, and residence-life Bible studies. This model sees a place for faith on one side of the campus and learning on the other. This model can be achieved with parachurch ministries on secular campuses. I do not believe this model represents the best of Christ-centered higher education nor do I think it represents the best of the Christian intellectual tradition through the years.

The conjunction of faith and learning, the one-sphere or integrationist model, points to the essence of a Christian university. In recent years, among an increasingly large number of intellectuals, there has arisen a deep suspicion of today's thoroughly secularized academy, so that there is indeed a renewed appreciation for and openness to what George Marsden calls "the outrageous idea of Christian scholarship."

As Mark Schwenn of Valparaiso University has suggested, it may be time to acknowledge that the thorough secularization of the academy is, at least, unfruitful. There is even a renewed interest in many places in the relationship of the church to higher education. "Ex cordeecclesiae" is the way our Catholic friends frame this idea, which calls for the church to be at the heart of the university and for the university to be at the heart of the church.

Being faithful will involve much more than mere piety or spirituality, which by itself will not sustain the idea of a Christian university. We need a model of higher education that confesses the sovereignty of the triune God over the whole cosmos, in all spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible.

CT: Why are Christian faculty sometimes deeply divided over making the integration of faith and learning the touchstone of a Christian university experience? And why does it seem to provoke bigger fights between Baptists than Presbyterians or Catholics?

Dockery: I think one of the key challenges we face in trying to advance the cause of Christian higher education is locating and developing faculty who believe in the importance of the vision I have attempted to articulate in the first three questions. This understanding of faith (the faith that we believe) provides a unifying framework that helps avoid the error of a spiritualized Gnosticism on the one hand or a purely materialistic metaphysic on the other. It is this confessional starting point that forms the foundation for our affirmation that all truth is God's truth, whether revealed or discovered. Thus, on the one hand we respond with grateful wonder at what has been made known to us, and on the other, with exerted effort to discover what has not been clearly manifested...


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -42.0.html

Ian :-D

 

[unred typo]

by MrVersatile48
Actually, I both read the post & caught up on all the threads where it just fit in so amazingly...

As does today's CT offering

I must be particularly dense this morning. Can you explain how this fits this thread?