[__ Science __ ] Is Historical Science Useful?

[Edward]

Only man died spiritually that day. God is not unjust or cruel. He did not punish animals for man's disobedience.

So it didn't die at all, and then after the Resurrection it no longer groaned and travailed in pain?

Another reason we know the "death" wasn't physical.

But that isn't right. It's all spelled out right there in scripture Brother. Let's turn to Romans 8, shall we?


18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of [f]corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.../

Mankind did indeed die spiritually on the day of the fall. But in the spirit is life so it would affect the natural/biological part of life also. It still took Adam 900 years or so to die in the flesh but that's just a testament to how good God's creation was/is. Lol.

Biological evolution is an absurdity. On the other hand, Spiritual evolution is what we strive for and look forward to.

 

[Barbarian]

But that isn't right. It's all spelled out right there in scripture Brother. Let's turn to Romans 8, shall we?

It doesn't say that. In fact, it doesn't address the issue at all. But in Genesis, God very clearly says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Yet Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God spoke the truth, the death He referred to could not be a physical one.

Biological evolution is an absurdity.

It's directly observed constantly. I think you've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent. Remember, evolution is "descent with modification" (Darwin's definition) and "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time" (modern theory, incorporating genetic data).

Souls don't evolve. Each of us gets one directly from God, and there is no descent with modification.

 

[Barbarian]

Not so. You do use your science to interpret the Bible..

[/QUOTE]
No, that's wrong. Science isn't "anything that makes sense." There are lots of things that make sense that aren't part of science.

By your own words you interpret (Gen. 1-3) symbolically based upon no sun existing the first 3 days.

Since the text itself tells us this. It is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings without a sun, since those terms are defined in terms of a sun.

So, do you now believe and understand that the first three days of morning and evening were governed by the light of God?

Some people have worshiped the sun as a God, but that is an error. God is not the sun. The sun is not God.

What of (Ps. 33:6-9) that I pointed out earlier? Or (Heb. 11:3), as another pointed out?

[/QUOTE]

We agree on those. We just don't agree on how He did it.

What do you believe those verses are saying, and why?

It says that God created all things. Since Genesis says that He used the initial creation to produce other things (like living things), why would that be a problem for a believer?

Genesis gives us no guidance on precisely how He did all that. So as far as Genesis goes, one can consistently accept either special creation or evolution as the way life's diversity came to be.

 

[Barbarian]

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is also a fact based on over 500 eyewitness accounts, which is how we got the fact of the Christian faith.

Science can't even discuss the miraculous, and does not rule out miracles. Miracles are not something God must do to patch up creation. They are presented to us to teach us something.

 

[crossnote]

Science can't even discuss the miraculous, and does not rule out miracles. Miracles are not something God must do to patch up creation. They are presented to us to teach us something.

The resurrection wasn't merely a teaching lesson of 'show and tell', but it was God putting His stamp of approval on His Son verifying all that Jesus said and did was of God.
One of the things Jesus said was...

Matthew 19:4 (NASB) And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

This also indicates that Adam and Eve were created, not evolved

 

[Edward]

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope

It doesn't say that. In fact, it doesn't address the issue at all. But in Genesis, God very clearly says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Yet Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God spoke the truth, the death He referred to could not be a physical one.

Genesis des say that, but we were discussing Romans 8. And it does say that essentially. ...For the creation was subjected to futility...So exactly what does subjected to futility mean? Are the animals a part of the creation? (Of course they are).

The innocent animals, subjected to futility against their will, by man who was given dominion over them in the beginning. Oh yes Brother, sin affected all of creation.

 

[Edward]

It's directly observed constantly. I think you've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent. Remember, evolution is "descent with modification" (Darwin's definition) and "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time" (modern theory, incorporating genetic data).

Souls don't evolve. Each of us gets one directly from God, and there is no descent with modification.

So are you saying that we don't spiritually evolve, but only biological units?

That's the problem with evolution. In order for people to swallow it, it is necessarily overly complicated and the more complicated and convoluted it gets, the more you don't even know if what you're saying is the truth or not.

 

[crossnote]

So are you saying that we don't spiritually evolve, but only biological units?

That's the problem with evolution. In order for people to swallow it, it is necessarily overly complicated and the more complicated and convoluted it gets, the more you don't even know if what you're saying is the truth or not.

Sounds like a familiar conundrum of evolution...

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Rom 1:22-23)

 

[Barbarian]

So are you saying that we don't spiritually evolve, but only biological units?

Yes. There is no descent with modification in the case of souls. They don't reproduce or mutate. God gives each one, fully-formed, to each of us.

That's the problem with evolution. In order for people to swallow it, it is necessarily overly complicated and the more complicated and convoluted it gets, the more you don't even know if what you're saying is the truth or not.

Actually, it's very simple, and easy to understand in outline. Darwin's four points:
1. More organisms are born than can survive long enough to reproduce.

2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents.

3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival for better or worse.

4. The useful ones tend to increase in a population and the harmful ones tend to decrease. Over time, these changes accumulate and explain speciation and the evolution of new taxa.

Each of these has been tested and verified.

The details can be complicated, but evolution is pretty simple in basic principles.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds like a familiar conundrum of evolution...

It's a common misconception about evolution. Evolution is really simple in principle. Genetics makes things a little complicated, but it's all knowable.

 

[crossnote]

It's a common misconception about evolution. Evolution is really simple in principle. Genetics makes things a little complicated, but it's all knowable.

Here is a quote from Wiki on the length of time humans have been on the earth...

"Some disagreement exists about the scientific definition of human. Some scientists date the Homo genus back only 100,000 years while others go back 11 million years and include Neanderthals, chimps and gorillas. Most say early humans first appeared between 2–3 million years ago"

Let's just take the younger number for argument sake of 100,000 years.
Do you honestly think God left out thousands of generations from His genealogical records (millions if you take the larger numbers)?
Let's be generous and say it took 3000 years (instead of the calculated <2000) for mankind to become so debauched that God sent the Flood from the time of the Fall. That would leave 98,000 years for mankind to debauch himself. But even if we knock off 4000 years from the giving of the Law that still leaves us with 94,000 years of relatively righteous living, without a Judgment from God.
What it amounts to is similar to Elijah's challenge to the false prophets of Baal, 'who will you (or me serve)?, the fanciful imagination of man (masquerading as science), or God's Word which, when taken literal, has proved itself trustworthy in hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.
This is not a matter 'how many debate games' one can win, or 'how many Christians you can enlighten to the 'truths' of natural science, but rather it's a temporary but serious existence where people's souls are at stake.

 

[Quantrill]

To Barbarian Concerning your post #(23).

Why do you compose your posts to me so that when I respond they are very confusing as to who is doing the talking? Afraid? Is your argument, your faith, so shallow that you fear to have your views exposed? I think if I was that scared, I would seek to change my faith. And your faith is in science.

No, it is not wrong, you use your science to interpret the Bible. I have showed you and you offer nothing to disprove it.

What's absurd is now your refusal to think the 'light' in (Gen. 1:3) is the sun. It is not. It is the light of God. The sun is just a substitute for the light of God. See...you don't want to believe that because it goes against your science. Your science believes it had a reason to doubt the Bible as the Word of God. Now that I showed you that you are wrong, you reject it. You don't want to know what God says. You just want to follow your science.

Consider (Rev. 21:23). No need for the sun. Why? God is the light. Just like the light that existed in (Gen. 1:3). Or, how about the Tabernacle. In the outer court you had the light of the sun. A substitute light. In the Holy Place you had the light from the lampstand. Another substitute light. But in the Holy of Holies, you only had the light of God. There was no other light source. Of course none of this means anything to you as it takes away from science's supposed argument against the Bible.

I didn't say anything about worshiping the sun. I said the light of (Gen. 1:3) is the light of God, not the sun. Please try and keep up.

Concerning (Ps. 33:6-9) and (Heb. 11:3), don't lie to yourself. We do not agree at all. These Scriptures don't say God created all things. These Scriptures are clear on how God did it. God spoke the Creation into existence. You and your science just rejects it. As I said, you reject the Bible.

How was what you call the 'initial creation' created? By the very Word of God. Correct? The believer has no problem believing that God spoke the Creation into existence. I'ts plain in the Scriptures. It's a thorn for science, and you.

No, that is a lie. (Genesis) is very clear on exactly how God created the Heavens and the Earth and Man. You don't have to believe it, but don't say it is not clear.

(Genesis) and the whole of Scripture rejects any evolution. It leaves no place for evolution. God spake and it was so.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Scripture says nothing at all about evolution, either way. However, we do observe it happening in our world right now. Remember it's just "descent with modification", something we see in the genetics of all sorts of living populations in the world today.

Common descent isn't evolution, it's a consequence of evolution, and even Answers in Genesis acknowledges a limited amount of common descent. They quit denying speciation some time ago, and now extend their acceptance to new genera, and sometimes new families of organisms.

None of this really matters in terms of salvation. God does not care whether you approve of evolution or not. That's not how you will be judged.

 

[Barbarian]

How was what you call the 'initial creation' created? By the very Word of God. Correct? The believer has no problem believing that God spoke the Creation into existence.

Yes. That was the miracle. He spoke into existence a universe that works as He intended it to do from the start. That was instantaneous and not in any way natural. The origin of life and of new forms of life, as God says in Genesis, was done by that created universe, according to His will.

 

[Barbarian]

"Some disagreement exists about the scientific definition of human. Some scientists date the Homo genus back only 100,000 years while others go back 11 million years and include Neanderthals, chimps and gorillas. Most say early humans first appeared between 2–3 million years ago"

No. I know of no scientists who think that chimps and gorillas are in the genus Homo. And no scientist who knows anything at all about primates would put modern humans in one group and Neanderthals, chimps and gorillas in a different group. Neanderthals are a race of H. sapiens. We've been able to sequence their DNA, and they don't differ enough from us to qualify as a separate species. Indeed, most modern humans carry a good amount of Neanderthal DNA in our genes. There were other races at one time, including Denisovans, and a yet-unnamed race. Today, there are no biological human races, but there once were.

It's extremely difficult to say where the genus Homo began, because late Australopithecines and early Homo are so very much alike. The transition from one genus to the other is almost entirely a matter of changes in the skull.

Do you honestly think God left out thousands of generations from His genealogical records (millions if you take the larger numbers)?

No one really knows when God first gave living souls to two humans. So it's impossible say with any confidence; if it was important to our salvation, He would have told us. The generations, as in the differing genealogies listed for Jesus, are not literal ones, but very much like the symbolic Akkadian king lists, like those of Ur, from which Abraham came.

If they were meant to be literally so, the Bible would present a consistent genealogy for Jesus,and it does not.

This is not a matter 'how many debate games' one can win, or 'how many Christians you can enlighten to the 'truths' of natural science, but rather it's a temporary but serious existence where people's souls are at stake.

Fortunately, God doesn't care about what you think of evolution. It isn't how you will be judged. Matthew 25:31-46 gives very explicit details from Jesus, but it's not the only place. That is what will determine your eternal home, not whether or not you approve of evolution.

 

[crossnote]

No. I know of no scientists who think that chimps and gorillas are in the genus Homo. And no scientist who knows anything at all about primates would put modern humans in one group and Neanderthals, chimps and gorillas in a different group. Neanderthals are a race of H. sapiens. We've been able to sequence their DNA, and they don't differ enough from us to qualify as a separate species. Indeed, most modern humans carry a good amount of Neanderthal DNA in our genes. There were other races at one time, including Denisovans, and a yet-unnamed race. Today, there are no biological human races, but there once were.

It's extremely difficult to say where the genus Homo began, because late Australopithecines and early Homo are so very much alike. The transition from one genus to the other is almost entirely a matter of changes in the skull.

You completely side stepped my point, it wasn’t about transition of species but what do you do with Biblical geneaologies and millions of years?

No one really knows when God first gave living souls to two humans. So it's impossible say with any confidence; if it was important to our salvation, He would have told us. The generations, as in the differing genealogies listed for Jesus, are not literal ones, but very much like the symbolic Akkadian king lists, like those of Ur, from which Abraham came.

It was extremely important to our salvation to prove that Jesus came through the lineage of Abraham, otherwise we have a God that gives empty promises.

Fortunately, God doesn't care about what you think of evolution. It isn't how you will be judged. Matthew 25:31-46 gives very explicit details from Jesus, but it's not the only place. That is what will determine your eternal home, not whether or not you approve of evolution.

True, but He cares about His Character and the trustworthiness of His Word. If evolution is true then Romans 5 and Genesis 3 is false and God lies.
But since you conveniently spiritualize and de-literalize the Scriptures to fit the fantasy of evolution, then anything goes. God will judge.

 

[Barbarian]

It was extremely important to our salvation to prove that Jesus came through the lineage of Abraham, otherwise we have a God that gives empty promises.

There's no problem with Jesus being a descendant of Abraham, even if the world is billions of years old.

You completely side stepped my point, it wasn’t about transition of species but what do you do with Biblical geneaologies and millions of years?

Since the Bible has two, contradictory genealogies for Jesus, it's clear that they are not literal genealogies.

Fortunately, God doesn't care about what you think of evolution. It isn't how you will be judged. Matthew 25:31-46 gives very explicit details from Jesus, but it's not the only place. That is what will determine your eternal home, not whether or not you approve of evolution.

True, but He cares about His Character and the trustworthiness of His Word.

Which means that Christians can disagree on whether or not the creation story is literal or figurative, and it makes no difference to their salvation.

If evolution is true then Romans 5 and Genesis 3 is false and God lies.

No. They are all consistent with each other. And since we observe evolution constantly in living populations, there's really no point in denying the fact.

But if you do deny it, you haven't put your salvation in danger. Which is a very good thing.

But since you conveniently spiritualize and de-literalize the Scriptures to fit the fantasy of evolution,

As I said, evolution is an observed phenomenon. And God spiritualized the Bible, not me.

then anything goes. God will judge.

But as we know, He will not judge you for rejecting evolution or for accepting it. That's just not what matters to your salvation. Focus on that, and everything else will take care of itself.

 

[crossnote]

As I said, evolution is an observed phenomenon. And God spiritualized the Bible, not me.

God spiritualized the Bible?? How come all the prophecies from the OT that have been fulfilled, were fulfilled literally? Over 100 pertaining to Jesus ...God incarnate.
Man spiritualizes the bible, including you.

 

[Quantrill]

Scripture says nothing at all about evolution, either way. However, we do observe it happening in our world right now. Remember it's just "descent with modification", something we see in the genetics of all sorts of living populations in the world today.

Common descent isn't evolution, it's a consequence of evolution, and even Answers in Genesis acknowledges a limited amount of common descent. They quit denying speciation some time ago, and now extend their acceptance to new genera, and sometimes new families of organisms.

None of this really matters in terms of salvation. God does not care whether you approve of evolution or not. That's not how you will be judged.

Scripture speaks of creation by the spoken Word of God. Thus Scripture is against any evolution. Your science wants to find evolution in something today as it knows it cannot test it's theory of evolution concerning man and creation.

What matters is the effort of people like yourself to compromise with the Word of God and bow to science. You reject the Scriptures plain declaration because it just doesn't look scientific.

Of course it matters. Do you think God cares about His people denying His Word? I believe He does. If one is willing to compromise in that area, to reject the book of (Genesis), he will do the same elsewhere, and for the same reasons.

For example, the Flood or Joshua's long day, or Jonah and the whale. (Gen. 7:1-8:14) (Josh. 10:12-14) (Jonah 1:12-2:10) How about the virgin birth of Christ? Or Christ raising Lazarus from the dead? Or the Resurrection of Christ. What say ye of these? True or false? Literal or symbolic?

Yes. That was the miracle. He spoke into existence a universe that works as He intended it to do from the start. That was instantaneous and not in any way natural. The origin of life and of new forms of life, as God says in Genesis, was done by that created universe, according to His will.

No. The origin of life was done by God, not the creation. Just because God made man out of the dust of the earth, does not mean man evolved from the earth. Man was a direct creation from God, just as the fish and animals were also. No evolution. (Gen. 1:1-1:27) "And God said...."

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Scripture speaks of creation by the spoken Word of God. Thus Scripture is against any evolution.

Scripture also speaks of nature producing the variety of living things. Which is entirely consistent with evolution. As you know, evolution is constantly observed happening in nature.

No. The origin of life was done by God, not the creation.

God says that He used created things to bring forth life. That's what He says:

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

God does most things by using nature in our world. You are a creature of God and He used natural means to create your body. Your soul, of course was given directly by Him.

And remember, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, and that is continuously observed to happen. I think common descent is what you object to. AIG allows common descent to a limited degree, usually drawing the line at new families or orders of living things.