[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[Sparkey]

So we have no place or right to say that the earth is x years old. Secular science nor Christians.

A man stands and swears that his house is blue.
I am then asked, "What color is that man's house?"
Reply: "I have heard that it is blue."

But while speaking of God's house: God is not a man that He might lie - I would not have to qualify the statement but instead could choose to rely on God's Word as evidence. Still, we do know that His house is not a literal house. It is not blue. His house is His dwelling place and this is you and me (as much as we allow). There are larger truths here.

But if I believe that the earth was created in six days? Whose reputation is on the line for that? Mine. But what if I had been mislead? That's possible and it would be irresponsible for me to think otherwise. The Bible itself declares that even the very elect would be deceived (if such a thing were possible). I don't think that was talking about 6-day creation though. The deceiver knows that our thoughts regarding how many days it took the Lord to create the world are neither the foundation nor the capstone of our faith. Would somebody who misunderstood be prevented from heaven. No. Our faith is centered on Jesus (or it should be). And it is our belief in Him that matters. (Even those who believe on His Name) But what if we argued so much that we began to resent and then eventually hate each other? We would not need to admit it. The Lord knows our hearts. That matters. We would be in direct disobedience to our Master and should no longer be allowed to call Him that.

The solution to this dilemma is found in our growing trust of God. No matter the discussion the end result is this: God is Good. This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

Some parts of the Bible directly state that they are visions. There are things that are described like beasts (the prophecies of Daniel come to mind) or oil and even sheep are sometimes representative of other things like nations or the Holy Spirit or peoples. An example: Jesus said that from out of our innermost being there would be a flowing of water, the Bible says that He was speaking of the Holy Spirit, not literal H2O-type water.

Frankly I sometimes find it impossible to determine (through the use of my intellect alone) if a certain passage is meant to be taken in a strictly literal or more figurative manner. Most parables are clearly stated as such but not all. The Parable of the Rich Man comes to mind here. So what then are we to do? It seems to me that I am responsible for me and that although it is permissible and even encouraged for me to talk about faith and beliefs it is not my responsibility to study to show others to be unapproved.

If one were to come and demand, "YOU'RE WRONG -- look at what I've studied here!" This is quite opposite to the tenor of the command given by the King. We are to study to show ourselves approved. It may be quite surprising but there will be a nation born in a day -- they will speak the same things and others will marvel at it. They will recognize each other -- not by physical features, not by intuition -- but by the Holy Spirit who teaches all things. We have no need that a man shall teach us. Our need to is love each other as is the focus of His command.

... Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil. (Ecc 12:13-14)

 

[gr8grace3]

A man stands and swears that his house is blue.
I am then asked, "What color is that man's house?"
Reply: "I have heard that it is blue."

But while speaking of God's house: God is not a man that He might lie - I would not have to qualify the statement but instead could choose to rely on God's Word as evidence. Still, we do know that His house is not a literal house. It is not blue. His house is His dwelling place and this is you and me (as much as we allow). There are larger truths here.

But if I believe that the earth was created in six days? Whose reputation is on the line for that? Mine. But what if I had been mislead? That's possible and it would be irresponsible for me to think otherwise. The Bible itself declares that even the very elect would be deceived (if such a thing were possible). I don't think that was talking about 6-day creation though. The deceiver knows that our thoughts regarding how many days it took the Lord to create the world are neither the foundation nor the capstone of our faith. Would somebody who misunderstood be prevented from heaven. No. Our faith is centered on Jesus (or it should be). And it is our belief in Him that matters. (Even those who believe on His Name) But what if we argued so much that we began to resent and then eventually hate each other? We would not need to admit it. The Lord knows our hearts. That matters. We would be in direct disobedience to our Master and should no longer be allowed to call Him that.

The solution to this dilemma is found in our growing trust of God. No matter the discussion the end result is this: God is Good. This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

Some parts of the Bible directly state that they are visions. There are things that are described like beasts (the prophecies of Daniel come to mind) or oil and even sheep are sometimes representative of other things like nations or the Holy Spirit or peoples. An example: Jesus said that from out of our innermost being there would be a flowing of water, the Bible says that He was speaking of the Holy Spirit, not literal H2O-type water.

Frankly I sometimes find it impossible to determine (through the use of my intellect alone) if a certain passage is meant to be taken in a strictly literal or more figurative manner. Most parables are clearly stated as such but not all. The Parable of the Rich Man comes to mind here. So what then are we to do? It seems to me that I am responsible for me and that although it is permissible and even encouraged for me to talk about faith and beliefs it is not my responsibility to study to show others to be unapproved.

If one were to come and demand, "YOU'RE WRONG -- look at what I've studied here!" This is quite opposite to the tenor of the command given by the King. We are to study to show ourselves approved. It may be quite surprising but there will be a nation born in a day -- they will speak the same things and others will marvel at it. They will recognize each other -- not by physical features, not by intuition -- but by the Holy Spirit who teaches all things. We have no need that a man shall teach us. Our need to is love each other as is the focus of His command.

... Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil. (Ecc 12:13-14)

I read this a couple of times and still don't get it? I am a little slow.

So you think that you can say the earth is x years old?

 

[Barbarian]

The Church has done so as well, even killing those who disagree. I can all but guarantee that the very church fathers you appeal to for the age of the Earth also thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and quite likely that the Earth was flat. And they had the Scripture to back up their false beliefs.

Likely, many of them. However, most didn't think the Earth was flat. That it was spherical was well-documented, and it had even been measured to a rather high precision by Eratosthenes about 400 BC. Your point is well taken, though. People tend to read into scripture, things they assume to be true.

We should always be careful to avoid that. Never thought of that before, it is significant that the Bible references to the Earth as though it was flat and circular, never seems to have given them any pause, even though most of them knew it wasn't flat.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

A problem with evolution theory is it does not examine the facts very well. When Dr Patten showed dinosaur prints next to human footprints, why would a leading evolutionist the next day catch a plane flight and with a crow bar destroy the evidence in the Paluxy River ? His actions have become a historical fact.

Such facts like this are routinely ignored and removed ....Thus this alone does no make evolution a theory, it's more a religion....

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Correct definition, that's why both creationism and evolution within certain bounds can be considered theories of faith, one has to believe the interpretation of the facts according to our theoretical framework.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Exactly, as a result of John Sanford's work and others, evolution as a process is dead....it does not work at all. I could go through his papers with you, but no science person disagrees with his analysis, he is just ignored.



If you re-interpret it as a literal history in Genesis, you have a choice. One chapter says six days, and the other says one day.

Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

You referring to this Barbarian, I take it, why can't both be correct ? It's in Scripture and so I agree with it ? Have you not heard that time is relative and never absolute ? In fact many science people says time does not exist. What we consider as time is a cycle of movements through space or our conscious. Rocks do not age nor do biological atoms such as O and C. Radioactive decay of atoms is not based on time and the process is poorly understood. Einstein says time is relative. All I can say is some Scripture is hard to understand, and some easier.

God made creation in six days because the week is a model of time humans are supposed to obey, a typology of creation based on time moving forward since creation started.

Ps 131:1 LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.

Some things are best left alone...why must science claim to know everything ?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

A problem with evolution theory is it does not examine the facts very well.

Sounds like a testable claim. Show us.

When Dr Patten showed dinosaur prints next to human footprints, why would a leading evolutionist the next day catch a plane flight and with a crow bar destroy the evidence in the Paluxy River ?

Show us that. The fact is, Patten's dinosaur scam was debunked not by evolutionists, but by young Earth creationists from Loma Linda U.
Would you like me to show you?

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Correct definition, that's why both creationism and evolution within certain bounds can be considered theories of faith

Wrong. As you learned, evolutionary theory was originally a hypothesis, because it hadn't been proven. And later when sufficient evidence was accumulated, it was shown to be true, and became a theory.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Exactly, as a result of John Sanford's work and others, evolution as a process is dead....

It is directly observed. Would you like me to show you again?

I could go through his papers with you, but no science person disagrees with his analysis

All the geneticists I know about say he's wrong.
In these passages, Sanford would have his readers believe that Kimura was so dismayed by the evolutionary implications of having only small numbers of beneficial mutations that Kimura did not dare treat the subject. That is an inexcusable misrepresentation of the facts. Kimura [26] tells us explicitly why he omitted beneficial mutations from this model, and it has nothing to do with how rare or unselectable they are:


In this formulation, we disregard beneficial mutations, and restrict our consideration only to deleterious and neutral mutations. Admittedly this is an oversimplification, but as I shall show later, a model assuming that beneficial mutations also arise at a constant rate independent of environmental changes leads to unrealistic results.
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

he is just ignored.

See above. You've been misled about that.

(Genesis 1, if re-interpreted as a literal history, say creation took God 6 days)

But...

Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

You referring to this Barbarian, I take it, why can't both be correct ?

They are both correct, if you don't try to twist "yom" into a literal 24-hour day. Otherwise, they are contradictory.

Have you not heard that time is relative and never absolute ?

So the old Earth creationist say. So the "days" could be any length of time in reality. Maybe. Or maybe Christians had it right the first time, and it's not a literal history.

In fact many science people says time does not exist.

Show us that.
Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.[1] In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

 

[turnorburn]

You did the same thing to me when i introduced Donald W. Patten but you were referencing a different Donald Patton.. Remember the video you wouldn't watch, you wanted evidence then as well, but you refused to consider that video..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

I take your point, on my Google earth view, I just see a glacier.

Doesn't seem so. Take a look at how close to the snowline your coordinates are. There should be some kind of terminus for a glacier, and signs of linear movement. But nothing. And notice on your photograph of Ararat, how far this point is above the snowline. The Google Earth image shows considerable melting from your winter scene. Yet this huge Ark isn't there.

Glaciers don't melt and reform every winter. And of course, they form U-shaped valleys, not trenches. Let me ask a question. If it turned out that this was all just a story someone made up, about the Ark being on this mountain, what would it do as far as your faith is concerned?

 

[Barbarian]

Remember the video you wouldn't watch, you wanted evidence then as well, but you refused to consider that video..

I suggested you present the evidence in that video you found most compelling, but you declined to do so. Which suggests that there wasn't anything of consequence in it.

 

[turnorburn]

If i remember correctly you and another member said that it wasn't worth your time, we could go back to that thread to be sure?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, do that. If someone wants me to watch a video, my standard response is to ask them to present what they think is the most compelling evidence therein.

Wasted too much time watching recycled pratts with pretentious music and graphics. If one can't summarize what's in it, then it probably isn't worth seeing.

 

[turnorburn]

You do remember then, you don't want to see it because its just as Donald said it would be "they would have to rewrite all of the history books" and you would have nothing to refute.. perish the thought..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Wasted too much time watching recycled pratts with pretentious music and graphics. If one can't summarize what's in it, then it probably isn't worth seeing.

You do remember then

Nope. Lucky guess on my part. Never saw it. If the person touting it won't even talk about it, then why would anyone want to see it?

As I said, the fact that no one was willing to present any of the arguments in the video, pretty much tells us there isn't anything there.

But if you'd like to prove me wrong, and show us, I bet everyone would like to see it. Will you?

 

[turnorburn]

Most folks don't understand these terms..

A Global Flood or a Local Flood

The History of Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism

Past Celestial Catastrophies

The Tidal Nature of the Biblical Flood

Orogenesis: The Cause of Global Mountain Uplifts

Glaciogenesis: The Cause of the Ice Epoch

Model of the Flood Catastrophe

Astral Catastrophism In Ancient Literature

The Greenhouse Effect: The Antediluvian Canopy

Biological Uniformitarianism (Darwinism)

Cosmogony and Uniformitarianism

Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism and Western Civilization

Donald explains them in his book.. The Biblical Flood and The Ice Epoch seen here..

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/index.htm

For those that would rather view his 60 minute video its title is Cataclysm From Space 2800 BC and i can assure you it isn't filled with "recycled pratts with pretentious music and graphics"

After showing the filmstrip at a church meeting a teacher said he would love to show it to his class but he would lose his job in doing so

Can't figure you out Barbarian, a man that says he wants proof but fails to examine it has something else on his mind..

tob

 

[Sparkey]

I read this a couple of times and still don't get it? I am a little slow.

So you think that you can say the earth is x years old?

It is as you pointed out, I (personally) have no authority to declare the age of the earth.
I was not there when the earth was created. Still, there are some things that we do know. God is not a man that He should lie.

Therefore I can say this, "I have it on good authority that God created the earth in six days." That's different than saying, "The earth is X years old." I could also say, "It is as He said." I should be able to say this without fear of contradiction because after all - you were not there either.

A man stands and swears that his house is blue.
I am then asked, "What color is that man's house?"
Reply: "I have heard that it is blue."

If it is reasonable to take the word of a house owner regarding the color of his house then we can certainly accept God's word. All things shall pass away -- but His Word shall never.



Hope that clears things up for ya.

 

[Barbarian]

After showing the filmstrip at a church meeting a teacher said he would love to show it to his class but he would lose his job in doing so

Sounds like another made-up story. Show us some evidence for that.

Can't figure you out Barbarian, a man that says he wants proof

Evidence. And the fact that no one can bring up even once significant fact from the video, is pretty good evidence.

Surely, there's one thing you saw in it, that would stand up to scrutiny. Can you think of even one thing, with some evidence to back it up?

 

[turnorburn]

I'm quite sure after over 40 years this filmstrip has been around a man with the knowledge you claim to have has seen it so why play these games.. No i think you don't welcome the idea of erasing terabytes of the doctrine of evolution from your hard drive sounds very appealing, like Donald said in the film "all of your earth history books would have to be rewritten.. the proof is there Barbarian, why not just accept it like you say?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

So far, you've been remarkably shy about showing us any of it. What in this man's show, do you think is most compelling? Just tell us, and give us a checkable source for the evidence.

If you can't do that, what makes you think any of his claims are true? If any other creationist would be willing to step up and do that for us, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it. Anyone?

Edit: I'm not sure if this is one of those, but sometimes, the people who prepare these things, tell their followers not to talk about the contents at all, but to try to get people to watch it.

 

[Rick W]

Reminder:
When posting pictures please provide a link.
Thank you

 

[turnorburn]

So far, you've been remarkably shy about showing us any of it. What in this man's show, do you think is most compelling? Just tell us, and give us a checkable source for the evidence.

If you can't do that, what makes you think any of his claims are true? If any other creationist would be willing to step up and do that for us, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it. Anyone?

Edit: I'm not sure if this is one of those, but sometimes, the people who prepare these things, tell their followers not to talk about the contents at all, but to try to get people to watch it.

Remarkably shy?

Donald explains them in his book.. The Biblical Flood and The Ice Epoch seen here..

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/index.htm

For those that would rather view his 60 minute video its title is Cataclysm From Space 2800 BC and i can assure you it isn't filled with "recycled pratts with pretentious music and graphics"

Going to start calling you the artful dodger..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

You continue to dodge my questions. Going to start calling you the artful dodger. Just answer one question:
What in that video, do you think is the most compelling argument, and what is the evidence for it?

So far, you've dodged that four times. Will you make if five times, or will you answer the question? It would seem to me, that if this video has such wonderful information, you'd be eager to share it with us. Why so shy?

I do notice that Patton claims a PhD, but did not graduate from any accredited university. Apparently, an unaccredited school, without campus, or classrooms, gave him a PhD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_International_University