 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > evidence of evolution | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/15/2002 12:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | Doc and all,
For me the big issue about a literal interpretation of the creation account is far from anything to do with the Advenitists of the 1900's or any church history. It's because I can't see how a reading of the text (and apparently the grammer) could be read otherwise. I wish I could look at the logic or theology of those in history who didn't believe it to be literal, because if the approach to this passage is along the same lines of approach as those the Adventists had taken - interpretting to support their own doctrine - and not because good, sound interpretation is their issue, I'd like to get to the bottom of that! The text upon a simple acceptance of the passage doesn't insist on a poetic, metaphoric or other-than-what-it-says reading. It's clear: In six days God made the heavens.
You know, there's poetry in Scripture, there's metaphor, there's all kinds of way it communicates truth, but the literality of such passages is rarely lost in this communication; there's the foundation and structure of truth in tact. It doesn't even fit Genesis's structure to attribute poetry or anything else to the creation account in view of the rest of the book, not that I see. God said exactly what He meant. It should be taken for what it says regardless of historical tradition or doctrines that oppose it. And the same should be said about Joshua's long day, Hezekiah's time adjustment and all those kinds of nuances. What, was Jonah in the belly of a fish a work of fiction to convey some sort of message of hope to someone? Was he not in the fish's stomach?
We can attest to the veracity of the historicity and reliability of Scripture's history and claims because there's so much evidence to support it, particularly the resurrection of Jesus. Christianity has been unstoppable in finding it. But were it not, the Bible would still HAVE to be taken literal. Science is not nerely as sold out on evidence that evolution or the long days of creation or an old earth perspective is truely the facts as we have them. There's so much evidence for the opposite if one takes the time to research it. If anything, there's surely enough evidence (see all the Creationist web sites) to NOT forsake the creation account text as literal. Not yet anyways!
Necessary as orthodox teaching? No, I don't go that far.
And June, with regard to the order of things being created (the sun coming along in the 4th day instead of earlier) or ANYTHING else for that matter that's puzzling, remember: that is still no reason to give up a literal reading of the text. You may not yet have enough answers to justify taking it literally, but it's unsound interpretation to adjust what it says to mean what you think it could mean or what someone is saying it means. If I write you a letter and you don't quite understand how things can be the way I say they are, you surely wouldn't come up with all kinds of ideas, thoughts and beliefs about what I mean if I said what I mean, would you? No, you'd say "Well, I don't quite understand him but I'll see what I can do to find out more".
Say, are you paying attention to me??? Look at me when I write to you!!! HA!
And God as light to the world...
He is the light. He is that light or the originator of that light that came about to seperate the darkness! Where else did it come from? Don't forsake the literality of "And God said 'Let there be light'" because you don't yet know more about how it happened! If we depart from what God said as being literal here then we're out of luck, as far as I'm concerned, with holding any integrety to the text.
I do admit that the WAY God did things is awefully puzzling. And, as I mentioned about "The Science of God", there may be some twists to the way He did it. For instance, if I perceive time as being slower today then its initial speed coming out the gate when God first created light, the worlds, etc. - thus the time to do it all would be longer in the start then it is today, I'd still be holding to a literal six day creation but from my perspective of time! Complicated? Sheesh, I can barely grasp it, but that was the jist of the book.
The seventh day? Hey, when it says God rested, we KNOW God doesn't tire, so the meaning MUST be something else: He ceased creating. Simple! The seventh day is just that: a...day! Why would we think it has to be some sort of continuing thing? We would already know that "nd the evening and the morning" make a day. The seventh day was a 24 hour period day just like the rest. (oh, but theologically this baby rocks with honey sweet to the spirit!)
Well it's time to do dinner - make it, that is. And no, Tiggers, I haven't found work. And hey, thanks for the great compliments about my mind, but I'll tell you, I'm not very skilled at much and I have such little confidence in myself and my abilities that I just (literally) cast all this needing a job stuff into His hands! If I didn't, I'd crawl into a fetal position in the corner of the kitchen and wale like baby!!!
For the conversation,
Starkman
(Doc, I LOVED the post you made here just a day or so ago - forget where it was - where you stated "I forget sometimes where I stand on what I believe on certain things! I sat here and said to myself "He does it too, he does it too"! That was great!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/15/2002 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | StarkMan,
Like I said earlier, I got your back in prayer, brother  ! Keep looking for that job, God will pull you through! Well, another meeting to attend to...
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/15/2002 6:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Tiggers,
Thanks much. Don't think I could covet anything better than prayer!
Mucho gracious!
Starkman
p.s. DON'T YOU DARE LET GO OF THIS THREAD, YOU...YOU...YOU TIGGERS YOU.
IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT EVERTHING IN THE WORLD (literally) HINGES ON IT (figuratively!). AND I WON'T REST UNTIL ZION IS...ahem! Sorry! I got a little carried away there, bro! (sheepishly leaves the thread!)
Edited by - Starkman on 01/15/2002 11:39:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/16/2002 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | StarkMan,
You're too funny  ! And don't worry I'm not giving up on this thread just yet! However, I would love to hear what June's response might be to your latest post, June...hello...ya still hanging around this thread?
Hey Doctor Magneton,
Thanks for the link, I'll read it as soon as I can. By the way, I checked out a web site you suggested (e.g. D.W.), and it has some tasty articles I just might have to dive into...YUMMMM  !
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).
Edited by - Tiggers on 01/16/2002 9:07:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/16/2002 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
quote:
And June, with regard to the order of things being created (the sun coming along in the 4th day instead of earlier) or ANYTHING else for that matter that's puzzling, remember: that is still no reason to give up a literal reading of the text.
to me if something is puzzling, it's worth asking questions about, not just taking it on faith. i'm willing to suspend my assumption of the literality of scripture in order to ask the questions that might prove it false. are you willing to ask the questions that might prove something to be false that you believed to be true, in the order of finding THE truth of the matter? (i need to ask this to myself as well!)
quote:
And God as light to the world...
He is the light. He is that light or the originator of that light that came about to seperate the darkness! Where else did it come from? Don't forsake the literality of "And God said 'Let there be light'" because you don't yet know more about how it happened! If we depart from what God said as being literal here then we're out of luck, as far as I'm concerned, with holding any integrety to the text.
why would God have to create light if he is eternally and infinitely light?
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/17/2002 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | |
alright starkman, go with me on this one. pretend that you don't believe in Genesis being a literal account and lets get back to the thread topic. is there a possibility that God has used some form of evolution? not species to species, i.e. humans from apes, but microevolution? is it consistent with God's character?
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/17/2002 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | |
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Glad to see ya back June, and StarkMan I'm still praying! LOL
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/17/2002 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Part 1
StarkMan asserts,
“For me the big issue about a literal interpretation of the creation account is far from anything to do with the Adventists or the 1900’s or any church history. It’s because I can’t see how a reading of the text (and apparently the grammar) could be read otherwise. [AND] … It should be taken for what it says regardless of historical tradition or doctrines that oppose it.”
Tigger’s reply,
I don’t believe that one should throw out tradition so fast. Honestly, tradition is a wonderful authority to check our interpretive conclusions, of course along with other categories like Scripture, experience, and reason (e.g. the Wesley Quadrilateral). Now, while I think you stand as a corrective for the trap of traditionalism, I don’t believe that we should neglect or better yet ignore (assuming that what Greg proclaims to be true regarding this subject’s history is true) the writings of Christians through the centuries. I mean the closer one gets to the original historical moment or experience the more likely it would be to find the truth surrounding it (like the telephone game, or whatever that game is called where an original statement gets passed on down the line until finally it reaches the last person and that person totally messes it up. Yet, if you track it back to the original person’s statement, the closer you came to the subject the more realistic and true it became). Anyways, all this is to simply assert that one shouldn’t be too hasty when proclaiming, “the text upon a simple acceptance of the passage doesn’t insist on a poetic, metaphoric or other-than-what –it-says reading. It’s clear: In six days God made the heavens.” If this statement doesn’t unequivocally reach an even small majority of church tradition (due to the diversity of opinion), then should this not at least lend a beginning foundation for the questioning of the literal interpretation, which by the way is not a very good title for your theory regarding the 1st tablet, due to the fact that the tablet LITERALLY reads as a poetic prose ! LOL
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
I’m like the energizer bunny and still praying!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/18/2002 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tiggers, i don't know where starkman is but do have any thought about the last question i posted? just wondering
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/18/2002 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Time! I HATE TIME!
I'm having to concentrate on...well, eating - GETTING A JOB! Oh, and thanks so much, brother Tiggers, for the prayers. I really, really do covet them and thank you for them. I've come to appreciate the reality of "prayer changes things" more so than ever after having embraced the open view!
I'll have more time to post come tomorrow (Saturday), so look for me there, folks!
For the food (spiritual, that is!),
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 1/18/2002 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | For those of you interested, Jonathan Wells (who author the excellant book "Icons of Evolution,") has an article worth reading at www.discovery.org, entitled "Inherit The Spin. Check it out. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/19/2002 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | June asserts,
“to me if something is puzzling, it's worth asking questions about, not just taking it on faith. i'm willing to suspend my assumption of the literality of scripture in order to ask the questions that might prove it false. are you willing to ask the questions that might prove something to be false that you believed to be true, in the order of finding THE truth of the matter? (i need to ask this to myself as well!)”
Tigger’s Reply,
Yes, Yes, Yes, your above assertion is why I posted three great big smiles to ya, in other words, I’m digging what your saying!
June asserts,
“why would God have to create light if he is eternally and infinitely light?”
Tigger’s Reply,
Hmmmm….
June asserts,
“alright starkman, go with me on this one. pretend that you don't believe in Genesis being a literal account and lets get back to the thread topic. is there a possibility that God has used some form of evolution? not species to species, i.e. humans from apes, but microevolution? is it consistent with God's character?”
Tigger’s Reply,
It is unambiguously consistent with God’s character. By no means do I concur with StarkMan’s assertion, “If we depart from what God said as being literal here then we're out of luck, as far as I'm concerned, with holding any integrity to the text.” Like I have always proclaimed in one form or another, I don’t believe the 1st tablet is calling for a scientific chronology of the creation, CHRONOLOGY is not (to me) the straight meaning of the text, rather, it’s illustrative of how God created the universe out of nothing but his love, giving us a sort of general blueprint of how to live, and a beautiful theology of the Sabbath.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
I just finished an all-night lock-in at my church, and I’m a little (OK, ALOT) SLEEPY…MUST SLEEP…ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!… 
PSS
WriterDad, I'll Check out your link when I wake up sometime around...ohhh...hmm, Monday! LOL
PSSS
Still Praying!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/19/2002 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | FINALLY I have some time to write. It's the weekend (don't have to look for work, and the wife's stuffin' a big ol' turkey for dinner! So, I'm writin', I am!)
Hey June,
First, I can appreciate your quest for truth. And that you want to search it out by even taking the devil's advocate is commendable, for sure (considering what else could be possible other than a literal interp of Genesis 1 and 2). I have had to do the same also in time's past. Have to do that whenever it calls for it, as a matter of fact. It's one of the ways we learn.
But after we do that, I guess the only thing I'd stress is that it's really worth paying attention to the heart to be sure that we don't move away from what I feel is a very clear-cut literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 for another interpretation, because we are swayed by fear to not believe for the sake of apparent convincing evidence. Here's what I mean.
When I studied apologetics in the past, I'd get that panic inside sometimes as I'd study what the Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, this, that and the others believed. It was like "Sheesh, that's a very good point they make. Maybe I'm wrong. How can this be refuted, if it even should be tried?". And there'd be that panic and turmoil. Happens perhaps to all of us at sometime or another.
But, as Greg Kohkl from Stand to Reason (www.str.org) said something to the affect, if God's Word and its world view perspective is true, then you can be sure the mistake of faulty logic and reasoning will be found in the logic and reasoning in other views. It's true, too. Oh, it doesn't mean everything ever uttered by someone holding a perspective that's not Bibilcal is wrong, but with enough study and research of the other perspective the truth will eventually show itself.
If, June, we either do not study well enough to firmly substantiate truth on our behalf, or if we cave in because of fear that a particular view seems impossible to refute, then we have done an inustice to our selves and to truth. It's not easy to find truth sometimes, but I certainly believe it's well worth it as I'm sure you do too. Consequently, I believe that the foundation of the God of the Bible and His Word starts and ends with regular, general and literal communication; He says what He means and means what He says. And unless there's reason to believe otherwise (because His Word alone suggests differently - poetry, metaphor, etc.), we're most safe staying with this course. So, yes, we should look at both sides but very thoroughly. We shouldn't look at a side, form an opinion that "Well, they must be right" without struggling to find a complete perspective to both sides. It's a lot of work, that's for sure.
Next, your question about God using macroevolution. Simply answered, does the text in Genesis say that? Does it imply that or does it imply a morning and evening WHETHER WE QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CAN BE YET? Which is it?
Doesn't Exodus twice state "In six days the Lord God made heaven and earth and the seas and all that's within them"? Does it not say this? Did not Jesus attest to the veracity of Mosaic authorship in that He, too, leaned on the literality of the creation of Adam and Eve as real (out of a rib and all)? Any evolution? Absolutely not. There's not only any room to play with the text to mean that, but it's dangerous to do so BECAUSE of the very possibilty of these kinds of theories (and again, I know you're just searching. No prob at all, June!).
Finally, in view of your question, "why would God have to create light if he is eternally and infinitely light?", what I wrote above in the previous post was not as clear as it could have been. Here, let me clarify. And after I do, go back, if you would, and re-read the post I did on God being light. Perhaps it will flavor a bit differently.
First God is light and in Him there is no darkness. To create light out of darkness (as noted in Genesis 1) is not to give us a lesson in physics: "Okay, class, today we're going to discover just how God made the world, light, and the universe. Turn in your Bibles, if you would, to page 1". Hardly, and far from it. I mean, in just two small chapters (and that really only being one chapter with the second the specific stage-setter for man to come) do we really think God's intention was to explain how He did it all? Not at all. But I'm absolutely thoroughly convinced that what He did intend to convey was the rich, rich theology of who He is, and what He was doing. Literality seems to go out the door where there's not enough HOW He did it. And that's dangerous in my opinion. As I say, as we've come to know more about the universe and time, we find that it isn't so hard to believe in Joshua's long day or Hezekiah's clock adjustment as being literal. So, too, should it be with the creation account unless SCRIPTURE leads us itself to believe otherwise.
When God started to create, there was darkness. This isn't evil directly in my opinion but the very start of what theologically will be of tremendous impact on relationship between God and man. For darkness will come to represent evil in time. God knowing all possible outcomes knows this. It is why Christ can be said to have been been both ordained and crucified before the foundation of the world - I Pe 1:20 and Rev 13:8 respectively. The context for creation is ultimately in redemption, because God, I believe, knows sooner or later someone will fall and there goes the neighborhood!
Light then comes out of darkness (would you believe I've read some studies showing that light literally was made out of darkness? Don't know that I understand that but it sure works theologically). Anyway, it is from redemption that light comes, the glory of God is revealed to mankind.
In that God Himself is light, the concept takes deep, deep root into the One who creates and redeems, gives life and light. I didn't mean to convey that God created His own light (His own natural glory) to shine upon the world, what I meant was that it is FROM Him that light makes sense in the first place. NOT from physics (that's what WE call the study of it) but from theology. Light gives life (I am the Light of the Word); from God comes life because God is light. Thus that it is FIRST that God creates light out of darkness is to say something about Him being the sustainer of a life far greater than the sun can give. The sun should only serve to remind us that it is in God's very light in which we have our being. The sun PERPETUATES the concept already given: God created light. God is light. From God comes all light. Darkness is subservient. Darkness is theologically below the light. But...theologically it is out of this darkenss that light comes (our redeemer lives!).
So, it isn't to say that God's glory as if He was physically there shining upon the universe is the light. His light, if we wanted to somehow quantify it, would be so bright there'd be no end as to what it illuminates and to how far it would extend. No, it is that when God spoke, light came. Whenever God speaks light is sure to come, to be manifested. He does not speak darkness. (Mind you, I'm speaking now when He's not having to work within our sinful context. That's when you run across those verses like Isaiah 45:7!) And so when God creates His very glory is revealed through creation...FIRST through the creation of light. He later implements the sun to kind of say "I have created. It is I who creates. Light attests to my glory in this creation. I am your God, your creator, your light and life. Never forget that. I will place the sun in position as a constant reminder. And I will place the moon in position as a constant reminder: light by day and light by night. That is what I am. But remember, it was only after I created, light specifically, that the sun shines and the moon glows. They themselves are sustained by my light. For I uphold all things by the word of my power, and there is no glory such as mine".
Note that the moon is not a light in and of itself, but it's IMPORTANCE of sustaining light even in the darkness is critical! I feel, anyways!
Well, again, re-read my post, if you would, June, and I hope this clears things up better.
Hey Tiggers,
Okay, let me quote you: "Like I have always proclaimed in one form or another, I don’t believe the 1st tablet is calling for a scientific chronology of the creation, CHRONOLOGY is not (to me) the straight meaning of the text, rather, it’s illustrative of how God created the universe out of nothing but his love, giving us a sort of general blueprint of how to live, and a beautiful theology of the Sabbath.
First: Logically you cannot hold part of the creation account ("God created the universe out of nothing") as being literal but on the other hand deny another literal aspect of the creation ("chronology is not (to me) the straight meaning of the text) UNLESS you have Scriptural reasoning to do so. Nothing in this text or elsewhere in Scripture even suggests that God didn't create in the order it says He did.
Second: The text says nothing about Him having created it out of His love. If you have other Scripture saying He did, fine. BUT, then you're playing by the rules I advocate: take it for what it says UNLESS Scripture says differently, or for that matter, modifies it. I'm not in disagreement with you theologically about God creating it out of love, but it's not in the text! Stay with the text!!! You can't adjust any of it if you're going to take any of it literal. Now, if you want to toss all of it out the door as literal, then you can pretty well do what you want interpreting it, but you'd be way out in dangererous quicksand that'll get ya in trouble! I believe!
Now in an earlier post Magneton gave a quote from Hugh Ross from his web site:
"The frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos. God declares that He brought into existence the entire physical universe-matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with matter and energy. Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator's vantage point, to the surface of Earth above the water but below the cloud layer.
Magneton then says about the artical, "he describes in this article, "let there be light" is a description of the clearing away of planetary debris that surrounded the earth."
Note that nothing in the statement is threatening to the text of Genesis. That creating light may have had affects upon the universe is not to sacrifice the literality of the text. However, I have not read the artical so I don't know the context in which it was written. I'll have to get to the artical. Somehow I missed it until just now! Sheesh!
It's time now for me to go spend some time with my lovely wife. She done finished stuffin' the turkey and it's time to relax! Oh, I can smell the bird! Gads!
For ya'll and for the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/20/2002 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
we're having quite a thread huh? in a previous post i mentioned micro- not macroevolution. i totally agree with you and i don't think macroevolution is a remote possiblity. microevolution however, is a different question. of course it doesn't say it in Genesis, but again I say that scripture is not the only source that we should look to in cases like this. i think we need to do the best job we can of putting together Scripture with what the earth tells us.
also, do you believe the days in which God created are consecutive? like over the span of one week?
on a quest for truth,
June
Edited by - June on 01/20/2002 11:36:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/21/2002 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, June,
Did I put down Macro? Sorry about that. Regarding microevolution, Ham's site has this to offer:
Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
and
Another misused term is 'microevolution', used to describe the observable variations seen within basic types of organisms (for example, the famed industrial melanism of the peppered moth, variation in finch beaks in the Galápagos, antibiotic resistance, etc.). ReMine rightly argues that creationists should not use the term 'microevolution' as this plays into the hands of the illusion encouraged by evolutionists: that given enough time, microevolution adds up to macroevolution. The sort of observable variation evolutionists like to dub as 'microevolution' is due to re-arrangement of existing alleles, or degenerative changes, whereas evolution ('macroevolution') requires the formation of new, complex, information-laden genes to produce feathers on reptiles, for example.
And finally, at least for my the purposes:
To say that small changes which some call 'microevolution' (and which are in the opposite direction, thinning genetic information, rather than adding it), cannot be talked about 'without accepting macroevolution' is arrant nonsense. 'Microevolution' utilizes existing genetic information; 'macroevolution' would require the addition of vast amounts of new genetic information, for which there is no mechanism.
As you can see, the issue is that macro evolution requires the adding of information, not just re-arrangement or subraction. There has to be new information to take a particle and make it a human!
If by microevolution we mean "re-arrangement of existing alleles, or degenerative changes", then I'd say yes, I agree. Genesis doesn't forbid this in its creation account.
Here's a quote from Ham's site:
The primary authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too..
Scripture is the only authoritative record of creation. Earth gives us information which confirms what God said; however, it is often found that the interpretation of earth's information is up for grabs. We must, in my opinion, always stick with the record and allow time to sort out the details, details I believe will eventually confirm the literality of the record. Just like archeology has faithfully supported the Bible in some of it's most curious and seemingly dubious events, science and geology will also confirm the creation account (say, am I being to dogmatic here???)
Here's a good link to Answers in Genesis' site for the authority of the Word of God, particulary with regard to the Genesis account.
Oh, and as far as the days being consecutive? Yes, that's what the record says. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Now, considering time relevance and all, hey, I'm open to suggestion, but I'd have to say that the record is clear that it was in six twenty four hour periods; the seventh being also a twenty four hour period but not involving any creation. There's reasons for seven days!!! Could have been 4 days, 20 days, 1 million...if the record had stated! The usage of literal days and 24 hour time periods should be of no bother to us. I mean, would we have balked if it stated "And God made the heavens and earth and seas in 38.645 million years"? No, we'd seem to jump at the idea that that's possible. But the record is clear!
Hey, gotta go!
Starkman
Hey, gotta run!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/22/2002 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
quote:
Scripture is the only authoritative record of creation. Earth gives us information which confirms what God said; however, it is often found that the interpretation of earth's information is up for grabs.
isn't it sometimes found that the interpretation of the Bible is up for grabs? whose to say that we are reading the Bible totally correctly? as i mentioned before, Galileo encountered this situation. for the catholic church, it was right there in scripture, plain as day. the sun revolves around the earth, no argument, case closed. of course we know Galileo was right in his interpretation of scientific information and the church was wrong in its bible interpretation. this leads me to be hesitant to totally go all out and assume that six day creation is correct.
quote:
Oh, and as far as the days being consecutive? Yes, that's what the record says. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
does it really say that? cause i can't find it anywhere in the text. but neither can i find anything that says it's not. any references?
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey June,
Well, here's some links that you might find interesting.
But first, let me say that the chronological order of creation in Genesis is clear: "...and the evening and morning were the first day. Next the second day, third day, etc. I can't see how that can be missed. What other way could one say "And here's the order I created the universe: on the first day...second day...third day..." It's unmissable, IF we take God at His Word to say what He meant and meant what He said.
You'll find in the links below - I merely went to Answers in Genesis and searched Galileo, I believe it was - an understanding of what Galileo believed, what the church at the time believed AND WHY; in other words, who it was that influenced the church's beliefs.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4200cen_s1997.asp
They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the Earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’ (Genesis 28:4), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about. And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convient reference frame, which in this case is the earth.
This plain meaning (the time of day) is perfectly satisfied by the language of appearance and does not demand the secondary deduction that it is the sun itself which moves. Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that scientists do today in weather reports when they give the times of ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’. They are using the language of appearance, and using the earth as the reference frame. A convenient figure of speech does not invalidate science; nor does it invalidate the Bible.[/i
Likewise verses such as Psalm 19:6 and 93:1, which the writer(s) clearly meant to be poetic expressions, were given a literal meaning.
From http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html (Very Good!)
(These quotes are about what Galileo thought of the Bible:)
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[i/]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read (Galileo saying): 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"
And finally,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ14_1-Galileo.pdf
"The following 15 theses will show why the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science."
This is a very scholarly work about the real issues of Galileo's work, attitude, faith and what was really going on behind the scenes between him and the Catholic church, etc.
I read somewhere on Chuck Missler's site (www.khouse.org - click on articles and nav to Technical - there's stuff there, too about Galileo and others) about the suns orbit. I'm looking for the info now...and looking...and...and...oh rats, I can't find it. Anyway, Missler (I believe it was him) had mentioned something about the sun having it's own orbit around the solar system. So, the earth rotates around the sun, but the sun, too, orbits around the system. Takes a long time, but hey, who's in a hurry!
Anyway, I'm not sure if it's accurate or not but it was interesting. Wish I could find it!
Got to go! Wife's gettin' ready to go to class!
Keith
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey All,
To balance out the links a little here please check out...
http://www.theistic-evolution.net/
http://www.theistic-evolution.net/
This is truly a great link with a great deal of information as far as I can tell!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Any good news StarkMan?
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/23/2002 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | starkman,
good links to galileo. it was very interesting and informational. so he was pretty brash and arrogant huh?
more later,
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/26/2002 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | |
starkman,
what do we do with some of the fossils we've dug up? like lucy(?) for example. they found almost 40% of her skeleton. in africa's great rift valley. they found the remains of almost 300 people, most of them dating a million years old at least. (not sure i believe that at all ) do we just say science is off by a few hundred thousand years? the bones of the people they found are very different from modern day humans. most were between 4 and 5 feet tall with huge teeth and small brain cases. is there any way to explain this? (i'm hoping you can!)
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/26/2002 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey June,
About the bones issues - any and all fossils...
It's so far removed from what the media tells us. There simply is no fossil record (one would think there'd be billions of them if we've been around so long, you know).
Here's some links from Answers In Genesis (you can go there yourself and search "Lucy" - no quotes) and get these listed.
"Lucy was a knuckle walker"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4256news3-24-2000.asp
Here's the first link that shows from searching "Lucy":
Here's the 6th link listed:
"'Ape-woman' statue misleads public: anatomy professor"
(this one's very interesting!)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2468.asp
Oh, it's amazing what's hidden and kept from the public as much as possible, both by the press as well as the scientists and reporters! There's a lot at stake: reputations and, as always, money (funding and preservation of institutes).
I JUST read an article today that I've already deleted which directly addressed the very question you asked about the 4-5 feet stature bones. Again, it's an eye opener (and I foolishly can't remember where the article is on Answers or how to search for it...rats!).
I'll post it here, June, if I can find it! WAIT! I found it!!!!
"Bones Overthrown"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1163.asp
Oh, but listen, if you REALLY want to get educated, go to this link on Answers:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp
The best place to find all the info you ever need on Answers is here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
This is found off the home page (answersingenesis.org) to the right. Click on "MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS". This link is all the categories you can possibly imagine for research. It's from here where the studies can be done!
Also, off to the left of the home page is "PAST NEWS AND ARTICLES ARCHIVE". These are articles of most recent to past.
Hope this helps!
For the conversation,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/26/2002 2:53:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/29/2002 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Payaso,
Got it marked for future reading (I'm so DARNED bogged down, you know! If only my printer worked!!!!)
Thanks!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 2/5/2002 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Here are two websites I have come across in the past:
Kenneth Miller
Steven Pinker:A cognitive scientist out of MIT who holds to evolution, but not a christian, heh.
No answers in Genesis this one is a doozey (or however you spell that )Basically, I think that evolution has more of a ground to stand on than creationism, well the way creationism--as an evangelical tool--is viewed.
I started meeting with the guy I mentioned in the first few posts on this thread, and, he let me know that, like Ken Ham, he agreed that we need to interperet science with the bible and not vice versa. I personally feel this to be in error, because, this is not the way that the scientiffic method works, and for creation science to be accepted as a real science--which I feel it is not--it needs to accept that it is not following this method accordingly. The method being that scientiffic inductive method is one that goes out to observe the way that the earth works--apriori--, and, the creationist starts at a premise (i.e. the earth is roughly six to seven thousand yeara old old, becuase of the lineage, from adam to noah, mentioned in Genesis) and works his or her way from there. This is problemtatic, because like previously mentioned, it is not consistent with the scientiffic method--there are other arguments creationists use, not just the genesis creation account, to argue for creationism, but I have no clue what they are at the moment, except to tell you that they start with the premise that God is glorified in his creation, and if we espouse the evolutionary theory, we somehow are taking away from the credibility of God's revelation of himself. I am really looking forward to meeting with this guy--every sunday afternoon like we planned, so, I can strengthen my view of Evolution. What happens if the opposite occurs you say? Highly doubtful, considering their is far more evidence supporting evolution, and the only reason creation science has stayed around as long as it has--according to my educated friends--is that "creation (pseudo) scientist's" are very good at rhetoric, and many biology students, if put in the situation, would not be able to stand up against some of the creationist's claims--because the biologist is going about it as the evidence for evolution is true, which they rightly should, because, there predecessors have paved a pretty good path for them to study this system.
Thanks for yer time.
Blessings
Mr.~P
P.S. High ~E :"You know me better than I do. I'll ask again my friend, you know I am not a saint..." *current music" Apotygma Berzerk: Kathy's Song
http://www.angelfire.com/geek/toolfan
Edited by - faithfullservent on 02/05/2002 4:29:06 PM
Edited by - faithfullservent on 02/05/2002 6:48:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/5/2002 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Not sure why I’m responding to this, but it’ll be brief.
I just wanted to mention, vis a vis faithfullservant’s last post, that we as Christians and deep thinkers need to be careful of falling in to the modernist trap of revering the scientific method and holding it sacrosanct.
>>>this is not the way that the scientific method works, and for creation science to be accepted as a real science--which I feel it is not--it needs to accept that it is not following this method accordingly. The method being that scientific inductive method is one that goes out to observe the way that the earth works--apriori--, and, the creationist starts at a premise and works his or her way from there. This is problemtatic, because like previously mentioned, it is not consistent with the scientiffic method<<<
Now, I’m no Luddite, but I do know the scientific method has its flaws and premises as anything else does. For instance, the scientific method presupposes a natural explanation for everything—the universe is a closed system to them. Thus miracles are denied a priori.
If you’re ever awash in free time, you might also check out the site for people who study the rhetoric of science. http://www.hu.mtu.edu/aarst/ These people are no bible thumpers. In fact, their first president, John Lyne, had a habit of denigrating Christians and conservatives in his classes. Their point, however, is that there is much more rhetoric than simple truth finding in scientific argument. There are rules and games waaaaaay beyond the scientific method that _determine_ (what counts as) Truth. They even problematize the scientific method itself.
By the way, I love this bit of logic from one of the sites you mentioned. Referring to the Answers in Genesis website, the ‘No Answers’ website offers…
>>>And believe it or not, there is not ONE link on the AiG site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning.
AiG fails the scientific test with flying colours.<<<
I’ll end by mentioning the viciously and nauseatingly polemical college text from Edey and Johanson, _Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution_. I nearly got flunked in my bio class for pointing out the un-scientific nature of its arguments. (If others are interested and time allows, I’ll excerpt it here).
Terry “One Rhetoric Guy Amongst All the Philosophers” Baxter
| | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 2/5/2002 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
(If others are interested and time allows, I’ll excerpt it here).
Yeah, I would like to see what you are talking about.
quote:
I just wanted to mention, vis a vis faithfullservant’s last post, that we as Christians and deep thinkers need to be careful of falling in to the modernist trap of revering the scientific method and holding it sacrosanct.
Well, if it works, why not give it credibility, I am not revering it or holding it as sacred, but, I believe that it is very reliable, don't you? quote:
Now, I’m no Luddite, but I do know the scientific method has its flaws and premises as anything else does. For instance, the scientific method presupposes a natural explanation for everything—the universe is a closed system to them. Thus miracles are denied a priori.
Yeah, so, what are you getting at? What are you talking about, what science is this you are claiming has its presuppositions, all of it, some of it? I am not sure where you are going with that one,hmmm.Thanks for yer time, I hope the rhetoric thing works out, whatever that is, and that you have a good week...
Blessings
Mr.~P
http://www.angelfire.com/geek/toolfan | | Back to Top | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|