RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[crochet1949]

A question -- why do you attach the 10 billion-plus years time period on all of it? Because That gives room for everything to have developed from a mass of primordial soup to where we are Now. The Big Bang taking place Could be God creating the universe and everything - just as Genesis says it happened. But why not have it all happening 10,000 yrs ago.

Without a Designer - where did the 'other' dimension come from? Except for the Fact that everything Is here -- there's really no Need for any of to To exist.

God's Word /Bible has come into existence --- God telling mankind the why's, how and where fore's of all of this. Is God's Word our authority?

[Philip]

Crochet: A question -- why do you attach the 10 billion-plus years time period on all of it? Because That gives room for everything to have developed from a mass of primordial soup to where we are Now. The Big Bang taking place Could be God creating the universe and everything - just as Genesis says it happened. But why not have it all happening 10,000 yrs ago.

Because there is massive evidence of how long ago the Big Bang occurred - with many different tests concurring that timeline. And, as you should know, the wording of the Creation accounts is also consistent with long periods of time for the "Days." And, it is also possible that the wording isn't even meant to address the science or time length of the days, but that God, through Moses, was correcting the false beliefs and pagan creation mythology that the new nation of Israel had absorbed during its four centuries in Egypt (read, "In the Beginning We Misunderstood," by Johnny Miller). But even the issue over the time length are not the important point. What IS important is that one moment, a universe did not exist - no physical thing existed - not ever space existed. And in the very next seconds, it did - with all of its amazing attributes. What showed up, immediately must be explained, because the matter, quarks, physics, designs, governing laws all these many things immediately were orderly obeying - THESE are what must be explained. Where did they come from? How? From what non-physical dimension? So, whether the Creation came into existence in a literal 6 days, or whether it was billions of years, the REAL issue that must be dealt with is the very same. What awesomely powerful Intelligence is responsible for it?

Crochet: Without a Designer - where did the 'other' dimension come from? Except for the Fact that everything Is here -- there's really no Need for any of to To exist.

Bingo!

Crochet: God's Word /Bible has come into existence --- God telling mankind the why's, how and where fore's of all of this. Is God's Word our authority?

Absolutely, His Word is our authority! But it is not ONLY in His word that God testifies to His existence, creative power, etc:

Psalm 19:1-6: The first six verses of Psalm 19 testify to the revelation of God through His creation:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat (Psalm 19:1-6).

So, the Creation itself and what it reveals is also a testimony of God and His Creation. And that Creation has been exhaustively studied for what it reveals to us!

Paul, in Romans 1 extends the power of the testimony of what has been made:

"... since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse.

So, there are multiple lines of testimony of God: Through direct revelation in Scripture, AND through what has been created. And they are not in conflict - as they both are the testimonies of God of Himself. The Creation, that it even exists, that it has the attributes that it does - these demand an explanation of the Source and how they could be possible without an immensely powerful and supremely intelligent Creator. Arguments over the time, or the specific processes (direct creation of species, or slow evolutionary processes) are irrelevant to the dependent Source that made it all possible. The questions surrounding the Source of the Creation are what truly matter! The rest are mere details of how that played out - however accurately understood or not, they are of far less importance.

[abelcainsbrother]

A question -- why do you attach the 10 billion-plus years time period on all of it? Because That gives room for everything to have developed from a mass of primordial soup to where we are Now. The Big Bang taking place Could be God creating the universe and everything - just as Genesis says it happened. But why not have it all happening 10,000 yrs ago.

Without a Designer - where did the 'other' dimension come from? Except for the Fact that everything Is here -- there's really no Need for any of to To exist.

God's Word /Bible has come into existence --- God telling mankind the why's, how and where fore's of all of this. Is God's Word our authority?

God is eternal.It does not make sense to believe it all happened 10,000 years ago,especially when the evidence in the earth are evidence for an old earth universe and not a young earth.The bible does not teach the earth is young like you think,it is an interpretation that does not line up with the evidence.Did God create the moon with craters? This is why some young earthers have claimed God created it with the appearance of age,but this is an excuse and a weak one at that for the argument the earth is young.The moon has craters in it that show that meteors have hit it many of times,so what biblical event caused the craters in the moon if the earth is young like you believe?The evidence shows an old earth and moon that has been around alot longer than 10,000 years,especially when there are no biblical events that could put craters in the moon.It makes no sense that God created the moon with craters caused by meteors to trick us to believe the earth and moon are old.This is just one reason to believe the universe and the earth are old and not young.I think you have a big problem when your biblical interpretation does not line up with the evidence that God produced for us.

[crochet1949]

We're in agreement on most of that. However -- it Does matter how long the process of creation took. There's a verse that says that to God one day is a thousand years and a thousand days is like a day. And that's where the Long days of creation come in for lots of people. God created 'time' for Our sake, not His. But in Genesis 1 -- 'and the evening and the morning' were the 1st day, etc. right down to the 6th day and then God rested. And He blessed the 7th day. God was setting up our 'work week' for us. The Saturday Sabbath which turned to Sunday after Christ rose again on the 1st day of the week. But I'm getting WAY off topic.

Getting back To. Science says that it's not possible for all the various things to happen in one day as is being portrayed. If a person gives 'wiggle room' to that -- aren't we short-changing God's ability -- His omnipotence. Isn't He capable of creating with the appearance of age? He created Adam and then Eve with the ability to have children. They were the 1st married couple -- they were created with the ability to produce children -- they didn't have to spend time maturing in order to Eventually have children.

And I have no clue as to how evolutionists can have Anything 'evolving' without know what it's evolving From. The origin OF the development.

[crochet1949]

To ACB -- as I commented in the other post -- creation with the appearance of age. As in the example of Adam and Eve -- created ready to produce children. God created the planets the way He wanted them to be.

[crochet1949]

To Phillip -- No doubt God Did inspire Moses to tell mankind exactly how He did 'do it' because He knew that there would be future questions / speculation about how it Did all happen. There has been Lots of mythology dealing with creation and He has given us the Real method OF. Pretty cool of Him

[abelcainsbrother]

We're in agreement on most of that. However -- it Does matter how long the process of creation took. There's a verse that says that to God one day is a thousand years and a thousand days is like a day. And that's where the Long days of creation come in for lots of people. God created 'time' for Our sake, not His. But in Genesis 1 -- 'and the evening and the morning' were the 1st day, etc. right down to the 6th day and then God rested. And He blessed the 7th day. God was setting up our 'work week' for us. The Saturday Sabbath which turned to Sunday after Christ rose again on the 1st day of the week. But I'm getting WAY off topic.

Getting back To. Science says that it's not possible for all the various things to happen in one day as is being portrayed. If a person gives 'wiggle room' to that -- aren't we short-changing God's ability -- His omnipotence. Isn't He capable of creating with the appearance of age? He created Adam and then Eve with the ability to have children. They were the 1st married couple -- they were created with the ability to produce children -- they didn't have to spend time maturing in order to Eventually have children.

And I have no clue as to how evolutionists can have Anything 'evolving' without know what it's evolving From. The origin OF the development.

Yeah,but I reject evolution totally,but I still cannot overlook the evidence that tells us the earth is old. I've noticed that young earth creationists tend to link an old universe to evolution and because they reject evolution they reject an old earth but evolution can be wrong and the universe and earth can still be old.The interpretation I believe is biblical and lines up with the evidence in nature that tells us the heavens and earth are old and it does'nt mean evolution is true.This is why I believe the interpretation I go by is the most truthful as far as scripture and what it says and nature and what it says and I don't care about what is more popular.I think that when creationists teach the earth is young contrary to the evidence it makes evolution more believable,even when I believe evolution is a man-made myth.I believe creationism is in a crisis and both sides are wrong trying to prove the other one wrong,but with very little effect to scientific minded people.It always comes down to who we choose to believe more,without real evidence on either side,while both sides talk past each other.It is a confusing mess we are in.When if people knew the truth? There might be alot less confusion. Atleast with this interpretation I can take the known evidence in the earth and present a credible alternative theory to the theory of evolution,which I think no other creation interpretation has or can do.

It would be good to be able to take the bible and the evidence in nature and present an alternative theory based on that evidence where you are going by both the bible and the evidence in the earth that cannot be ignored by scientific minded people.You can take their own evidence and say no it does'nt prove evolution is true,it proves this true instead. So that you are using both the bible and the evidence in the earth to make a case for an alternative theory. The evidence proves we have "A Lost World" that existed before this world God made did,since Adam and Eve,this is why the evidence shows different kinds of life than the kinds of life we have in this world,etc, but has been overlooked because of evolution.Our God is eternal.

[Philip]

it Does matter how long the process of creation took.

Crotchet, you have greatly oversimplified the reasoning behind why many Christians and theologians believe the period of Creation were not normal, 24-hour days. You also know by now that a huge percentage of Christians believing the days were long periods ALSO unquestionably believe that the relevant Scriptures are true. But to US, today, and for any man living after the first human was created, what does the length of time involved truly matter? Until the interactions of Adam and God are recorded, how does that matter? The very same universe would exist no matter which aspect of the timeline of Creation is true. It's amazing how hung up over this issue of the time involved Christians often are. Mature Christians have opposing reasons and views on this issue, and they can both point to reasons from Scripture for them. Notice that God Himself dwells exceptionally briefly regarding the time issue. Because THAT isn't His most-relevant point or focus. The point is that Holy God, separate from and standing outside of and in full control of His Creation, began to create a physical universe, with his most important creation of His focus being man.

For unbelievers, they also typically hyper-focus on the wrong issue of the time - because they believe Scripture teaches what is unscientific concerning that - which they also tend to believe that if what is taught is contradicted by massive evidences, then the Bible can't possibly be the word of God. But as far as the existence of an eternal, all powerful, all-knowing God, they have a huge problem - because ALL that exists is entirely dependent upon what suddenly appeared and its characteristics. Of COURSE they love to talk about evolution - as if it's unquestionably proven (it is not!), and so, again, they see it as additional evidence that the Bible is false. They also believe evolution to be proof that there is no God. But even IF evolution was the life-producing/changing mechanism employed, if they would only realize that it would have been entirely dependent upon something (or Someone) eternal, all powerful, supremely intelligent, perhaps they would also realize that evolution proves not one thing about the existence of God. As a matter of fact, it not only would have been totally dependent upon the first created things - 10+ billion years before even the first simple cells came into existence - but there are aspects of how it supposedly worked that would have been insurmountable without a God controlling the processes involved. Even the functionality, designs and controlling laws of the very first things (that were not life but WERE the building blocks that would have provided the conditions to sustain it - but would not have CAUSED it) could not have evolved - as they showed up instantly.

So, both theists and Christians hyper-focused on the timelines surrounding the Creation AND unbelievers who have embraced evolution (many Christians do as well - I don't) are both hyper-focused upon the far less-important question: WHAT/WHO was the creative Source of the Universe? As a Christian, I have realized that arguing over evolution with unbelievers is pointless and unproductive (and serious arguments with other Christians over it are even dumber). To challenge agnostics and atheists over how evolution's abilities, conditions and building blocks would have even begun, without an intelligent eternal Cause - that makes people think, as they begin to realize that A) SOMETHING immensely intelligent and powerful had to pre-exist the universe and all physical things, as B) ALL things have a prior cause or are derivative of some prior thing, C) the first things all trace back to a first Source, and D) that first Source could not have created itself - a logical impossibility.

The reality, characteristics and Identity of the First Source should be what people should find far more important to have a handle upon than silly time issues. Funny, the time differences between the two views are a mere 14 billion years apart - that's like a "week" for God - Who is ETERNAL!

[crochet1949]

ACB -- yes, it IS a confusing mess we are in. Would you believe that I'm on another Forum talking about these same concept but with an atheist and evolutionist. So, yes, there are all sorts of views in this world.

Do we believe in an Almighty God or a watered-- down version of Him. There is tremendous pressure in the world to give into at least theistic evolution. In high school, college, university, the job market a person hardly dares to speak up FOR Scripture / God. Or risk flunking out, being ridiculed, etc. loosing a job. Ethics/ morality are almost non-existent. And Why? Because God's Word isn't taken seriously --If read at all.

There ARE scientists who ARE Christians and Do believe in Genesis creation --I've Googled it before. Their 'works' are buried because of lack of support in their various fields of study.

Yes, there are fields of science that support old-age -- fossil records and such. But there is Also evidence for the flood that indicates that the earth was literally turned inside out and upside down. And That would account for a lot of differences of opinions -- as in --did the Genesis flood actually happen -- local or global. None of these questions are simple in nature.

Discussion is good / healthy / gets people to thinking.

[crochet1949]

Philip -- the only reason I Do get into these conversations with Atheists and such is that there are others reading the posts -- and ya never know what is going to make a Positive impression on someone. Both the Forums I'm on are international in nature -- so it's hard telling who's being reached. Sort of my 'invisible' mission field. Anonymous in nature.

And, you have a lot of good points. And, salvation is the Most important subject a person can share about.

There are people I've attempted to engage in these subjects and it's avoided. So - I discuss and share when I can.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB -- yes, it IS a confusing mess we are in. Would you believe that I'm on another Forum talking about these same concept but with an atheist and evolutionist. So, yes, there are all sorts of views in this world.

Do we believe in an Almighty God or a watered-- down version of Him. There is tremendous pressure in the world to give into at least theistic evolution. In high school, college, university, the job market a person hardly dares to speak up FOR Scripture / God. Or risk flunking out, being ridiculed, etc. loosing a job. Ethics/ morality are almost non-existent. And Why? Because God's Word isn't taken seriously --If read at all.

There ARE scientists who ARE Christians and Do believe in Genesis creation --I've Googled it before. Their 'works' are buried because of lack of support in their various fields of study.

Yes, there are fields of science that support old-age -- fossil records and such. But there is Also evidence for the flood that indicates that the earth was literally turned inside out and upside down. And That would account for a lot of differences of opinions -- as in --did the Genesis flood actually happen -- local or global. None of these questions are simple in nature.

Discussion is good / healthy / gets people to thinking.

First off,I do not believe a different creation interpretation is watering down God's word.It is not a salvation issue,to me. However because of the crisis I think creationism is in it causes people to accept things like Theistic evolution based on the evidence in the earth,it does, But I believe this is because we do not have the correct interpretation and so it leads to all kinds of confusion out there. Look how long young earth creationism has been battling the theory of evolution,since about the 1970's when these young earth creation ministries started popping up to produce evidence that would confirm the young earth interpretation and yet after all of this time evolution is stronger than ever and it is more believable than young earth creationism.

As far as a global flood again,it is how young earth creation ministries that have taught it that make it so hard to believe. It is presented more like a fantasy than being real scientific.It is hard to prove a global flood if you believe it was global,but it hurts you when the way you teach it is not scientific,but just based on a made up hypothesis. For instance we have fossils in the earth,but Noah's flood would not have produced fossils because the sun was shining the whole time,any life that died would have just decayed away,or be eaten by scavengers.Noah's flood would not have produced fossils.Also dinosaurs would not have been on the ark because they did not live in this world.Also there were no caveman biblically,only Adam and Eve and yet they have to claim neanderthals are cavemen,because they do not know about the pre-Adamite race of beings that lived in the former world the bible tells us about when you understand it.

[crochet1949]

ACB -- what pre-Adamic race are you referring to. What former world.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB -- what pre-Adamic race are you referring to. What former world.

I've already explained this to you before.In order to have a world that perished you must have life and this world did not perish,which is why we are descendants of Adam and Eve,that would not be the case had this world perished in Noah's flood.Just like the life that lived in the former world is not related to the life in this world.

[Kurieuo]

We're in agreement on most of that. However -- it Does matter how long the process of creation took. There's a verse that says that to God one day is a thousand years and a thousand days is like a day. And that's where the Long days of creation come in for lots of people. God created 'time' for Our sake, not His. But in Genesis 1 -- 'and the evening and the morning' were the 1st day, etc. right down to the 6th day and then God rested. And He blessed the 7th day. God was setting up our 'work week' for us. The Saturday Sabbath which turned to Sunday after Christ rose again on the 1st day of the week. But I'm getting WAY off topic.

I think anyone has missed the purpose of Genesis 1-2:3 if they focus in on time -- often missing that it is about identifying and establishing Israel's God as the one true God of all creation.

I doubt you'll change your mind, however, here are three points I'd hope gives you pause to think.

1) On which day of creation do you believe the Sun was made? (Day 4, right?) Do you see any repetition on Day 4 that could point back to Day 1? ("night" and "day", separating "light" from "darkness"). There's repitition here, but why is Moses pointing back to Day 1? There are definitely the same, only more details presented on Day 4, right?

2) We know Genesis 1 comes to an end around around Genesis 2:3. One reason we know this is because it is written in different prose to Gen 2:4+. In the original Hebrew, there is a stylistic form used for Genesis 1, that is, the writer likely intended it to be sung as a hymnic chant (great for passing on orally, given printing press wasn't then had and most people couldn't read, such would lend itself well to an important oral tradition).

Some might not classify it as "poetry" which is often associated with rhyme today. Yet, "rhyme" wasn't so important important in Hebrew "poetry" (as you can tell by reading less controversial Scripture elsewhere, such as the Psalms). Rather, Hebrew poems commonly use repetition, chiasmus, parallelism, and the like. Note, NIV translation reproduce the text with hanging indentation to mark the poetic structure. To quote from a source, "Each section begins with an anaphora: "And God said . . ." Each section ends with epistrophe: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the . . . day." Likewise, after the first two days, we have the artistic repetition of the phrase "And God saw that it was good," leading up to a final crescendo, "and it was very good" in Genesis 1:31."

3) Should we understand Days 1-3 to be intended as literal days? I'm not talking 24-hours, I'm talking REAL literal days intended involving the Sun rising and setting in accordance to the "evening and morning" refrain at the end of Day 1, and Day 2, and Day 3. Yet, the Sun isn't made until Day 4. How is this possible?

Given, points 1-3 above, I believe there is strong justification to take a closer look at the literary structure, the way in which the author structured the writing, other than a straight top-to-bottom approach. Many writers orchestrate their writings into "frames" or in a certain way to serve their desired purposes, and given the form of writing used in Genesis 1 perhaps we can identify more to such? Here we shouldn't forget this whole Genesis 1 passage to Genesis 2:3 is about establishing Israel's God as the one true God of all creation. That's the objective Moses wants to achieve in whatever literary framework, style and form he adopts.

So then, what structure could there be? In addition to the "poetic" elements, many note a "parallelism" that exists between Day 1 where God separates the light from darkness, and Day 4 which contains this too as well as more information on how God separated the light from darkness, the Sun in the sky, stars for seasons etc. This can mean the two days actually cross into/are related to each other. If a parallelism is indeed a true structure adopted, then we ought to see this trend continue for the following days.

So lets look at Day 2 and Day 5, notice anything in common?

• Day 2: 6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven.
  Day 5: Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

Next, look at Day 3 and Day 6:

• Day 3: Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”... Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
  Day 6: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”

The parallelism here is impossible to miss, I'm sure it's not just coincidence that we have God setting up the different "domains" (or "kingdoms") on Days 1-3 and then providing greater details of their being populated on Days 4-6.

Then on Day 7 we have God resting and blessing the seventh day (the Sabbath which Israel were to keep). Keeping the Sabbath symbolised Israel's God as Lord of all creation, and so keeping it was a way for Israel to remember and honour their God as the One true God of all creation. Interestingly, the seventh day of rest isn't closed, but in Hebrews 4 we are encouraged to enter into "that rest" (God's), the Sabbath day of rest. So, a 7-day framework is very important theologically to Israel (and us today as Christians who enter into God's rest via Christ), so a 6-1 structure was most effective to adopt by Moses and God (given we accept divine authorship also). It's like the finishing touch, polish, divine seal of the whole creation story as that of Israel's God over all creation.

What then of historical truth? Many want to discard, but I think such is throwing the baby out with the water. Evidently, this is also a story that talks of a historical origins, of cosmogony, the earth and creatures including ourselves. One can't just call Genesis 1 symbolic, there are clear historical literal truths being communicated. Unlike some, I also do not believe chronology should be entirely removed, for it seems clear to me the parallelism in Days 1+4 (especially these, since Day 4 reiterates Day 1 events), Days 2+5 and Days 3+6 -- that these days are to be joined together to form a type of joint chronology.

Thus, the basic order is three-fold (a Trinitarian foreshadowing even?) based upon kingdoms -- the heavens and stars, then seas and air and sea life and birds, and finally the land, vegetation and animals. Days 1-3 are an accounting of the kingdoms, and Days 4-6 an accounting of filling them out (luminaries and creatures), yet 1+4, 2+5 and 3+6 are to be taken together. Don't just take my word for it though, re-read Genesis 1 with these new insights.

[Philip]

crochet1949 wrote:
ACB -- what pre-Adamic race are you referring to. What former world.

For the love of God, woman, don't get ACB started...