Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:IMO, the evening and morning symbolize the completeness of the cycle within that given "time frame".
That there is no evening and morning on the 7th day means that God is still working ( even at rest in His Temple), as Christ stated when He said that He is still working as His Father is still working.
John 5:17

The six "days" of work, were days where God created. The seventh day rest was God's rest from creating. God is not resting from any kind of work, just His creating work. See Genesis 2:1-3:

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created [a]and made.

God's seventh day rest(from creating), is an ongoing "day" of rest. At least until God creates a new heaven and a new earth.

Most of you know that I lean toward Old Earth Creationism. And I would suggest that anyone embracing TE should be very well read on the OEC stances - particularly materials by Hugh Ross/Reasons to Believe. But here's the thing, our tools and ability to properly assess our ancient planet's past history and its development of life are very limited. Just because somethings APPEAR to line up with an macro-evolutionary position does not make it fact.

I agree with jlay's statement: "TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory." Yes, this is an enormous leap onto a slippery slope - it's truly the embracing of belief that God just made up some cockamamie fairly tale about two naked people in a garden talking to a deceitful snake - a tale which, by the way, is crucial to understanding the fall of man, our sin nature, and need for a Savior - really, the foundational story of the entire Bible.

And as for those embracing TE, I would ask which version of evolution they embrace - let me count the current theories. They are full of HUGE holes and problems. Which amazes me that any Christian would embrace things so unproven and confirmed. Because the tremendous danger is that once you've mentally elevated evolution to being a known and proven FACT/TRUTH, then you're going to begin interpreting Scripture through that lens - which is enormously dangerous. You'll begin to try to match Scripture up with evolution and just gloss over the problems with it by asserting that God guided that process.

Jlay makes an important point! He comes from a YEC view and I a OEC view. And, at least I, could care less about the TIMELINE of how God created, as long as we can not argue over the whole issue of whether YEC or OEC is a more faithful believer in Scripture (as some no doubt do). But you say man sprang from animals, despite what Scripture says to the contrary, that Genesis is mostly allegory, and that the key thing driving such a viewpoint is that you believe that contemporary science has proven that macro-evolution (with all of its unexplained problems) was the process from which life on earth sprang - then you've elevated belief in something unproven, that HUGELY conflicts with the plain accounts in Scripture, to Scripture itself. If so, you have embraced TE FAR too early, and have discounted the story of Adam and Eve as being something akin to a Grimm's Fairy Tales - which will color your entire understanding of Scripture. This sounds like the pressure to appear modern and a progressive thinker is driving one's premature embracement of unproven theories. Just saying that God guided TE does not prove macro-evolution!

And as for the time arguments between OEC and YEC - at the end of the day (24 hour one, haha), it's a distraction from the fact that 1) GOD created ALL there is and 2) That how LONG He took to do it is pretty small beans (what's 13+ billion years to an Eternal Being, eh?) - but beans that the devil just loves to use for disunity and arguments. And any TE should know that the OEC viewpoint most certainly matches up well with contemporary science's observations and measurements. And the ONLY way one could believe in macro-evolution and also accommodate the miraculous and narrow window of the Cambrian Explosion is to say God was its Guider and Catalyst (which I obviously believe as well - minus the evolution aspect).

My biggest issue with ID is that, well, quite honestly many things do NOT seem very well designed or very "nice" at all.
Parasites for example, those paras tic wasps are another ( why would God create them like THAT?)
Our appendix for example.
I can accept an intelligent designer of course but not that ALL life was designed the way we know them to be RIGHT NOW.
Since we ALL came from the same source we all have the same kind of "life substance" and as such, we all have a "common ancestor".
The issue with evolution is how it relates to man.
Did man evolve into what we now call homo sapiens or was our species specially created?
I don't think that justbecause we share so much with "man" that came before us that this MUST mean that we evolved from on type of them.
BUT, at the same time, I don't see a big deal if that is indeed the case.

I am open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were unique and created and that homo sapiens as we know them now, as basically what we have from the "interbreeding" of Adam and Eve's offspring AND "other man" that was around at the time.

I am open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were the first a new type of creation and when they left Eden, they interbreed with the other type already in existence.

I am open to the possibility that Adam was the first fully Human man to find God and Eve was made "of him" as he was.

I am open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were the first human couple to find God and things went on from there.

I am also open to the possibility that OEC is right on the button.

Philip wrote:Most of you know that I lean toward Old Earth Creationism. And I would suggest that anyone embracing TE should be very well read on the OEC stances - particularly materials by Hugh Ross/Reasons to Believe. But here's the thing, our tools and ability to properly assess our ancient planet's past history and its development of life are very limited. Just because somethings APPEAR to line up with an macro-evolutionary position does not make it fact.

I agree with jlay's statement: "TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory." Yes, this is an enormous leap onto a slippery slope - it's truly the embracing of belief that God just made up some cockamamie fairly tale about two naked people in a garden talking to a deceitful snake - a tale which, by the way, is crucial to understanding the fall of man, our sin nature, and need for a Savior - really, the foundational story of the entire Bible.

And as for those embracing TE, I would ask which version of evolution they embrace - let me count the current theories. They are full of HUGE holes and problems. Which amazes me that any Christian would embrace things so unproven and confirmed. Because the tremendous danger is that once you've mentally elevated evolution to being a known and proven FACT/TRUTH, then you're going to begin interpreting Scripture through that lens - which is enormously dangerous. You'll begin to try to match Scripture up with evolution and just gloss over the problems with it by asserting that God guided that process.

Jlay makes an important point! He comes from a YEC view and I a OEC view. And, at least I, could care less about the TIMELINE of how God created, as long as we can not argue over the whole issue of whether YEC or OEC is a more faithful believer in Scripture (as some no doubt do). But you say man sprang from animals, despite what Scripture says to the contrary, that Genesis is mostly allegory, and that the key thing driving such a viewpoint is that you believe that contemporary science has proven that macro-evolution (with all of its unexplained problems) was the process from which life on earth sprang - then you've elevated belief in something unproven, that HUGELY conflicts with the plain accounts in Scripture, to Scripture itself. If so, you have embraced TE FAR too early, and have discounted the story of Adam and Eve as being something akin to a Grimm's Fairy Tales - which will color your entire understanding of Scripture. This sounds like the pressure to appear modern and a progressive thinker is driving one's premature embracement of unproven theories. Just saying that God guided TE does not prove macro-evolution!

And as for the time arguments between OEC and YEC - at the end of the day (24 hour one, haha), it's a distraction from the fact that 1) GOD created ALL there is and 2) That how LONG He took to do it is pretty small beans (what's 13+ billion years to an Eternal Being, eh?) - but beans that the devil just loves to use for disunity and arguments. And any TE should know that the OEC viewpoint most certainly matches up well with contemporary science's observations and measurements. And the ONLY way one could believe in macro-evolution and also accommodate the miraculous and narrow window of the Cambrian Explosion is to say God was its Guider and Catalyst (which I obviously believe as well - minus the evolution aspect).

You assume an awful lot about what I believe.

PaulSacramento wrote:My biggest issue with ID is that, well, quite honestly many things do NOT seem very well designed or very "nice" at all.
Parasites for example, those paras tic wasps are another ( why would God create them like THAT?)
Our appendix for example.
I can accept an intelligent designer of course but not that ALL life was designed the way we know them to be RIGHT NOW.
Since we ALL came from the same source we all have the same kind of "life substance" and as such, we all have a "common ancestor".
The issue with evolution is how it relates to man.
Did man evolve into what we now call homo sapiens or was our species specially created?
I don't think that justbecause we share so much with "man" that came before us that this MUST mean that we evolved from on type of them.
BUT, at the same time, I don't see a big deal if that is indeed the case.

I am open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were unique and created and that homo sapiens as we know them now, as basically what we have from the "interbreeding" of Adam and Eve's offspring AND "other man" that was around at the time.

I am open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were the first a new type of creation and when they left Eden, they interbreed with the other type already in existence.

I am open to the possibility that Adam was the first fully Human man to find God and Eve was made "of him" as he was.

I am open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were the first human couple to find God and things went on from there.

I am also open to the possibility that OEC is right on the button.

I am more inclined to believe that Adam and Eve are the first of Gods family and are there fore historical , but certainly not the first Humans. But all homosapiens were created in Gods image.

TE is broader than just accepting evolution scientifically and making God it's author and turning the Old Testament and Genesis to myth. That's an extreme characterization and not a fair one to project on the entire movement even if it is true of some elements of it or some who identify themselves as Theistic Evolutionists.

Canuckster1127 wrote:TE is broader than just accepting evolution scientifically and making God it's author and turning the Old Testament and Genesis to myth. That's an extreme characterization and not a fair one to project on the entire movement even if it is true of some elements of it or some who identify themselves as Theistic Evolutionists.

Agreed. I am edging towards what the Biologos team believe at Biologos.org

I keep up with Biologos and I have a lot of respect for them and for Francis Collins who is the founder. They're an important voice in this conversation, in my experience and opinion. They really cheese off Ken Ham too, which in my flesh is just an added bonus!

(I know .... I'm bad .....)

Silvertusk wrote:
I am more inclined to believe that Adam and Eve are the first of Gods family and are there fore historical , but certainly not the first Humans. But all homosapiens were created in Gods image.

If Adam and Eve weren't the first modern humans, were those humans that preceded them, sinless? If yes, then I believe you have some splainin to do regarding scripture.

Romans 3:23:

23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Unless "all" doesn't mean all.

If you believe that A & E weren't the first humans with a spirit, then how do you explain original sin, and Christ's redemption?

Canuckster1127 wrote:I keep up with Biologos and I have a lot of respect for them and for Francis Collins who is the founder. They're an important voice in this conversation, in my experience and opinion. They really cheese off Ken Ham too, which in my flesh is just an added bonus!

(I know .... I'm bad .....)

Now if Jac were still here this would've started another war.

From Biologos:http://biologos.org/questions/original-sin

In a Nutshell

Original sin often refers simply to the current state of humanity, in that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Evolution does not raise questions about our current state of sinfulness. It does, however, raise questions about how and when the first sin occurred, and how this fallen state was transmitted to all people. The sciences of evolution and archaeology can provide some insight into these questions but are not equipped to answer them. These questions are theological, and over the centuries the church has considered many possible answers. Some of these options are consistent with the scientific evidence currently available.

Sounds like a pretty weak answer to a question so essential to the Christian faith.

I'm not saying I'm calling TE heresy. But when a creation stance can't have an answer for how their stance deals with original sin and how it relates to Christ's redemption...

Byblos wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I keep up with Biologos and I have a lot of respect for them and for Francis Collins who is the founder. They're an important voice in this conversation, in my experience and opinion. They really cheese off Ken Ham too, which in my flesh is just an added bonus!

(I know .... I'm bad .....)

Now if Jac were still here this would've started another war.

Absolutely, Byblos. Jac is a YEC who says he used to be OEC. That would make for an interesting debate! Or War, if you prefer.

RickD wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:
I am more inclined to believe that Adam and Eve are the first of Gods family and are there fore historical , but certainly not the first Humans. But all homosapiens were created in Gods image.

If Adam and Eve weren't the first modern humans, were those humans that preceded them, sinless? If yes, then I believe you have some splainin to do regarding scripture.

Romans 3:23:

23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Unless "all" doesn't mean all.

If you believe that A & E weren't the first humans with a spirit, then how do you explain original sin, and Christ's redemption?

No they were not sinless. A&E were certainly given headship over all the human race and therefore the fall and need for redemption applied to all. Denis Alexander describes them as a sort of Homo Divinus. All events are placed with the context of the Genesis narrative. A&E were called like Abraham to be stewards of God's creation - therefore head of the homo sapien family. Homo Dinvius were the first family that was spiritually alive with God - the first time that God chose to reveal himself to a couple of Neolithic farmers

Again the above is speculation and Alexander goes into a lot more detail than that. But you can read that into the biblical account if you consider that the first part of Genesis is not talking about a singular man but Mankind and only goes to an individual in chapter 2.

I am not 100% convinced of this theory - but I do like it and it has some merit.

Again, Biologos views on the historicity of Adam and Eve:http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall

In a Nutshell

Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago. While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain. One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God. Another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize the large group of ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. Yet another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an “everyman” story, a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not take a particular view and encourages scholarly work on these questions.

If Biologos is going to promote a creation stance that claims to be biblical, can't they at least have a belief regarding Adam and Eve?

Whether or not one agrees with their stance, Reasons.org has no problem saying what they believe regarding the historicity of Adam:http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-th ... am-and-eve

Until a site can take a stand on Adam and Eve, original sin and Christ's redemption, I have a problem with accepting their view as biblical. Maybe if and when they come up with something, then it may fit scripture.

Slvertusk wrote:
No they were not sinless. A&E were certainly given headship over all the human race and therefore the fall and need for redemption applied to all. Denis Alexander describes them as a sort of Homo Divinus. All events are placed with the context of the Genesis narrative. A&E were called like Abraham to be stewards of God's creation - therefore head of the homo sapien family. Homo Dinvius were the first family that was spiritually alive with God - the first time that God chose to reveal himself to a couple of Neolithic farmers

Again the above is speculation and Alexander goes into a lot more detail than that. But you can read that into the biblical account if you consider that the first part of Genesis is not talking about a singular man but Mankind and only goes to an individual in chapter 2.

I am not 100% convinced of this theory - but I do like it and it has some merit.

Silvertusk, do you have a link that goes into detail on this? I'd like to check it out.