Evolution, Science, and God

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
Find the link and the date of the broadcast.  It's far more likely that you mis-heard / misunderstood / weren't paying attention.  The speed of a light is a universal constant. Period.

You don't know for sure.[/quote]

Yes, I do know for sure. The speed of light is a contstant, period.

You haven't be able to measure it throughout the known Universe.

Not necessary.

This may soon change. I'm not going to do your work for you. Find it yourself.

You're the one with the claim. You prove it.
You're the one who claims it exists.
Your claim.
Your job to prove it.

1. LOL nice try at changing the subject.  You asked for evidence that the Gap viewpoint was scientifically wrong.  I gave it to you, from two sources that are supposedly creationist.  Where is your analysis of their position? Where is your examination of their claims?  Oh, that's right:  you don't actually engage in any heavy lifting; too much work involved.

2. As for what ICR and AIG reject - it tells me nothing at all.  All three of you are wrong.

You posted a link without pointing out anything you agree with.

I don't have to agree with it. 
I posted the link to show you that not even the two largest creationist organizations agree with it.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
1. Nope
2. If you really want to discuss this... I will start another thread.
[/quote]
Whatever.

3. I apologize for calling you a idiot and a moron. Don't call me stupid, uneducated, or anything else and I will not return fire. It often amazes me how people want to draw a line with "moron" and "idoit" while calling someone stupid.

Excuse me? You were the first one to start getting abusive. And I put up with it for several pages of posts.

Don't try to play the wounded martyr here, like you were somehow being picked on. 
You were the rude and abusive aggressor, not me.
And you weren't just doing it with me, either. You also lashed out at rsc2a.

That's the nice thing about the internet: when people like you try to whitewash their past behavior, there's an electronic paper trail showing what *really* happened.

 

[brianb]

This is an interesting read
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bart_klink/evolution.html

Even this guy thinks that theistic evolution is unscriptural.  Why is it that atheists understand Genesis better than some Christians? I think theistic evolutionists make themselves look like fools to atheists  when they try to reinterpret Genesis to make it agree with modern science. It's better just to read it the way it is without trying to interpret it if you are going to interpret it that way.

 

[Izdaari]

Something I learned from years of debating with atheists:

A lot of atheists try to force Christians into a literalist and fundamentalist box, because that makes it easier to argue against them. And it makes it easier for them to dismiss it in their own minds and not take it seriously.

 

[rsc2a]

Again, the words of Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

 

[brianb]

Again, the words of Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

In The City of God, Augustine also defended the idea of a young Earth. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings:

    "Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."

Augustine changed his mind somewhat. Also did Augustine have the Hebrew scriptures or something else? The Hebrew is very different from other languages such as Greek. For example in Genesis where it say "ye shall surely die" in English, the Hebrew actually says "dying ye shall die" so it is neither just spiritual death or physical death - it is long process starting with spiritual death and leading to physical death. Also concerning the days of creation the very Orthodox Jews interpret these days as 24 hour (or one full rotation of the earth) days. The sixth day work week and the OT sabbath is based on a literal interpretation of these days. If you reinterpret the Genesis 1 days into long periods than you have only a metaphorical reason for a sabbath every week? Were the Old Testament Jews wrong? It was God who gave them the sabbath and the reason for the sabbath. If as some (e.g. Progressive Creationists) have suggested the seventh day in Genesis 2 is a long period of many days which God sanctified wouldn't that mean that every literal 24 hour day would be holy at least to the Jews or in the Old Testament when God gave them the law? And there is no indication that this sabbath day was unknown before. When God said "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" - every one hearing that would have known what the sabbath day was - the only thing that would be new to them was having to keep it as a law. Also this literal seventh day sabbath is said to be the Lord's sabbath - the Lord's sabbath is not some long age - if it was true that God was still resting there would not be miracles such as the multiplying of the fish and loaves - that's clearly an act of creation - creating something from nothing. You can't have God resting and doing a creative work at the same time - it's one or the other. If Progressive Creationists like Hugh Ross are right then God by his own acts contradicted himself - there are a number of times in history recorded in the Bible since the finished work of creation when God created something out of nothing.

 

[rsc2a]

Augustine changed his mind.

And, that's what is important...he allowed himself to.

 

[rsc2a]

Grr....I wish people would just add new posts instead of editing old posts and adding a lot of information....anyways....

In The City of God, Augustine also defended the idea of a young Earth...

Augustine did not believe each "day" was a 24-hr period but instead thought that each day was a period of 1000 years (if I recall). Furthermore, he specifically stated that one should allow general revelation to inform one's interpretation of Scripture, specifically Genesis 1-3. If anything, Augustine advocated for a framework view of creation:

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" - Augustine"

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." - Augustine

Augustine changed his mind somewhat. Also did Augustine have the Hebrew scriptures or something else? The Hebrew is very different from other languages such as Greek.

He primarily spoke Latin and generally compared various translations in order to determine the original intent. He also (like me) believed it wasn't the actual words that were important as much as the message behind those words.

For example in Genesis where it say "ye shall surely die" in English, the Hebrew actually says "dying ye shall die" so it is neither just spiritual death or physical death - it is long process starting with spiritual death and leading to physical death.

Perhaps.

(On this, I agree with you.)

Also concerning the days of creation the very Orthodox Jews interpret these days as 24 hour (or one full rotation of the earth) days.

With just a little effort, I could find you very old Jewish commentaries that would refute this claim. I also happen to know some Orthodox Jews who will tell you that the majority of Jews accept an allegorical reading of Genesis. In fact, it is not even a doctrinal requirement for the Orthodox Jews.

The sixth day work week and the OT sabbath is based on a literal interpretation of these days. If you reinterpret the Genesis 1 days into long periods than you have only a metaphorical reason for a sabbath every week?

So?

Were the Old Testament Jews wrong? It was God who gave them the sabbath and the reason for the sabbath.

Allegorical ≠ "wrong"

If as some (e.g. Progressive Creationists) have suggested the seventh day in Genesis 2 is a long period of many days which God sanctified wouldn't that mean that every literal 24 hour day would be holy at least to the Jews or in the Old Testament when God gave them the law? And there is no indication that this sabbath day was unknown before. When God said "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" - every one hearing that would have known what the sabbath day was - the only thing that would be new to them was having to keep it as a law. Also this literal seventh day sabbath is said to be the Lord's sabbath - the Lord's sabbath is not some long age - if it was true that God was still resting there would not be miracles such as the multiplying of the fish and loaves - that's clearly an act of creation - creating something from nothing.

Then you've got problems with the book of Hebrews...

You can't have God resting and doing a creative work at the same time - it's one or the other.

You've got problems with your theology here...God is always "doing" something, namely holding creation together.

If Progressive Creationists like Hugh Ross are right then God by his own acts contradicted himself - there are a number of times in history recorded in the Bible since the finished work of creation when God created something out of nothing.

This makes no sense...did you mean something else?

 

[brianb]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

Good question.  Though I'd pose it without the additional stuff:  Since the Hebrew for "man" and for "Adam" is the same throughout Genesis 1 & 2, where should it be translated "man" (generic) and where should it be translated "Adam" (a specific person)?  And why?

 

[Izdaari]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

I could be either one, depending on what day of the week it is and what I had for lunch. 

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam...

I have no idea. The translation issue CM raised in the previous post makes it murky.

...and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

I've never thought, at least not since I was a kid, that the image and likeness of God meant that we literally look like God. God is spirit, and can look like anything He wants, a man (George Burns? ), a burning bush, a cloud, whatever. We are like God in being spirit and not just animal, and in being sentient beings capable of reasoning, emotion and moral choices.

 

[rsc2a]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

Good question.  Though I'd pose it without the additional stuff:  Since the Hebrew for "man" and for "Adam" is the same throughout Genesis 1 & 2, where should it be translated "man" (generic) and where should it be translated "Adam" (a specific person)?  And why?

We also have to ask ourselves if this is a question the text is supposed to answer. I try not to pull answers out of passages to questions that the author never "asked".

 

[brianb]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

Good question.  Though I'd pose it without the additional stuff:  Since the Hebrew for "man" and for "Adam" is the same throughout Genesis 1 & 2, where should it be translated "man" (generic) and where should it be translated "Adam" (a specific person)?  And why?

When I first learned about "the evolution of man" I learned about the names for what theistic evolutionists and Progressives call hominids - they all begin the latin "homo" which means man, modern man is homo sapien which literally means wise man. Naturalistic/classic evolutionists put homo sapiens in the same class as homo erectus, homo habilus and others in the same genus "homo". The only problem with making the original species of "homo" to be the "man" is the attributes given such as what I mentioned earlier and also having dominion - there is no evidence of dominion. They are all prehistoric so how can someone like Hugh Ross say that Adam lived 50,000 years ago and is part of all the Jewish geneaologies in the Bible. This genealogy was passed down orally from Adam to the time it was recorded in holy scripture. To me 10,000's of years is too long for the Jewish people to accurately keep them in their family tradition. Eventually they would lose the genealogies and wouldn't know who Adam or even Noah was. Job knew who Adam was and he was just a regular guy who God revealed himself to. If he knew who Adam was then he probably knew who Adam's descendants were. People like Adam and Noah are spoken of as historical figures. Just because they are not in any secular histories doesn't mean they were not contemporary with famously historical figures such as King Sargon whoever was a king at that time. Remember that Adam and Noah were just regular guys so they would not likely be noteworthy to the ungodly chroniclers of that time - all they cared about was what their kings were doing.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

Good question.  Though I'd pose it without the additional stuff:  Since the Hebrew for "man" and for "Adam" is the same throughout Genesis 1 & 2, where should it be translated "man" (generic) and where should it be translated "Adam" (a specific person)?  And why?

When I first learned about "the evolution of man" I learned about the names for what theistic evolutionists and Progressives call hominids - they all begin the latin "homo" which means man, modern man is homo sapien which literally means wise man. Naturalistic/classic evolutionists put homo sapiens in the same class as homo erectus, homo habilus and others in the same genus "homo". The only problem with making the original species of "homo" to be the "man" is the attributes given such as what I mentioned earlier and also having dominion - there is no evidence of dominion. They are all prehistoric so how can someone like Hugh Ross say that Adam lived 50,000 years ago and is part of all the Jewish geneaologies in the Bible. This genealogy was passed down orally from Adam to the time it was recorded in holy scripture. To me 10,000's of years is too long for the Jewish people to accurately keep them in their family tradition. Eventually they would lose the genealogies and wouldn't know who Adam or even Noah was. Job knew who Adam was and he was just a regular guy who God revealed himself to. If he knew who Adam was then he probably knew who Adam's descendants were. People like Adam and Noah are spoken of as historical figures. Just because they are not in any secular histories doesn't mean they were not contemporary with famously historical figures such as King Sargon whoever was a king at that time. Remember that Adam and Noah were just regular guys so they would not likely be noteworthy to the ungodly chroniclers of that time - all they cared about was what their kings were doing.

This supports my comment somewhere else that Cain was afraid of people who existed before Adam and Eve.  They were not family. 

 

[brianb]

Question for Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists if applicable.

Is the creation of man in Genesis 1 separate from the creation of Adam and if so what does the image and likeness of God mean because it says they were made in the image and after the likeness of God?

Good question.  Though I'd pose it without the additional stuff:  Since the Hebrew for "man" and for "Adam" is the same throughout Genesis 1 & 2, where should it be translated "man" (generic) and where should it be translated "Adam" (a specific person)?  And why?

When I first learned about "the evolution of man" I learned about the names for what theistic evolutionists and Progressives call hominids - they all begin the latin "homo" which means man, modern man is homo sapien which literally means wise man. Naturalistic/classic evolutionists put homo sapiens in the same class as homo erectus, homo habilus and others in the same genus "homo". The only problem with making the original species of "homo" to be the "man" is the attributes given such as what I mentioned earlier and also having dominion - there is no evidence of dominion. They are all prehistoric so how can someone like Hugh Ross say that Adam lived 50,000 years ago and is part of all the Jewish geneaologies in the Bible. This genealogy was passed down orally from Adam to the time it was recorded in holy scripture. To me 10,000's of years is too long for the Jewish people to accurately keep them in their family tradition. Eventually they would lose the genealogies and wouldn't know who Adam or even Noah was. Job knew who Adam was and he was just a regular guy who God revealed himself to. If he knew who Adam was then he probably knew who Adam's descendants were. People like Adam and Noah are spoken of as historical figures. Just because they are not in any secular histories doesn't mean they were not contemporary with famously historical figures such as King Sargon whoever was a king at that time. Remember that Adam and Noah were just regular guys so they would not likely be noteworthy to the ungodly chroniclers of that time - all they cared about was what their kings were doing.

This supports my comment somewhere else that Cain was afraid of people who existed before Adam and Eve.  They were not family.

Since you brought up Cain
My answer to the question Where did Cain get his wife.

Firstly the average lifespan was very long 100's of years so both Abel and Cain could have been over one hundred by the time they got married. They would have had a lot of sisters and cousins by that age depending on what the childbearing age was then and because there was no danger of genetic defects or disease through this kind of union it was fine. Abraham is an example of someone who married his half-sister but in Moses time that was forbidden. In Genesis when God said be fruitful and multiply there were no restrictions.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Since you brought up Cain
My answer to the question Where did Cain get his wife.

Firstly the average lifespan was very long 100's of years so both Abel and Cain could have been over one hundred by the time they got married. They would have had a lot of sisters and cousins by that age depending on what the childbearing age was then and because there was no danger of genetic defects or disease through this kind of union it was fine. Abraham is an example of someone who married his half-sister but in Moses time that was forbidden. In Genesis when God said be fruitful and multiply there were no restrictions.

I have no idea where Cain got his wife.  Could have been family. 

I get your point, but for me, it still boils down to stuff like this: 

"Today you will drive me from this land."  What land?  From the context, it sounds like it's the land where his family lived, including Adam, Eve and Abel, and that land was special - it was in the Lord's direct presence.  I'm not sure why any of the family would deliberately move away from that land unless they were driven out.  Cain was driven out, and even he, being evil, didn't want to go. 

"whoever finds me will kill me" -- if the only population in the world were of the Adam and Eve family, was it standard practice in those days to kill family if they happened by?  Even if they were also previously driven out? 

"So Cain went out from the LORD

 

[brianb]

Since you brought up Cain
My answer to the question Where did Cain get his wife.

Firstly the average lifespan was very long 100's of years so both Abel and Cain could have been over one hundred by the time they got married. They would have had a lot of sisters and cousins by that age depending on what the childbearing age was then and because there was no danger of genetic defects or disease through this kind of union it was fine. Abraham is an example of someone who married his half-sister but in Moses time that was forbidden. In Genesis when God said be fruitful and multiply there were no restrictions.

I have no idea where Cain got his wife.  Could have been family. 

I get your point, but for me, it still boils down to stuff like this: 

"Today you will drive me from this land."  What land?  From the context, it sounds like it's the land where his family lived, including Adam, Eve and Abel, and that land was special - it was in the Lord's direct presence.  I'm not sure why any of the family would deliberately move away from that land unless they were driven out.  Cain was driven out, and even he, being evil, didn't want to go. 

"whoever finds me will kill me" -- if the only population in the world were of the Adam and Eve family, was it standard practice in those days to kill family if they happened by?  Even if they were also previously driven out? 

"So Cain went out from the LORD

 

[Castor Muscular]

Since you brought up Cain
My answer to the question Where did Cain get his wife.

Firstly the average lifespan was very long 100's of years so both Abel and Cain could have been over one hundred by the time they got married. They would have had a lot of sisters and cousins by that age depending on what the childbearing age was then and because there was no danger of genetic defects or disease through this kind of union it was fine. Abraham is an example of someone who married his half-sister but in Moses time that was forbidden. In Genesis when God said be fruitful and multiply there were no restrictions.

I have no idea where Cain got his wife.  Could have been family. 

I get your point, but for me, it still boils down to stuff like this: 

"Today you will drive me from this land."  What land?  From the context, it sounds like it's the land where his family lived, including Adam, Eve and Abel, and that land was special - it was in the Lord's direct presence.  I'm not sure why any of the family would deliberately move away from that land unless they were driven out.  Cain was driven out, and even he, being evil, didn't want to go. 

"whoever finds me will kill me" -- if the only population in the world were of the Adam and Eve family, was it standard practice in those days to kill family if they happened by?  Even if they were also previously driven out? 

"So Cain went out from the LORD

 

[Bro Blue]

You guys correct me if I'm wrong on this:

In Genesis 4:14, whose to say that someone killing him was a probable event? That was a fear he expressed, and we don't know why.
Vs. 15, God eases his troubled mind.
Vs. 16, who says that land was already inhabited?
Vs. 17, his wife was family.

 

[brianb]

Since you brought up Cain
My answer to the question Where did Cain get his wife.

Firstly the average lifespan was very long 100's of years so both Abel and Cain could have been over one hundred by the time they got married. They would have had a lot of sisters and cousins by that age depending on what the childbearing age was then and because there was no danger of genetic defects or disease through this kind of union it was fine. Abraham is an example of someone who married his half-sister but in Moses time that was forbidden. In Genesis when God said be fruitful and multiply there were no restrictions.

I have no idea where Cain got his wife.  Could have been family. 

I get your point, but for me, it still boils down to stuff like this: 

"Today you will drive me from this land."  What land?  From the context, it sounds like it's the land where his family lived, including Adam, Eve and Abel, and that land was special - it was in the Lord's direct presence.  I'm not sure why any of the family would deliberately move away from that land unless they were driven out.  Cain was driven out, and even he, being evil, didn't want to go. 

"whoever finds me will kill me" -- if the only population in the world were of the Adam and Eve family, was it standard practice in those days to kill family if they happened by?  Even if they were also previously driven out? 

"So Cain went out from the LORD