Genesis v Evolution

[Orogeny]

Oregeny,

Don’t go there. I think that deception argument is bogus. We as humans are not capable of complete interpretation. We do not know the parameters early on.

It is a valid argument. We have been given our intellect by God the Creator. We may not be capable of complete interpretation, but we are capable of understanding that which we have found.

Bottom line is that there are way too many lines of evidence that point to an old earth. If the story that Ed puts forth is literally correct, that evidence was also created by God. And for what reason? Only humans have the ability or desire to look for, find and interpret that evidence. Why would God put it there?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

It is a valid argument. We have been given our intellect by God the Creator. We may not be capable of complete interpretation, but we are capable of understanding that which we have found.

Bottom line is that there are way too many lines of evidence that point to an old earth. If the story that Ed puts forth is literally correct, that evidence was also created by God. And for what reason? Only humans have the ability or desire to look for, find and interpret that evidence. Why would God put it there?

Peace

Tim

We do see evidence through our lens of an old earth. However, if some paramters are changed (such as the speed of light) the time line is no longer linear. A map of the earth when laid out distorts the features of the areas further from the equator. From early childhood we have all seen this view, a distorted one nonetheless, and we have to reinterpret to convert in our minds back to a spherical representation.

If time has unflolded linearly then I have to agree with our current interpretation. If it has not, then all bets are off.

 

[edwest2]

WE don’t. Earth and man in six days is no problem for God. The problem is that if that is literally true, He didn’t stop there. He then created all the evidence to convince us that the earth is old and man evolved. A deceiver God? Is that what you believe?

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

Only if you are committed to a Naturalistic worldview. As I wrote, God performs miracles. The Bible clearly states that there would not be enough books in the world to record all the things Jesus did. To look at it a bit more scientifically, what did Jesus contribute to the population of the areas He traveled in during his later years? Dead people being brought back to life, lepers cleansed, blind made to see, paralytics and the lame made whole. It strengthened the whole area. He intervened and removed hardships and even gave life to the dead. Presumably, some of these people returned to the gene pool and as productive individuals. Nature was overcome.

Pope Benedict did say there was evidence for evolution and he did say evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I’m fine with that as the final word. I am putting my faith and trust in the Church in the matter of working out the details of these statements. It is very strange that unlike any other subject, there is such an “evangelistic” zeal present in the promoters of evolution. Why? The truth? Presenting facts? If that’s all it was, we, meaning Christians, could make up our own minds. But no, instead the evolution promoters keep coming back. "Do you believe yet? Do you believe yet? How about now?’ Obviously, the goal is to create universal belief. Why?

Like I wrote, I’m sticking with what Pope Benedict stated and will wait for further word from the Church.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

We do see evidence through our lens of an old earth. However, if some paramters are changed (such as the speed of light) the time line is no longer linear. A map of the earth when laid out distorts the features of the areas further from the equator. From early childhood we have all seen this view, a distorted one nonetheless, and we have to reinterpret to convert in our minds back to a spherical representation.

If time has unflolded linearly then I have to agree with our current interpretation. If it has not, then all bets are off.

We don’t have any scientific reason to expect that time isn’t linear with respect to the earth. If things like time and the speed of light have changed, and we have no evidence that it has, then doesn’t that also fall into the “deceptive God” category? Once again, God gave us the desire and ability to look for, find and interpret evidence evidence. Why would He make it seem old if it weren’t?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

We don’t have any scientific reason to expect that time isn’t linear with respect to the earth. If things like time and the speed of light have changed, and we have no evidence that it has, then doesn’t that also fall into the “deceptive God” category? Once again, God gave us the desire and ability to look for, find and interpret evidence evidence. Why would He make it seem old if it weren’t?

Peace

Tim

No, He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is under no obligation to reveal to us how he performs miracles. He does not have to create so that we can grasp.

We cannot see outside our own frame. We cannot see the begining of creation from outside, only inside. The flat people can only see two dimensions. They could also make the claim God is deceptive.

 

[steveandersen]

Who are we to say God does not cause miracles? Raising the dead, water to wine, commanding the wind. These are things God can do. Earth and man in six days? No problem.

God bless,
Ed

Oh I agree that there is no problem with that. God can do anything He wills. But it raises two questions.

(1) Why 6,000 years ago? Why not 60,000 years or 60 seconds?

(2) If the world is only 6,000 years old why did God make it look like it is billions of years old?

 

[Orogeny]

No, He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is under no obligation to reveal to us how he performs miracles. He does not have to create so that we can grasp.

I agree with you, but that doesn’t answer the question. Why would He create evidence that would deceive us?

We cannot see outside our own frame. We cannot see the begining of creation from outside, only inside. The flat people can only see two dimensions. They could also make the claim God is deceptive.

Hehe, when I first read this, I thought you wrote “fat people” and I thought “how does buffalo know I need to lose a few pounds?”

That is correct, we cannot see outside our own frame. Once again, though, since God knows that, why would he create evidence to deceive us? I’m not buying it.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you, but that doesn’t answer the question. Why would He create evidence that would deceive us?Hehe, when I first read this, I thought you wrote “fat people” and I thought “how does buffalo know I need to lose a few pounds?”

That is correct, we cannot see outside our own frame. Once again, though, since God knows that, why would he create evidence to deceive us? I’m not buying it.

Peace

Tim

So you are of the mind God would not or should not create so we can easily figure this stuff out?

 

[edwest2]

I’m sticking with Pope Benedict’s statements that there is evidence for evolution and that evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I trust in that and will keep that in mind until further elaboration is given.

Make the earth look old? Well, let’s look at the Bible. If we believe God is capable of producing miracles, then the earth was assembled and made ready to live on for the first man in days. The Garden was made for Adam to tend. This the power of God at work. Certain internal processes, heat and radioactivity, were made to shut down and/or regulated and arranged to allow for a healthy environment for man and all life. Polonium halos appear to be an indicator of this action.

Then there was a global flood. Jesus refers to “the days of Noe” as a real event.

For a while, I looked at the science and attempted to imagine how it affected scripture. My mistake. Using the Bible as my starting point, things appear to be as I’ve described.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

So you are of the mind God would not or should not create so we can easily figure this stuff out?

I don’t believe God would purposely create evidence for the sole purpose of deceiving us.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Make the earth look old? Well, let’s look at the Bible. If we believe God is capable of producing miracles, then the earth was assembled and made ready to live on for the first man in days. The Garden was made for Adam to tend. This the power of God at work. Certain internal processes, heat and radioactivity, were made to shut down and/or regulated and arranged to allow for a healthy environment for man and all life. Polonium halos appear to be an indicator of this action.

Sorry, Ed, but polonium halos as an argument for a young earth has been completely debunked.

talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

Your claims about heat and radioactivity are un-biblical. Where in scripture did you get that?

Then there was a global flood. Jesus refers to “the days of Noe” as a real event.

There was no global flood.

For a while, I looked at the science and attempted to imagine how it affected scripture. My mistake. Using the Bible as my starting point, things appear to be as I’ve described.

Yes, that is a mistake because science doesn’t affect scripture at all, only our human interpretation of scripture.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

I believe there was a global flood as Jesus made reference to it. The Bible will be my starting point, always.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

I believe there was a global flood as Jesus made reference to it. The Bible will be my starting point, always.

As with believing in a literal 6 day creation, I don’t have a problem with you believing in the flood. I have a problem when you try to use science to support it and I would have a problem if you were to try to make it a requirement for my faith. As long as you do neither, I have no issues with you on this subject.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

I’m not making it a requirement of your faith or anyone’s faith. I have a lot less faith in science now, especially due to my recent experiences all over the internet. It is clear that it is being subverted toward ideological ends that I do not agree with. Too bad. I’ve always enjoyed science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Nepenthe]

edwest2:

I’m not making it a requirement of your faith or anyone’s faith. I have a lot less faith in science now, especially due to my recent experiences all over the internet. It is clear that it is being subverted toward ideological ends that I do not agree with. Too bad. I’ve always enjoyed science.

Keep enjoying it! It is a noble pursuit, and you do seem to have some understanding of the primary physical sciences (physics and chem) and as Mirdath pointed out, bio is very very complex. You’re getting there though, if you wish to, and if you don’t wish to understand it, then why debate over it?

Science is not being ‘subverted’ by ideological concerns. It doesn’t care about those things, any more than a hammer cares whether it’s used to bung someone up on a crucifix or build a house. Scientists know that very well indeed. Sure some people misuse it now and then to further their own ideologies, but they generally receive the full-blown debunking ire of…yep, other scientists, fellows in the trade.

Please don’t confuse the practitioners with the practice. The guy who builds your house may have all kinds of beliefs and agendae you don’t approve of, but would you rather have a chef construct your domicile? No! You’d ask them to cook dinner!

 

[abu_kamoon]

“WE don’t. Earth and man in six days is no problem for God. The problem is that if that is literally true, He didn’t stop there. He then created all the evidence to convince us that the earth is old and man evolved. A deceiver God? Is that what you believe?”

If God created us by the process of evolution, and then inspired the writing of Genesis, would not THAT make him a deciever? Why would He tell us what is written in Genesis? Why wouldn’t He tell us the truth? Is God a deceiver?

 

[edwest2]

Why are you missing the obvious? I’d like to point out again, that people like Sam Harris go to scientific conferences and talk about the “alien hiss” of religion and about the scientists who speak about it. They are referred to as being like “pod people,” that look and act like scientists but are not.

Then we have Richard Dawkins making the rounds on television, talking about science and the God, well, you know, Delusion. He’s set up a foundation you know.

And then we have Rally for Reason, a group supported primarily by atheists, that decided to protest at the Creation Museum. It contains no evidence of Creation you know. It’s just lies, right?

At one time, saying “I don’t believe because I don’t believe.” was as far as an atheist could go. Now, thanks to science, particularly evolution, they now have another reason to say they don’t believe. Pretty clear to me.

Biology? Oh I get it. But, as Pope Benedict stated, evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I’m sticking with that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

If God created us by the process of evolution, and then inspired the writing of Genesis, would not THAT make him a deciever? Why would He tell us what is written in Genesis? Why wouldn’t He tell us the truth? Is God a deceiver?

He did tell us the truth. He told us that He created us. You only have a problem if you insist on a literal reading of Genesis. Happily, my Church doesn’t require that.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Why are you missing the obvious? I’d like to point out again, that people like Sam Harris go to scientific conferences and talk about the “alien hiss” of religion and about the scientists who speak about it. They are referred to as being like “pod people,” that look and act like scientists but are not.

Then we have Richard Dawkins making the rounds on television, talking about science and the God, well, you know, Delusion. He’s set up a foundation you know.

And then we have Rally for Reason, a group supported primarily by atheists, that decided to protest at the Creation Museum. It contains no evidence of Creation you know. It’s just lies, right?

At one time, saying “I don’t believe because I don’t believe.” was as far as an atheist could go. Now, thanks to science, particularly evolution, they now have another reason to say they don’t believe. Pretty clear to me.

Biology? Oh I get it. But, as Pope Benedict stated, evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I’m sticking with that.

Sorry, Ed, but the only one missing the obvious is you. The use of science by athiests has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the science. You keep using this as an argument to discredit evolution when in fact it is a condemnation only of the person making the argument, not the science.

The pope is right, evolution cannot be proven. Neither can germ theory. I don’t suppose you will be ignoring basic hygene from this point on. That would be kinda silly, don’t you think?

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

I believe there was a global flood as Jesus made reference to it. The Bible will be my starting point, always.

God bless,
Ed

Well yes He made reference to it but that doesn’t prove that it actually happened.
It could be He was talking in terms his audience could understand using scriptural references that He could expect everyone to have read or heard.

Just as if I said that a certain task made me feel like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill or Atlas holding up the heavens doesn’t mean that I believe in the Greek gods or the events that resulted in those punishments.