Testing Darwin's Teachers

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

‘Did the Tree of Life mentioned in the book of Genesis, have power to impart immortality to mortal man, as might be deduced from Genesis 3:22?’
answersingenesis.org/creation/v7/i4/treeoflife.asp

The tree of life, of course, is a type of Christ - which would be eternal life. Adam and Eve had a choice - much like we do. Please see HERE

jdnation:

Going further, the point is of course that Adam and Eve are not immortal like God, and were being sustained in their life by God, most likely provided by God with the Tree of Life. But was there still killing and survival fo the fittest? Were there still diseases, cancers and other ills evident? Because that is what the fossil record shows. If that’s the case, how can it be paradise? In the end God is supposed to return the world to that state, where we can all eat from the tree of Life and the lamb will lie down with the Lion, not be eaten by it… so will there still be cancers, and sufferring etc. existing in animals even after the New World is created? This is very good? It’s preposterous. In the beginning Genesis states all living things were herbivorous, only after the Flood was the command finally given for man to eat meat. The shedding of blood was necessary for forgiving sins. Death is the penalty of sin. It cannot have existed before sin. That is not to say man was fully immortal like a god, his life depended upon the sustaining power of God, as would all of creation.

Actually, the only place that was ‘Paradise’ was the Garden. There was death in the rest of the world - though I doubt there was cancer etc. If that is in the fossil record, and from that period - I really would like to see a credible link to/for that. See Genesis 1:29,30 for that reference. MAN was given permission to kill after the fall - and shown what to do by God - see Genesis 3:21 for that reference. Again, spiritual death is what is referred to. No - Adam and Eve were not immortal - God threw them out of the Garden to prevent that - Genesis 3:22 - which also states, quite unequivocally, that that is exactly what the tree of life would have done for them…give them eternal life.

jdnation:

The book of Genesis is historical literature, not allegorical, and that includes the days of creation identified strongly and literal days. Christ upheld their authority and said that God made man and woman at the beginning of creation, Paul referred to Genesis during his ministry. Would you argue against what they believed in?

Yes - God did make us male and female. As for the rest, I think I am not the only one: CCC - Sacred Scripture I am not arguing God as Creator - I am allowing Him the latitude to do what the remains of history show happened. Rather than decrease His glory and Majesty by saying He couldn’t have done something - as we see that He probably DID do it.

jdnation:

I completely agree. Also take note : "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

Yes…that is not to say that ALL scientists follow that rule - however the scientific community, as a whole - does a fairly good job of policing themselves. Humans, however, will continue to be humans.

jdnation:

I don’t doubt he does, I didn’t mean to group him in with materialism, although he is trying to marry two opposing concepts together and harmonize them.

As he should be. However, the agreement you stated above - would seem to contradict the idea then that these are opposing viewpoints. There is nothing that HAS to be contradictory about history, and God - as God indeed made history.

Peace

John

 

[Liberalsaved]

Della:

I can’t work up any sympathy for science teachers. They’ve sat on any dissent for a couple of generations and now the shoe is on the other foot. I say GOOD! They should have to defend evolution since it is nothing but a theory based on presumptions, not on real evidence.

You bash evolution on the basis that it has no evidence, which is false anyway, but your basis for your beleifs is faith. In strict terms, this faith, this spirituality, we have it because of faith. We have no evidence for it whatsoever. A book is not evidence in and of itself. My aim here is not to berate you, but to ask you a question: Which do you want? Faith or evidence? You cannot demand that one thing have evidence in order to be taught while also asking that another thing be taught with no evidence.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

Actually, no one is disputing anything about the fact that God created everything at His word. That is the whole point, don’t you see? It was not necessary for God to say poof penguin, poof giraffe, poof elephant. “Let the Land bring forth…Let the waters bring forth…” was entirely sufficient. “Let there be light” and the entire visible universe was created. Everything we read after that went into the making of that statement.

jdnation:

Interestingly enough, the only exception to the rule was when God created man, where He did not command the land to bring man forth but personally formed man from the dust and breathed life into his nostrils… This suggests that Adam was fully formed formed and upon completion only then was animated with life. Not living and forming as the end result of some evolutionary reproductive chain.

Yes, I agree. Although, there is wiggle room - the seed of Adam could have been specially formed…and upon sufficient ‘growth’ or ‘progress’ God pulled him aside and gave him a soul.

jdnation:

As for the kinds, I don’t think any argument has ever been put forth that claims that is what Scripture says, Genesis says God created each animal according to it’s kind and then told everything to be fruitful and multiply. The Bible does however suggest that these created animals were spontaneously created individually according to their own kind, not as some living cells that eventually divide and evolve and change and this happened all on one day. You might argue that it could have been the process and that this could be possible after creation, but it happened in a day, and the latter is unproven but the animals did diversify with a loss of or mixing of and not a gain in genetic information.

YES!!! Now you’re getting it. Everything was bundled together from the beginning. Diversification produces results exactly as you just described. At least as i understand it anyway - i am not a scientist. I just play one on TV…badly.

jdnation:

As for chance, of course that is what natural selection works on. The real issue is belief in chance that mathematically surpasses possibility, a far different case from the Israel’s use of the Urim and Thummim. You see such chances are of course miracles, and only with God is everything possible. Pure materialism is at a loss to explain these odds for evolutionary success. HOwever Theistic Evolutionists or Intelligent Design advocates can use God as the means for bringing this about as the only explanation. And that’s possible. However, according to revelation from God in Genesis, this is clearly not how He said He did it.

Actually - you just contradicted yourself from the previous paragraph. Unless I mis-understood. Be that as it may - NO - it is NOT chance…because of the probability that God ‘Bundled’ the ‘sofware’ of evolutionary processes together from the beginning.

jdnation:

Right when it said “BUT THERE IS NO REPORTED TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS COMPLETED!” This is completely false… what about all those places where it clearly states “there is evening and morning… the X day”? The separatedness of light would be necessary in order for there to be an evening and morning… for there to be day and night… and well the other events would need the previous ones to complete in order to work. In any case this link extends more on what the first said, and sounds a lot like what is commonly known as the ‘Gap Theory,’ the filling in of time between each of the individual days… so is this suggesting evenings and mornings took reaaaallly long while all this was happening?..I needed to shorten your post up to submit…

.

Exactly - from the beginning…before He ever actually spoke the words…Let there be light.

jdnation:

Plus there is the statement given by God Himself to the Israelites… ‘In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is’ (Exodus 20:11). “That is, He was telling man that he must work six days and rest one day because God worked six days and rested one day. The context goes on to say that everything in heaven and earth and in the sea was made in six days. There could have been nothing left over that was not made during the six days.”

As For AiG again…

Don’t need to. Aside from the fact that AiG is all wet…and that has been proven time and again around here - do a search of some of the evolution threads. You may have to wade through a lot of technical stuff to get there - but you will eventually see what I mean. For the most part I get the sense of what these people who actually KNOW this stuff are saying…not the technical aspects so much.

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

Thanks for the article, I’ve aware of the refutations against the JEDP hypothesis and the generational ‘breaks.’ I will continue to read the entire article. However in the end, I want to restate that Adam is the ancestor of Jesus, the new Adam, and was created on day six when all the previous commands given by God to His creation on the previous 5 days were complete.

You are quite welcome. I do not dispute that at all - Our Lord most definately IS the descendant of Adam and Eve…as we all are.

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

After re-reading some of what I wrote - I feel some explanation is in order.

Basically what the idea is:

God created everything. Yes.
BUT - nowhere in scripture does it say that everything was FINISHED (as in, living, growing, reproducing as we see it today) within the day it was created. In fact scripture says just the opposite, if you read Genesis 2 - it specifically states ‘herb’ as it does as well in Ch 1. Herb of the field - nothing was growing, because it had NOT RAINED YET. If creation were finished in the sense of poof there it is, we would expect that to NOT be the case.The very fact of the earth being would cause rain from the heat of the sun and the revolution of the earth, and the water vapor from the streams or rivers. Certainly from the seas.

Everything was contained within the tiny ‘something’ that went BANG at the beginning. What is most important to note - from Genesis - **is that God did everything. **. Yes, the work of God was done within the day - as scripture states - however the work of the creation God planned and made was only just beginning. Just like now, are you a finished product? I know I am not. Neither, it seems, is the earth - as it is still changing - as are the bacteria, germs, etc. on the earth.

Also to note -

Genesis 2:4. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:

Is that to be taken literally as well?

The evidence we find left to us more than adequately explains HOW Genesis happened, in the physical sense. Genesis tells us Who made it happen, and that He is responsible for ALL of it.

Peace

John

 

[Lost_Found]

Thekla:

I actually read the article and rarely find people who choose ignorance to be amusing. It’s apparent that many of the children have come to a conclusion before they have been taught any of the science on the subject. And from the article, they appear to be actively attempting to block any science from penetrating their “empty” heads. Who is encouraging them to close their minds?

coyote:

Watch out for the rotten eggs that are going to be thrown by the anti-science crowd.

coyote:

This dog just keeps chasing it’s own tail
.
.
If that isn’t an accurate example of arrogance and a small mind, then there isn’t one.

Thekla:

it’s troubling to see certain faiths encourage their followers to be ignorant and uneducated.

Thekla:

Remember Galileo

R McGeddon:

Are you real?

Liberalsaved:

You bash evolution
…
My aim here is not to berate you

Most if not all of these statements were directed at Della.

Della, you sure make these “objective scientists” uncomfortable

 

[Liberalsaved]

Lost&Found:

Most if not all of these statements were directed at Della.

Della, you sure make these “objective scientists” uncomfortable

Actually, if she made me uncomfortable, I wouldn’t be here. I asked her a question that had every basis to be asked. It certainly seems to be mixed messages to me. I couldn’t care less if she disagrees with me. I’m just curious what one standard she wishes to apply.

 

[Thekla]

Most if not all of these statements were directed at Della.

[/quote]

So it’s not just science that’s a problem, but math as well. You listed three of seven quotes from me and none of them were a response to a post by Della.

 

[Lost_Found]

Thekla:

So it’s not just science that’s a problem, but math as well. You listed three of seven quotes from me and none of them were a response to a post by Della.

Sigh. No, math is not a problem with me friend. Perhaps I make you uncomfortable as well. You should try to consider what my post was suggesting to you.

There is however a hastiness with your math when you subtract three from seven in order to postulate that the “most” criteria has not met.

 

[Lost_Found]

Liberalsaved:

Actually, if she made me uncomfortable, I wouldn’t be here.

People react to uncomfortableness in different ways. You seem to haved failed to fully adapt your “fight or flight” scientific model properly here.

 

[jdnation]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

Actually, the only place that was ‘Paradise’ was the Garden. There was death in the rest of the world - though I doubt there was cancer etc. If that is in the fossil record, and from that period - I really would like to see a credible link to/for that. See Genesis 1:29,30 for that reference. MAN was given permission to kill after the fall - and shown what to do by God - see Genesis 3:21 for that reference. Again, spiritual death is what is referred to. No - Adam and Eve were not immortal - God threw them out of the Garden to prevent that - Genesis 3:22 - which also states, quite unequivocally, that that is exactly what the tree of life would have done for them…give them eternal life.

If there was death in the rest of the world, I don’t see why God would look over all He made before the sixth day and call it “very good”, it would be saying that death and sufferring is a good thing created by God on purpose. The Garden of Eden is said to have been made before man… “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.” (Gen 2:8) That would’ve been done on the third day. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Eden only was paradise, and why would God specifically make that spot paradise on day 3 and let everything else alone, and then see “that it was good?” This was not so, all of creation would be a paradise. This is also specifically taught to us by Paul:

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. " (Romans 8:18-23)

Creation was placed under man’s dominion, when man rebelled and lost the sustaining power of God to keep him alive and away from pain, so too did the whole of creation, and it together with man awaits its freedom from the bondage of death and decay. Creation was subjected to this state by the will of Adam and hopes to be liberated.

As for cancer existing in dinosaurs etc. I can’t remember exactly what the name of the study was called, but here’s a recent news article that shows that this is a serious field of study:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190356,00.html

If you’re suggesting that the eating of plants constitutes death, this is not so as understood by the Hebrew writer who differentiated the life force of man and animals from that of plants. and it is God that first killed after the fall so he could clothe Adam and Eve with the skin of the animal, symbolic of Christ’s death… The eventual command for man to use animals as food would come after the flood of Noah. I agree that Adam and Eve were no immortal and that the Tree of life would have been sustaining them, this is precisely why the Devil tempts them to think that they could be like God, immortal and sustained by their own power, in other words be like God. THe point is, because of the Tree of Life and God’s sustaining power there was no death or sufferring, but man and creation were dependant on GOd to keep it that way. Once seperated from God (a spiritual death), God kept man away from the Tree of Life, and cursed creation (physical death), and creation would decay and suffer just as man does…

 

[jdnation]

I am allowing Him the latitude to do what the remains of history show happened. Rather than decrease His glory and Majesty by saying He couldn’t have done something - as we see that He probably DID do it.

I understand what you are saying, and I don’t doubt God couldn’t have used long ages of time and evolution if He wished to, but rather from revelation He tells us that He did it in the specific (though vague on details) manner described in Genesis (interestingly enough practically all similar creation accounts in various religions retain some of these truths). The theory of macro-evolution is based on a presupposition that interprets empirical evidence to suit it’s presupposition. This same evidence can be interpreted according to the Biblical account of Genesis. It is the same evidence and the same planet and the same fossils. It is just that two different groups of scientists are examining it and trying to explain origins using their assumed worldviews as background information.

However, the agreement you stated above - would seem to contradict the idea then that these are opposing viewpoints. There is nothing that HAS to be contradictory about history, and God - as God indeed made history.

Creation by God according to Genesis and macro-evolution based on materialist philosophy are plainly contradictory. Like black and white, and those who try to compromise the views end up with a grey area. However doctrines based on Genesis as truth or beliefs based on materialism become marred when you combine them and this creates difficulties. For example, if we can reinterpret Genesis according to supposed ‘factual’ evolutionary or other scientific findings, why spare the Gospels? The fact is that historya nd science will never contradict God, and other such findings as we have them today can be shown to be false or thrown into doubt.

Although, there is wiggle room - the seed of Adam could have been specially formed…and upon sufficient ‘growth’ or ‘progress’ God pulled him aside and gave him a soul.

If that were so, then it would all have to have taken place before God placed him in the garden and talked with him, and all before the seventh day after creation was “completed.”

BUT - nowhere in scripture does it say that everything was FINISHED (as in, living, growing, reproducing as we see it today) within the day it was created.

It is true that nature does continue to grow, change etc. in a ‘micro-evolutionary’ way through natural selection, something creationists don’t have any problems with, in fact, the idea of natural selection comes from a creationist anyway… it is only the macro-evolutionary assumption made by evolutionists where simple lifeforms can gain genetic information somehow and grow in complexity into a man that creationists have a problem with, more because this would involve a very long process of time contradictory to the six days of Genesis. As well even if you assume God created and left the processes to eventually get there on each day, the problem you’d encounter is that according to the evolutionary model, the next stages of man, animals, plants, etc cannot take place until the first stages of the earth, universe etc. are completed enough to support the life that must somehow come from inorganic matter.

In any case, even if we assume that you are correct, then there is an even bigger problem for you to solve, and it’s that the stages of evolution that precede each other and a complete reversal of the stages God went through in Genesis…

Consider these examples of contradictions of order.

**Evolution/**Genesis **
Sun before earth / Earth before sun
Dry land before sea / Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea / Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth / Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth / Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets / Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants / Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish / Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees / Trees before land animals
Death before man / Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man / Man before thorns and thistles
Reptiles before birds / Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales / Whales before land animals
Simple plants before fruit trees / Fruit trees before other plants
Insects before mammals / Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”
Dinosaurs before birds / Birds before dinosaurs

Etc.

Full list and more info here:
answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp

 

[Liberalsaved]

Lost&Found:

People react to uncomfortableness in different ways. You seem to haved failed to fully adapt your “fight or flight” scientific model properly here.

I always found that somewhere in the middle is the most comfortable place to be and reduces the amount of things I wind up kicking in anger.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

If there was death in the rest of the world, I don’t see why God would look over all He made before the sixth day and call it “very good”, it would be saying that death and sufferring is a good thing created by God on purpose. The Garden of Eden is said to have been made before man… “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.” (Gen 2:8) That would’ve been done on the third day. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Eden only was paradise, and why would God specifically make that spot paradise on day 3 and let everything else alone, and then see “that it was good?” This was not so, all of creation would be a paradise. This is also specifically taught to us by Paul:

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. " (Romans 8:18-23)

Creation was placed under man’s dominion, when man rebelled and lost the sustaining power of God to keep him alive and away from pain, so too did the whole of creation, and it together with man awaits its freedom from the bondage of death and decay. Creation was subjected to this state by the will of Adam and hopes to be liberated.

Regarding death in creation: You must remember that God can will something to be ‘good’ for the ends of His purpose - such as Pharao and the plagues of Egypt. Not that God forced Pharao into anything (It remained his choice - God just knew the choice he would make, and included it in His plan). Therefore, creation was ‘good’ rather than ‘perfect’…creation would serve Gods purpose. (There is a Hebrew word for perfect…it was not used.

Regarding Eden: “…and there he put the man he had formed” would seem to indicate that Man was created **first, ** not second. Nowhere in what you posted, nor in anything I could find, does Paul call all of creation Paradise - rather, there is evidence to support my contention, please see HERE Genesis Ch. 1 & 2, the appropriate verses. Paul is talking about the entrance of sin into the world, and disobedience to God - what creation was made for - serving and worshiping God, when man fell - so did his care of creation fall. Witness the pollution and self-serving abuse of our natural resources and the level of care we give to creation. Again - spiritual death, which is reflected in the physical - not the other way around.

jdnation:

As for cancer existing in dinosaurs etc. I can’t remember exactly what the name of the study was called, but here’s a recent news article that shows that this is a serious field of study:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190356,00.html

Whether or not it is a serious field of study is not the point - are the remains they are studying before or after the fall? Thank-you anyway for the link - it is interesting.

jdnation:

If you’re suggesting that the eating of plants constitutes death, this is not so as understood by the Hebrew writer who differentiated the life force of man and animals from that of plants. and it is God that first killed after the fall so he could clothe Adam and Eve with the skin of the animal, symbolic of Christ’s death… The eventual command for man to use animals as food would come after the flood of Noah. I agree that Adam and Eve were no immortal and that the Tree of life would have been sustaining them, this is precisely why the Devil tempts them to think that they could be like God, immortal and sustained by their own power, in other words be like God. THe point is, because of the Tree of Life and God’s sustaining power there was no death or sufferring, but man and creation were dependant on GOd to keep it that way. Once seperated from God (a spiritual death), God kept man away from the Tree of Life, and cursed creation (physical death), and creation would decay and suffer just as man does…

No I am not talking about eating plants, although that serves it’s purpose too - actual death is what I mean, of animals.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

I understand what you are saying, and I don’t doubt God couldn’t have used long ages of time and evolution if He wished to, but rather from revelation He tells us that He did it in the specific (though vague on details) manner described in Genesis …

Creation by God according to Genesis and macro-evolution based on materialist philosophy are plainly contradictory… /font]
TRUNCATED FOR SPACE…
It is true that nature does continue to grow, change etc. in a ‘micro-evolutionary’ way through natural selection, something creationists don’t have any problems with, in fact, the idea of natural selection comes from a creationist anyway… it is only the macro-evolutionary assumption made by evolutionists where simple lifeforms can gain genetic information somehow and grow in complexity into a man that creationists have a problem with, more because this would involve a very long process of time contradictory to the six days of Genesis. As well even if you assume God created and left the processes to eventually get there on each day, the problem you’d encounter is that according to the evolutionary model, the next stages of man, animals, plants, etc cannot take place until the first stages of the earth, universe etc. are completed enough to support the life that must somehow come from inorganic matter.

In any case, even if we assume that you are correct, then there is an even bigger problem for you to solve, and it’s that the stages of evolution that precede each other and a complete reversal of the stages God went through in Genesis…

Consider these examples of contradictions of order.

**Evolution/**Genesis **
Sun before earth / Earth before sun
Dry land before sea / Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea / Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth / Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth / Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets / Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants / Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish / Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees / Trees before land animals
Death before man / Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man / Man before thorns and thistles
Reptiles before birds / Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales / Whales before land animals
Simple plants before fruit trees / Fruit trees before other plants
Insects before mammals / Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”
Dinosaurs before birds / Birds before dinosaurs

Etc.

Full list and more info here:
answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp

Have you ever heard the phrase, and I’m paraphrasing here because I can’t recall it exactly - lol, The micro-cosm reflects the Macro-cosm? For example, the things that happen in a local eco-system (pond, swamp, etc.), reflect what happens in the word eco-system ( lakes, oceans, rivers, etc.)? The same is true in evolution…micro-evolution is valid, so is macro. Simply because people want to use it as a platform to support atheistic views, does not mean that the platform ia invalid…just that the way people use it is. Which, considering the fall and ALL of it’s implications, should come as no surprise.

All of your ending assertions can and are answered in the idea that God had everything planned (I.E. ‘finished’ everything) before He put it in motion, and the reality of it came about. Because once God decides something, it simply IS…whether or not it ‘happens’ yet. The devil is defeated already…yet he continues to plague us…for example.

There need be no, and there is no, contradiction between God and reality - nor can there be…just, as you pointed out - our interpretation of BOTH, is what is in contradiction. Satan is the author of all lies - yet we need to remember that he almost always uses the truth to perform the lie - witness Protestantism…there is truth there - but it is a twisted truth…not the full truth. Deception is the name of the game…and truth is at the core of it.

Physical reality simply IS…we can use the physical reality and Scripture to arrive at the Truth - however, limiting the field we use to decipher the truth (Using sources that support OUR pre-concieved ideas) makes us no better than those who use the available information of historical remains to support THIER prejudices. Balance in all things is the maxim of scripture.

Peace

john