Jump to content


Photo

Can Evolutionary Scientists Accept Reality?


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 November 2010 - 05:54 PM

Macroevolution is the (supposed) theoretical major change in kind/species over a long period of time. But, because macroevolution cannot be (and/or has not been) reproduced, and therefore “observed”; it (macroevolution), is nothing more than a model (i.e. the process of generating abstract, conceptual, approximation or simulation of a system) due to its hypothetical nature.
...
The evolutionist promulgates macroevolution as a fact (i.e. “something that is known to be true - something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened”), without providing the “empirical “facts” to support their assertions. As if “saying it is so” is itself a fact. But, the fact is “saying it’s so, doesn’t make it so!”

Therefore, Teller, I will suggest you read the forum rules, and further warn you to not continue pretending faith clames as facts.


Hi

You didn't respond to my question. I think its worth considering carefully. What's to be the standard for figuring out who has the correct interpretation of Genesis days? Consensus of experts? Any other suggestions?

I did not claim that macroevolution is a process one can personally observe from beginning to end. Here is what I said:
I specifically said definition 3 -- "actual experience or observation" -- doesn't apply to evolution.

If you're telling me we must only use the word "fact" to refer to things that have been personally observed in real-time, that's fine. On that restricted definition, macroevolution is not a fact.

But that doesn't automatically make macroevolution a "faith" issue, does it?

There are many things that have not been personally observed in real-time, but nobody in common speech refers to as faith issues -- I'm thinking of things like electrons, or Pluto's moon Charon. That's because those things have been inferred from circumstantial empirical evidence. Same as macro-evolution.

View Post


My my, shall we move the goal post of what empirical evidence really is so that you can claim Macro fits? What's next? You gonna claim animation for evidence you cannot observe is also circumstantial empirical evidence?

This is probably the worst case of equivocation I have ever seen since joining this forum. You want macro to be true so bad you make up new words and their meanings and imply it means the same thing. It shows how weak and lame your argument really is that you would go outside the realm of reality and make up your own.

#62 Guest_Teller_*

Guest_Teller_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:07 PM

My my, shall we move the goal post of what empirical evidence really is so that you can claim Macro fits? What's next? You gonna claim animation for evidence you cannot observe is also circumstantial empirical evidence?

This is probably the worst case of equivocation I have ever seen since joining this forum. You want macro to be true so bad you make up new words and their meanings and imply it means the same thing. It shows how weak and lame your argument really is that you would go outside the realm of reality and make up your own.

View Post


Hi

I'm keen to avoid equivocation, so I'll not use the word "empirical" in this context.

What I'm referring to are the things science has discovered by inference from indirect, circumstantial, physical evidence. Which is really what science is all about -- discovering things we can't personally observe in real time.

There are many things science has discovered through such indirect methods, like electrons and macroevolution.

So what I'm saying is, we don't regard electrons as a faith issue just because they were discovered through indirect methods, therefore, we shouldn't regard macroevolution as a faith issue just because it was discovered the same way.

#63 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:10 PM

Hi

I'm keen to avoid equivocation, so I'll not use the word "empirical" in this context.

What I'm referring to are the things science has discovered by inference from indirect, circumstantial, physical evidence. Which is really what science is all about -- discovering things we can't personally observe in real time.

There are many things science has discovered through such indirect methods, like electrons and macroevolution.

So what I'm saying is, we don't regard electrons as a faith issue just because they were discovered through indirect methods, therefore, we shouldn't regard macroevolution as a faith issue just because it was discovered the same way.

View Post


Yes scientists use imagination to create a hypothesis to explain what is observed

HOWEVER this hypothesis is proved via empirical evidence not imaginings.

If you really think scientific validity is assumption / imagination based, then you are opening up the doors for all manner of imaginings to be "scientific"...

Electrons have empirical evidence for them, (tested / retested in a lab), as such they do not fit the definition you are trying to make them conform to.

#64 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:26 PM

And so this what you think God did?  And then He meets with Moses at the burning bush, makes him leader over Israel, and later has him build the tabernacle, and talks with Him "as man talks with his friend."  After all that revelation, he gives Moses the task of writing a symbolic book that tells that we came from two created HUMANS, fails to mention that we came from lower animals, and lies about Noah and the flood to Moses.

Then God sends his Son and  He further confirms the lie, so that everyone of European descent, along with others, up until the 1800's believes in Adam and Eve, and Noah, and Abraham, and Israel. 

So, if Genesis is symbolic, why didn't Jesus or one of the apostles even give any hint of such.  AND what is the interpretation of Genesis, if it is an allegory??  I'm sure whatever ou give us will not be anything scriptural, but rather "of this present world" which shall soon pass away.

There are many symbolic prophecies, but they have interpretation by comparing scripture.  Along with background knowledge, of the word, one can get a general, or even specifice meaning, but in my 20 years of studying the scripture, I have never found ANY reference to ANY of the ideas proposed by theistic evolutionism. 

On the contrary, we are commanded to abstain from things that "falsely called knowledge," and the "philosophies of man."

View Post

Teller, I realize you're in a conversation with several here. I'm patient. But I really would like to get an answer to these questions above.

#65 Guest_Teller_*

Guest_Teller_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:45 PM

Teller, I realize you're in a conversation with several here.  I'm patient.  But I really would like to get an answer to these questions above.

View Post


Hehe. Hi.

I certainly am "under the pump"!

Have a look the previous page, I responded there.

Regards - Teller

#66 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:59 PM

Hi Bex. I am still reading and digesting your post. I have read quite a bit by some of the authors that you mentioned and some of this is new to me. I might have some more questions. I am not dogmatic about the length of the Genesis day, but I wanted to answer your question for OEC.

I was taught that the scriptures were indicating evening (when observers were not sure what the day would result in) and dawn (when it was clear to them). Light is often used in the scriptures to indicate understanding and dawn is also used figuratively in the same way.

Day is also used to refer to the entire time period involved in creation of the heavens and the earth at Gen. 1:5; 2:4. Is the plural form used here?

Paul seems to indicate that the seventh was still in progress during his time? At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.”

Here below we read:


And we continue to have a literal 24 hour day, divided by night/darkness and day/light just as God had begun it.  And we continue to experience the 6 day week, with the one day of rest, just as God had begun it.

Since you've claimed otherwise, then what kind of 'day' was God referring to that has night (darkness) and morning (light) divided? 

View Post



#67 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 November 2010 - 09:02 PM

Hi

I'm keen to avoid equivocation, so I'll not use the word "empirical" in this context.

What I'm referring to are the things science has discovered by inference from indirect, circumstantial, physical evidence. Which is really what science is all about -- discovering things we can't personally observe in real time.

There are many things science has discovered through such indirect methods, like electrons and macroevolution.

So what I'm saying is, we don't regard electrons as a faith issue just because they were discovered through indirect methods, therefore, we shouldn't regard macroevolution as a faith issue just because it was discovered the same way.

View Post


1) You used the illustration about the moon of Pluto. You can observe an effect that says it's there. right?
2) You used the illustration of fossils. What effect do you "observe" when you look at the fossils? Nothing. What you have are supposed conclusions from what you "see" after what ever happened, but you do not observe "any" actual real time process like you do with Pluto's moon.

See: perceive by sight or have the power to perceive by sight.
Observe: To watch something happen. Such as observing the results of an experiment.

You see fossils. You observe the effects of Pluto's moon.

You are trying to make similar things look like the same thing.

#68 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:22 PM

Hi

I'm keen to avoid equivocation, so I'll not use the word "empirical" in this context.

What I'm referring to are the things science has discovered by inference from indirect, circumstantial, physical evidence. Which is really what science is all about -- discovering things we can't personally observe in real time.

There are many things science has discovered through such indirect methods, like electrons and macroevolution.

So what I'm saying is, we don't regard electrons as a faith issue just because they were discovered through indirect methods, therefore, we shouldn't regard macroevolution as a faith issue just because it was discovered the same way.

View Post


After you answer AFJ's questions ;) Can you please tell us in what "same way" was macroevolution "discovered"? What "indirect" ways would you be referring to?

Maybe I can help with this example, because I feel I know what "indirect" discovery you may be referring to.

I remember one specific moment in my Biology class (way back when) as a Junior in high school. I took a full year of Biology and previously a full year of Chemistry as a sophmore. Not every student was required to take these courses, they were for the "smarter" kids who chose to take, what the school called, "College Prep" courses. Anyways, not trying to toot my own horn, in my second semester the teacher explained how warm blooded animals evolved from cold blooded animals and I just had to ask, how do we know that happened? From which he responded with, because we now exist, we are the evidence of the evolution from those previous more "primitive" life forms. And I continued my query with, yes but how do we know that that is what happened, that it was because of an evolutionary process? His response was, because there is no other way it could have happened.

You see, he couldn't provide the evidence that I or the classroom needed to see, observe or read of tests that confirm any macro event. And that's the point!

Science sets up these rules for science and yet evolutionists want to go OUTSIDE those rules and still call it science. There was nothing scientific about his answer. He was expressing a BELIEF DESPITE any evidence he could give me or the class room to SHOW us that that is indeed what happened. His answer was not much different than how the textbooks would "explain" how it happened. But where's all the Scientific EVIDENCE that SHOWS us Macro occurring? The BEST they could do is "extrapolate" micro events to equal macro ones. That's probably the "indirect" "evidence" or "discovery" you may be referring to. But let me continue.

Somehow we are to BELIEVE, yes BELIEVE, that cold blooded lizards (as just one example) who lay eggs formed mammary glands to suckle their young because their young started sucking the "sweat" from the underbelly of lizards. And so through this process, via natural selection slooooooowly but surely, mammary glands formed. Uhm, just one question teacher. Didn't we just learn that the reason lizards are called cold blooded is because THEY DON'T SWEAT??? Oh you should have heard how he tried to again "explain" that one. How is THAT science?

Teller, I encourage you to CAREFULLY observe what evolutionists are "claiming" as "scientific" evidence for this clumsy theory. The story about the cold blooded to warm blooded is a true story and when you call them on it, instead of saying, oh yeah, that's a good point, hmmm. They don't do that, they just come up with ANOTHER STORY to cover that one. It's numbingly ridiculous. If science is about Observable, Testable, Repeatable, evidence then surely Macroevolution has to fit in there somewhere. You can't just, well there is "circumstantial" or "indirect" evidence to show it. Really? Where? I'll tell you where. They will 9.5 times out of 10 point you to a MICRO circumstance, is where. "If it happens in small changes within the species then it's reasonable to see how these changes eventually form larger ones". Yes reasonable if you ALREADY think evolution occurred.

But why do you think that small changes can eventually form large ones? Because all the evidence shows this. What evidence? Well it's right there before your eyes, see the small changes occurring within the species? Yeah but how do you know the small ones eventually become larger ones? Well because we have species that are more complex than the less comlex ones. Yeah but how does that show that the more complex ones formed from lesser complex ones? Well because there exists more complex ones which couldn't have formed before the lesser complex ones. Yeah, but how do you know they couldn't? Because that's how evolution works! Whaaaaa? And on the merry go round you go. Was there any "evidence" in that exchange? No, just mere belief statements. And that's usually how it goes.

But maybe you actually have some "real" evidence, albeit "indirectly".

#69 Guest_Teller_*

Guest_Teller_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2010 - 01:11 AM

Yes scientists use imagination to create a hypothesis to explain what is observed

HOWEVER this hypothesis is proved via empirical evidence not imaginings.

If you really think scientific validity is assumption / imagination based, then you are opening up the doors for all manner of imaginings to be "scientific"...

Electrons have empirical evidence for them, (tested / retested in a lab), as such they do not fit the definition you are trying to make them conform to.

View Post


Hi

Yes, sure, hypotheses come from the imagination. They say the idea of the structure of the benzene molecule came in a dream.

But, imaginings remain imaginings unless we can test them against physical evidence, and the tests confirm them. At that point, in my view, they leave the realm of imagination and become something we have discovered, perhaps tentatively, about the physical world.

My point about electrons was that we cannot personally observe them in real-time, which some have said is required to call something a fact. With electrons, we can only infer their existence from large-scale things that we can actually personally observe (instrumentation, chemical reactions etc) Nevertheless, we do not speak about electrons as something taken on faith.

#70 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 November 2010 - 03:39 AM

Hi

Yes, sure, hypotheses come from the imagination. They say the idea of the structure of the benzene molecule came in a dream.

But, imaginings remain imaginings unless we can test them against physical evidence, and the tests confirm them. At that point, in my view, they leave the realm of imagination and become something we have discovered, perhaps tentatively, about the physical world.

My point about electrons was that we cannot personally observe them in real-time, which some have said is required to call something a fact. With electrons, we can only infer their existence from large-scale things that we can actually personally observe (instrumentation, chemical reactions etc) Nevertheless, we do not speak about electrons as something taken on faith.

View Post


You've missed one crucial point is that the evidence for electrons is empirical, the evidence for evolution is not.

Experiments with electrons have been tested and re-tested and underlying principles about the relations of electrons have come from this predicability from continued experimentation. Otherwise we could not have elecron microscopes if we did not know how electrons reacted in the world, via this experimentation. The experiments show a direct result.

Evolution on the otherhand is only "observed" indirectly, in that its direct consequences are not observed and evidence for evolution comes from indirect, rather historical sources. Suffice to say that this alone shows that "observation" of the evidence is succeptable to the perversion of a persons opinions and worldviews, this is not science, rather its philosophy.

Hence it is STILL taken on faith, as the person observing the secondary evidence are putting faith in that their interpretation of the results are correct. This is generally done sub-conciously however it is still faithbased wether or not the person realises it.

#71 Guest_Teller_*

Guest_Teller_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2010 - 04:08 AM

1) You used the illustration about the moon of Pluto. You can observe an effect that says it's there. right?
2) You used the illustration of fossils. What effect do you "observe" when you look at the fossils? Nothing. What you have are supposed conclusions from what you "see" after what ever happened, but you do not observe "any" actual real time process like you do with Pluto's moon.


Hi

Yes, I agree. As I said, we do not observe human evolution in real time.

Pluto's moon Charon was a bad example. I have since learned that we can personally observe Charon in real time, with the proper instruments -- sorry about that:

Posted Image
Pluto and Charon, Hubble telescope, 1990

What we see when we look at fossils is a pattern -- a very specific pattern in the way anatomical features have changed over time. The inference is that this pattern was produced by an underlying process.

Now, an analogy (sticking with planets): We can't actually see planets moving. What we can see is the planet in a different position each night. If you connect up all the positions at different times, you get a pattern:

Posted Image
Apparent motion of Mars

Again, the inference is that this pattern is produced by an underlying process. We can't observe the process in real time (its too slow). And the pattern (in the case of Mars) is pretty complicated. In fact it took thousands of years before we figured out the underlying process that makes Mars follow this pattern -- as everybody now knows, the process is Mars' heliocentric orbit superior to the Earth.

With evolution, its the same reasoning. We can't actually observe the process (its too slow), but we can see a pattern in the "snapshots" of the process represented by fossils and living things. The underlying process is descendants diversifying from their ancestors in a branching pattern - macroevolution.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

#72 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 November 2010 - 05:15 AM


You just don't agree with our interpretation of the scriptural evidence. What's to be the standard of truth in such a situation?

View Post


Macroevolution is the (supposed) theoretical major change in kind/species over a long period of time. But, because macroevolution cannot be (and/or has not been) reproduced, and therefore “observed”; it (macroevolution), is nothing more than a model (i.e. the process of generating abstract, conceptual, approximation or simulation of a system) due to its hypothetical nature.
...
The evolutionist promulgates macroevolution as a fact (i.e. “something that is known to be true - something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened”), without providing the “empirical “facts” to support their assertions. As if “saying it is so” is itself a fact. But, the fact is “saying it’s so, doesn’t make it so!”

Therefore, Teller, I will suggest you read the forum rules, and further warn you to not continue pretending faith clames as facts.


Hi

You didn't respond to my question. I think its worth considering carefully. What's to be the standard for figuring out who has the correct interpretation of Genesis days? Consensus of experts? Any other suggestions?

I did not claim that macroevolution is a process one can personally observe from beginning to end. Here is what I said:

fact
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. Yes, evolution really happened.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. Yes, its been tested against physical evidence.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. No, its inferred from circumstantial evidence.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. No, too weak/off the mark.


I specifically said definition 3 -- "actual experience or observation" -- doesn't apply to evolution.

If you're telling me we must only use the word "fact" to refer to things that have been personally observed in real-time, that's fine. On that restricted definition, macroevolution is not a fact.

But that doesn't automatically make macroevolution a "faith" issue, does it?

There are many things that have not been personally observed in real-time, but nobody in common speech refers to as faith issues -- I'm thinking of things like electrons, or Pluto's moon Charon. That's because those things have been inferred from circumstantial empirical evidence. Same as macro-evolution.

View Post


Ahhh, but I did answer your question (and complaining that I didn't is a forum rule violation). Although, I didn’t limit it to just the scriptures alone, I included your misrepresentation of science when it comes to macro-evolution. I answered your scriptural question in posts 39, 43, 45, and 46, you just didn’t like the answers, and attempted to brush them aside with statements like “I just think you're taking the days far too literally”. And, of course, you failed to provide any foundation for your assertion. So, once again "saying it's so, doesn't make it so".

What is worth considering carefully, is your constant attempts to side-step the issues with foundation-less accusations and macro-evolutionists propaganda.

You indeed implied that macro-evolution is a fact, when it is not. And actual “experience or observation” doesn’t apply to macro-evolution only because macro-evolution is a presupposition, and nothing more. It has, in no way, been verified! Evolution has only been presupposed, and promulgated as fact (which you have done, over and over again in this thread alone). And as far as observing electrons? http://insidescience...photos_of_atoms
But, we have been actually using the results of electron/electrical/electronic studies in practical application (i.e. daily use both scientifically and in industrial/domesticated) for many years now. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has only been inferred to as fact, and referred to as real, and promulgated via its propaganda.

Facts, as in truth, are those things which correspond to reality. Macro-evolution ONLY corresponds with hypothesis and presupposed wants.
The “standard” for figuring out the correct interpretation of Genesis days, is the context and language with which it is written, not that which you wish to impose upon it. In other words, quit interpolating your world view upon it, and read what it says…. Period! Hopefully you won’t attempt to interpolate the plain meaning of what I just wrote.

#73 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 19 November 2010 - 05:56 PM

Hi Bex. I am still reading and digesting your post. I have read quite a bit by some of the authors that you mentioned and some of this is new to me. I might have some more questions. I am not dogmatic about the length of the Genesis day, but I wanted to answer your question for OEC.

I was taught that the scriptures were indicating evening (when observers were not sure what the day would result in) and dawn (when it was clear to them). Light is often used in the scriptures to indicate understanding and dawn is also used figuratively in the same way.

Day is also used to refer to the entire time period involved in creation of the heavens and the earth at Gen. 1:5; 2:4. Is the plural form used here?

Paul seems to indicate that the seventh was still in progress during his time? At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.”

View Post


Hi Mama,

I believe the scripture is very clear about the actual days of creation being 24 hour days as we experience them. Talking about the first day itself and the description of the separation of day and night, and the order of His creation. Each clear and evidentally essential. His order of creation is done in such a way, so that the earth would be ready to nuture and support the creature life God was about to bring forth/create.

As we know, one of the first things God did was create the first day with light and darkness (night).

Genesis 1
The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.


We know that life requires the sun for survival/life and we know creatures require rest/sleep, so the requirement for night and day was necessary from the beginning, as was the water and the grass/plants/herbs from the earth. All these things are essential to eachother, but the support of life that He was yet to create/bring forth (animals/humans).

If you continue reading Genesis, you'll notice that He had created them already mature/adult (e.g. fruit bearing trees) with the contained seeds, so they could continue to bring forth the same after them. He did not simply throw some very basic ingredients around and wait for it to evolve over time. God created them fully matured with the seeds contained within them. Just as He created fully matured adults and commanded them and all His creation to bring forth after their own kind (pro-creation).

Regarding the meaning of day?

Genesis 2:4 (New King James Version)

4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.


This could be potentially taken as a "time period", but since we read in the beginning that God did indeed create these on the first day of creation, we know it could very well mean the first actual day!

However, there are times in the bible where we can read "in that day" where we know this could mean "in that time", or in that "generation". Again, we need to read it in context with everything else, understand the hebrew and the real meaning of the word used, so we know exactly what they meant.

I believe by the period of rest spoken of in scripture and described also by Issiah 65 and other parts of the bible, which points to this also. Where creation itself will enter a period of rest/peace.

There are the Church fathers who believed in a particular theory regarding this. They believe God is paralleing the days of creation with the time period of human history. So the 6 days (24 hours) of creation, and 7th day rest, will parallel with 6000 years of human history, followed by a 1000 year era of peace (the 7th) day).

2 Peter
Chapter 3

King James Bible
8 -- But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Certainly, we know there is a period of peace coming to the world and we have yet to experience this. But we can observe the signs of the times and many feel we are close due to the climax of growing evil in the world and Jesus coming again!

I'm sorry if I havent' answered your questions as well as you might like. I'm just a layperson ;)


You may find this article here below of interest to you. A recent article posted by a friend on another forum:


Did Jesus Teach Recent Creation? -

by Henry Morris, Ph.D./ICR

Most everyone has been taught all through their school years that the earth, life, animals, and man have all been developing from primordial beginnings over billions of years of natural evolution. Many have tried to "baptize" this process, so to speak, by calling it "theistic" evolution or "progressive" creation saying that God may have used evolution as His process of creation.

Because of this ubiquitous indoctrination, even many evangelical Christians have felt they must conform to this evolutionary worldview, especially in relation to the so-called "deep time" that is so essential to evolutionism. One respected leader of the "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, recently wrote to me that he would prefer to believe in a "young earth," but that science had proved that the earth was very old, so he had to go with science. Two other leaders of this I.D. movement told me personally on two separate occasions that they could not even afford to listen to my arguments for a young earth because they were afraid they would be convinced and that this would halt their opportunities to speak to college groups and others about Intelligent Design.

So I have written this brief article to show once again that the Lord Jesus Himself believes in recent creation and the young earth. Assuming that a Christian is a person who believes in the deity and inerrant authority of Christ, it would seem that this fact should be sufficient to convince him.

What I will do here, therefore, is to list three key reasons for concluding that our Lord Jesus Christ believed and taught literal recent creation of all things essentially instantaneously by the omnipotent command of God, who "spake, and it was done" (Psalm 33:9).

The Bible nowhere allows for long ages.
One can search the Scriptures (see my book Biblical Creationism for proof) from beginning to end without finding even a hint of evolution or long ages. To Jesus, every "jot or one tittle" of Scripture was divinely inspired (Matthew 5:18) and He warned us severely against adding any other words to it (Revelation 22:18). The Bible, therefore, would certainly not leave the vital doctrine of creation open to human speculation.

The Bible explicitly states how and when creation took place.
Although many evangelicals have long equivocated as to the meaning of the "days" of creation, this type of ad hoc handling of Scripture is never justified in the context, and Christ Himself would never have interpreted them as indefinite ages of some kind. Not only is "day" (Hebrew, yom) defined in this context the first time it is used (Genesis 1:5), but the writer conclusively restricted its interpretation to the literal meaning by numbering the days ("first day," "second day," etc.) and by indicating their boundaries ("evening and morning"), both of which restrictions elsewhere in the Old Testament limit the meaning to literal days. The question seems to be even more firmly settled when God wrote with His own finger that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the [seventh] day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11), thereby basing our calendar's seven-day week on this primeval creation week. Jesus referred to this divine example when He said that "The sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27) to meet our weekly need of rest from work.

The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.

On another occasion, speaking especially of Adam's son Abel, He referred to "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50-51), thereby acknowledging that Abel was the first prophet, martyred in the very first generation—not 4.6 billion years after the formation of the earth. Jesus also said that Satan, using Cain to slay Abel, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).

Note also that the father of John the Baptist, prophesying when filled with the Holy Spirit, said that God's holy prophets had been predicting a coming Savior "since the world began" (Luke 1:70). Then the apostle Peter later preached that the second coming of Christ and the ultimate removal of the great Curse on the earth had even been events that "God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). The apostle Paul wrote that evidence of God as Creator should have been "clearly seen" (by men, of course) ever since "the creation of the world."

There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus was what evolutionists today (both theistic and atheistic) would call a "young-earth creationist." It would seem that this should settle the question for all true Christians, who should certainly—on the authority of Christ Himself—completely reject the notion of geologic ages.

But they don't! For one thing, not all who consider themselves Christians really believe the Bible, especially its unpopular teachings. Unfortunately, many who think they are Bible-believing Christians have become adept at "wresting" the Scriptures (note II Peter 3:17), even the recorded words of Jesus and the apostles, to make them conform to the scientism of evolutionary speculation. As noted above, there is not the slightest suggestion of millions and billions of years anywhere in the Bible when it is taken simply to mean what it says. That is why we "young-earth creationists" have to keep on reemphasizing the pervasive Bible teaching of just thousands of years of earth and cosmic history.

But what are we supposed to do when the Bible disagrees with the majority of scientists on such matters?

We are to believe the Bible—that's what! When the teachings of men conflict with the Word of God, it would be wise to go with God. -- -

Furthermore, there are now thousands of scientists (fully credentialed with post-graduate degrees from accredited universities) who have become convinced believers in recent creation. No doubt we are still a minority, but it is a growing minority. There are several hundred such scientists in the Creation Research Society, not to mention those on our ICR faculty as well as those associated with numerous other creationist organizations around the world.

There is also a rapidly growing body of scientific data that not only shows the impossibility of macroevolution but also much that repudiates the so-called evidences of "billions of years." Creationist geologists have been developing an abundance of evidence of global catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism in earth history—thus confirming the Biblical record of the great Flood as the major explanation for the fossil-bearing rocks in the earth's crust, instead of having to invent imaginary long ages of evolution to account for them.

It is possible now even to amass a list of dozens of worldwide natural processes (e.g., accumulation of salt in the sea) which, even on uniformist assumptions, will yield ages much too brief for evolution. Thus, even without referring to the Bible at all, it is possible to make an impressive case for recent creation. One cannot determine the exact age of the earth by science, of course, and these various processes may yield various values, but all prove too small for evolutionism to be possible.

With the supposed exception of radiometric dating, that is. The decay of uranium into lead, rubidium into strontium, and a few other such processes can be made to show extremely long ages, so radioactive decay processes have been considered by evolutionists to be firm proof of the billions of years.

But Christians need to remember that such calculations, like all the others, are based on the arbitrary assumption of uniformitarianism, which not only is unprovable but contrary to the Bible. The apostle Peter calls it "willing ignorance" (note II Peter 3:3-6) when this assumption ignores the world-changing impact of special creation of all things in the beginning and the worldwide geologic impact of the global Deluge in the days of Noah.

Furthermore, the forthcoming publications of the ICR/CRS RATE Initiative will show strong scientific evidence that even these radioactive decay processes really provide convincing arguments that the earth is thousands of years old—not billions!

Therefore, we plead once again with our Christian theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, gap creationists, and intelligent design minimalists to come back to the Bible for their view of the world and its history. We should most certainly believe the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on this vital subject. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord," He might well say, "and [believe] not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).
---
*Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
_________________________
"However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace." Acts 20:24 +



John 3:12
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?



#74 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 November 2010 - 08:31 PM

There are the Church fathers who believed in a particular theory regarding this.  They believe God is paralleing the days of creation with the time period of human history.  So the 6 days (24 hours) of creation, and 7th day rest, will parallel with 6000 years of human history, followed by a 1000 year era of peace (the 7th) day).

View Post

When would the period of peace begin according to this? Aren't we past that 6,000 year mark already?

#75 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 19 November 2010 - 08:49 PM

When would the period of peace begin according to this? Aren't we past that 6,000 year mark already?

View Post


It is not certain whether the time periods have been absolutely and perfecty calculated, as it seems there are some arguments about it. But either way, it appears we are certainly near enough or possibly beginning that time period yes. Certainly, very very close to (give or take some years).

But as evil has proliferated throughout the centuries and become more widely spread and accepted, I believe we will experience a climax of this evil (the tribulation?). So perhaps the "change over" from these times into this new time (springtime some call it), maybe gradual at first and gather speed as we near the end. It doesn't mean we got immediately from one to the other.

I believe we are being allowed to see things get worse to help wake people up the increased evil and acceptance of it around the world and perhaps such will get much worse than now before the earth is renewed.

#76 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 November 2010 - 08:53 PM

I have an old book that says that each creative day was 7,000 years. I think that is because they were making the 7th day continue until now... anyway, I think the author of that book had a similar thought. I would have to dig it out and pay attention in order to make more sense here. ;)

#77 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 November 2010 - 08:56 PM

When would the period of peace begin according to this? Aren't we past that 6,000 year mark already?

View Post


Yeah its more like the opposite....

One semi-serious way of looking at this is movie ratings... (Please bear with me). I discussed this in Religion back when I was at secondary education, (I went to a Catholic school, despite being Presbyterian at the time).

Anyway, I wrote about how movie ratings were slowly allowing younger and younger audiences to watch more graphic films over time... Albeit I wrote this about the changes in modern society, however it can kinda be related to this as well.

I find it somewhat amusing / depressing that whilst evolution predicts everything to get better and better, and whilst technology is, the core values of humanity are slowly being eroded away.

People can talk all across the world, but many can't talk across a dinner table. This is a saying I heard from somewhere, (can't remember sorry)

From what I heard in Politics class, the Global Financial Crisis, (GFC), was fueled mainly by greed.

These are dark times we live in, (well thats what I think ;) )


:Rant Over:

#78 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 November 2010 - 08:57 PM

I guess this is not surprising as I am not an advocate of predestination.

View Post

I just saw this... it is obvious in the scriptures that God has predestined some things... That does not mean that he has predestined everything. The fact that we have free will indicates that He can choose not to.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users