Jump to content


Photo

Questions For Theistic Evolutionists


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#41 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 May 2015 - 05:14 PM

First, I do label myself as a Christian.  You need go no farther than my profile information at the left of each post to see that.  It was set up that way when I made my first post to this list and has not changed since.... nor will it.   That said, there are many on this list who label themselves as Christians who would argue Roman Catholics, such as myself, aren't Christian.

 

I would not accuse you, a Catholic, of being non-Christian.  I myself was born and raised a Catholic, even worse an Irish Catholic.  As a Catholic, my salvation was future and unknown.  Why?  Because, when you put yourself under Peter, your salvation is future and contingent on how well you keep the law and how many good works you do.  But this covenant can't be justified in any of Paul's letters.  And Paul, not Peter, is the apostle to the Gentiles.  But I digress.  The dinosaur soft tissue is just one piece of irrefragable evidence that shows that Genesis  just might be literal.  Unless you accept this as proof, and admit that, without divine intervention, it is absolutely impossible for this tissue to remain fresh for 70 million years.  

 

As for which parts I see as metaphor and which are not.... I'm not sure I have a hard and fast rule.  Mostly, my objections take are with YEC when they try to justify their literalism with science.  This is why you'll find most of my issues are focused on the early chapters of Genesis.

 

I think you will admit that God's word is man's Ultimate Standard by which all truth is known?  For example, if the Bible is not true, then science would not be possible.

 

Goku made a point back in post #6....

While it is certainly within the power of an omnipotent God to suspend the natural laws and perform miracles, some things simply can't be explained away.  For example, our ability to see distant objects.  When we look at objects like Sn1987a, the light conveys information about events that occurred at the time and place light left its source.  YEC would make almost the entire universe nothing more than a deception filled with objects that never existed and events that never took place.

 

I'm talking about something we can see and smell and feel and taste--unfossilized dinosaurs.  By the time Mary Schweitzer got it back to the lab , it sank.  Will you and Goku admit that if it were 70 million year old, this would be impossible? 

 

To me, this creates substantial philosophical and theological issues.  If God is deceptive, we can trust nothing we see nor can we trust any of our memories or knowledge.  In short, everything we think we know could be no more than an illusion.

 

But God is not deceptive.  The soft tissue dinosaur comports perfectly with what He says in Genesis 1:24 and Job.

 

 

 

You asked about other religions....

When I was raised in Catholic schools, we were taught that only Catholics could hope to be saved.... all others, even Christian Protestants, were excluded from heaven.  Since then, at Vatican II, considerable revisions have been made to (Catholic) thinking on the matter of salvation.  We must begin with the concept that God is just, merciful, and loving.

 

He is merciful to those who come to Him in repentance and "confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10).  When you pray this prayer, you are saved and you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.  If you did that, you can be a confused Catholic and attempt to earn the free gift of salvation that God has freely given you.  But Paul asks:  If you try to earn this gift, then is it still a gift or wages earned.  And if you could earn your salvation, then why would Jesus have to go to the Cross to save you?

 

Even Protestant teaching that one must be a professed Christian to achieve salvation has serious problems with the number of people that can achieve salvation.  This would exempt anyone born before Christ and most of the population of the planet since Him who never heard of either Christ or the Bible.  To me, this is contradictory to a just merciful, or loving God.

 

Paul covers this ion Romans 1.  God judges people with what knowledge of Him has been revealed to them.  Salvation if knowing God and He whom God has sent.  But Jesus said that to whom much is given, much is expected.  God would not send a man to Hell for not accepting Jesus if Jesus had not been revealed to him.  But then Paul teaches that when men look At the creation, and deny a Creator God, they are without excuse.

 

 

 

I know most of our YEC friends will disagree with this and (likely) claim it to be some kind of heresy, but my thinking on salvation has .... um .... evolved over the years.  Now, I am much more in agreement with Vatican II which basically takes the position that salvation is available to all.  What we must do is live by the teachings of Jesus Christ.  This path is available to all of mankind .... though it is much easier for those of us who know of His instructions.

 

Paul is your apostle. To the extent that the Vatican is in disagreement with Paul, to that extent they are in error.   Peter was a Jew and a citizen of Israel.  You are neither.  You are a disciple of Paul who got his gospel from Jesus Christ directly (see Galatians).

 

We can discuss these matters wherever you like.  As I recall, this is the third discussion of theistic evolution since I've been here.  One was started by me, one by usafjay and this one by Teejay.  The others went stale when a lot more material was introduced than I could respond to and I was off on matters of more interest (to me).

 

No man comes to the Father except through Me, Jesus warned.  Fortunately, I don't think God will send Christians who accept Him for being confused.

 

TeeJay



#42 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 May 2015 - 06:58 PM

Been trying to get back to this one....

The Bible gives us specific details about the Flood itself.  Scripture tells us that at the start of the Flood, “the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened” (Gen. 7:11).  The next verse says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  These two verses give us the source of the water.  Genesis 7:8-20 provides some interesting details of the Flood waters:

We can be sure rainfall did not contribute significantly to a global flood.  Rain is the result of water vapor condensing.  As water vapor condenses from a gas to a liquid, it releases a LOT of energy.  So much energy, in fact, that the condensation of just a couple liters of water vapor releases enough energy that it could launch an apple to orbit.  Putting it in simple terms, the condensation of enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of one meter (less than 40 inches) releases enough heat to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by more than 200oC (over 360oF).  The good news is that as the temperature rises, so does the dew point.  This should cut off the condensation before temperatures get that extreme.  The bad news is that condensation is the fuel for rain.  No condensation, no rain.  One thing Dr. Walt Brown and I agree on is that the maximum contribution rainfall could realistically make to a global flood is around 10 centimeters (4 inches).

 

All of the creation science proposals for a water source .... Vardiman's Vapor Canopy; Baumgardner's Runaway Subduction; and Brown's Hydroplates share one common failure.  Each of them results in atmospheric temperatures that would exceed the boiling point of water.

 

 

“The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.  And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth and all the high hills under the whole heavens were covered.  The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward and the mountains were covered.”

 

Notice that it plainly says that even the mountains were covered.  Once this happened, the Flood could not possibly be a local event.  Why?  Water will level itself out.  Even if the Flood started in just the Mesopotamia (which it didn’t), it would have gone worldwide as soon as the mountains were covered.

How high are "high hills" and "mountains?"

 

Water will level itself out.... but the less the slope, the slower the water flows.  The regional flood previously mentioned had a duration similar to that of Noah's flood. 

 

But you do bring up a good point.  Water levels itself out.  In fact, that's how floods end.  With all the lower elevations already filled with water, where did the water from Noah's flood go?  Gen 8:3-5 clearly says the waters receded.

 

Genesis 8:4 tells us that the ark came to rest on “the mountains of Ararat.”  Admittedly, it does not say that it was specifically on Mt. Ararat.  But it landed on a mountain in the region of Ararat (today’s eastern Turkey).  And the point still remains, that the ark landed on a mountaintop.  Obviously, the water level was such as to rule out a local flood.  It was another two and a half months before the tops of the surrounding mountains were seen (Gen. 8:5).  It is unarguable that the ark landed on the highest mountain in the region at that time.

I'm not so certain the story clearly indicated the ark landed on the highest mountain .... if it survived over a year on the open ocean.  But that's a relatively minor point.  I would suggest the mountains of Ararat are in the order of 10,000 ft. (about 3,000 m).  That's a lot of water that has to go somewhere.

 

Further, the duration of the Flood gives strong evidence to refute the local flood theory.  I believe that many believers mistakenly assume that the rain lasted only 40 days and 40 nights due to a misreading of Genesis 7:12).  They forget that while the rains did last this long, the Flood itself was much longer.  Genesis 8:2 seems to indicate that it continued to rain throughout the first 150 days.  After the first 40 days of initial downpour, it continued to rain on a regular basis, as it does today.  And let us not forget that not all the water in the “fountains of the deep” went into the atmosphere.

 

The Bible tells us that the Flood began “in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month” (Gen. 7:11).  The Flood waters “prevailed on the eartih” for the next 150 days (Gen. 7:24).  The waters began to subside and the ark came to rest ten days later (Gen. 8:4).  The surface of the ground did not dry up until the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year (Gen. 8:13).  This was 313 days after the rain began!  Noah waited until the 27th day of the second month before leaving the ark (Gen. 8:14).  In total, Noah and his family were on the ark for over a year (371 by my calculation).

The atmosphere would be able to hold little water.  Dr. Larry Vardiman at ICR worked on this for 25 years and pretty conclusively demonstrated the atmosphere couldn't enough water vapor to cover the planet to a depth of only 0.5m (about 20 inches) without causing significant heat problems due to the greenhouse effect of that water.

 

I had always held to the 40 days of rain, but I do see this particular translation is worded in such a way that more is possible.  Interesting, but not a real problem.  As for the duration of the flood, I've seen various numbers from 7 months to over a year.  I guess it depends on exactly what point of the process we're talking about.



#43 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 May 2015 - 08:00 PM

Every text book I've seen my sons and grandsons bring home from a public school teaches that dinosaurs died out 65 to 70 million years ago.  In light of the finding of unfossilized dinosaurs, will you now admit that this evidence comports literally (not metaphorically or symbolicly) with Genesis 1:24 and disagrees with your millions of years worldview.  Will you admit this?

Let's be sure we're talking about the same verse:

"Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so." (NKJV)

 

From the start of this, I've pointed out the Bible says God commanded the Earth to bring forth life.  It's something I've never disagreed with.  In fact, it is entirely consistent with my position as a TE.  Gen 1:24 says exactly what I've said all along.  But that verse doesn't mention a time frame so it has no impact on billions of years.

 

Also, I'm not too sure how you think dinosaurs (starting 240 million years ago) would be presented as the main argument for a planet being 4.5 billion years old.  Dinosaurs would still leave us 4,250,000,000 years or so short.  First life shows up billions of years before dinosaurs.

 

Will you address my objections to using this unexpected find to overturn two well established and independent dating methods.... radioactive decay and astronomical time scales?  Given the variables involved, why should I rely on biological decay to prove anything at all about age?

 

Will you admit my ability to walk out in my back yard and see the galaxy Andromeda (distance 2.4 million light years) with my own eyes disagrees with your thousands of years worldview?



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 May 2015 - 09:10 PM

I think you will admit that God's word is man's Ultimate Standard by which all truth is known? 

All truth?  No.

 

The purpose of the Bible is instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).  It tells us how to manage our relationships with each other and with God.  As has been pointed out, Galileo said it... The Bible is about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.  It is not a science text.  I like this description which I got from a YEC.... the Bible is:

Basic

Instructions

Before

Leaving

Earth

 

 For example, if the Bible is not true, then science would not be possible.

To the extent that western science is based on the belief that a universe created by a rational God would be governed by rational laws that can be understood by rational beings, you are absolutely correct.



#45 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 01 June 2015 - 07:34 AM

Piasan,

 

Me thinks you are trying to lead me away from the unfossilized dinosaurs with arguments such as whether God created them or the earth created them.  One thing I do know.  God could write a DNA code but the earth is mindless and incapable of writing A, B, C, even by accident.

 

What I want from you, Piasan, is an admission that it is impossible for natural forces to preserve dinosaur tissue for 70 million years?  And if they are now birds (absurd on the face of it), can you present just one transitional fossil that proves this absurd belief?  Just one?  There are no transitional fossils to show that evolution of any species occurred; yet you believe it occurred.  Why?

 

TeeJay



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 June 2015 - 12:22 AM

Me thinks you are trying to lead me away from the unfossilized dinosaurs with arguments such as whether God created them or the earth created them.  One thing I do know.  God could write a DNA code but the earth is mindless and incapable of writing A, B, C, even by accident.

Excuse me ! ! ! ! !

 

In the OP, you asked questions about the flood of Noah.  We were still discussing the flood when, in post #15, you led the topic away from the flood by introducing unfossilized dinosaurs.  You specifically asked me to comment on them in #21 and for a comment on dinosaur extinction in #22.  Then in #36, you brought up Gen 1:24.  Now you bring up "DNA code."

 

I'm trying to lead you away..... really ? ? ? ?

 

Gen 1:24 said exactly what I had pointed out all the way back in post #13 (IIRC) .... that God commanded the Earth to bring forth life .... and it was so.  You seem to be forgetting the "theistic" part of "theistic evolutionist." 

 

 

What I want from you, Piasan, is an admission that it is impossible for natural forces to preserve dinosaur tissue for 70 million years?  

And you may get it .... when our understanding of biological decay matches that of nuclear decay and astronomy.  As it stands right now, for reasons already explained by me and not addressed by you, the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur tissue is interesting but is insufficient to present a serious challenge to billions of years.

 

 

 And if they are now birds (absurd on the face of it), can you present just one transitional fossil that proves this absurd belief?  Just one?  There are no transitional fossils to show that evolution of any species occurred

Archaeopteryx.... but fossils have nothing to do with my rejection of a literal Genesis.

 

#### edit:  

Archie was discovered in 1861.  It's not exactly news.

##### end edit

 

 

yet you believe it occurred.  Why?

Because of (in order):

1) Physics

2) Astronomy

3) Geology

4) Meteorology

5) DNA

6) Genetics

7) Fossils.

 

Notice, nothing remotely related to biological evolution is even in my top four.



#47 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 02 June 2015 - 06:58 AM

Excuse me ! ! ! ! !

 

In the OP, you asked questions about the flood of Noah.  We were still discussing the flood when, in post #15, you led the topic away from the flood by introducing unfossilized dinosaurs.  You specifically asked me to comment on them in #21 and for a comment on dinosaur extinction in #22.  Then in #36, you brought up Gen 1:24.  Now you bring up "DNA code."

 

I'm trying to lead you away..... really ? ? ? ?

 

Gen 1:24 said exactly what I had pointed out all the way back in post #13 (IIRC) .... that God commanded the Earth to bring forth life .... and it was so.  You seem to be forgetting the "theistic" part of "theistic evolutionist." 

 

 

And you may get it .... when our understanding of biological decay matches that of nuclear decay and astronomy.  As it stands right now, for reasons already explained by me and not addressed by you, the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur tissue is interesting but is insufficient to present a serious challenge to billions of years.

 

 

Archaeopteryx.... but fossils have nothing to do with my rejection of a literal Genesis.

 

#### edit:  

Archie was discovered in 1861.  It's not exactly news.

##### end edit

 

 

Because of (in order):

1) Physics

2) Astronomy

3) Geology

4) Meteorology

5) DNA

6) Genetics

7) Fossils.

 

Notice, nothing remotely related to biological evolution is even in my top four.

Piasan,

 

Do you realize that you are being woodenly literal with Gen. 1:24 (where God does not want you to be) and not literal where He wants you to be.  Instead of God creating living things fullly formed and functional, you now have mindless matter writing DNA information programs.  Some questions:

 

Is it possible for mindless matter to write a DNA information program?

 

If the living creatures evolved gradually, you are on the horns of another dilemma:  Unless all the parts are present and functional, the most simple cell cannot function and will die.

 

Can you give us an explanation of how to overcome this dilemma?

 

And, let's cut to the chase:  If you want to take Gen. 1:24 literal, then present the millions of transitional fossils.  Thus far, I haven't seen any.  Please don't present me some extinct fossil that has already been debunked by YEC's.

 

And I will ask you again, why do you believe something for which there is no evidence and reject God's account of how He did it?

 

TeeJay



#48 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 June 2015 - 09:09 AM

Do you realize that you are being woodenly literal with Gen. 1:24 (where God does not want you to be) and not literal where He wants you to be.  Instead of God creating living things fullly formed and functional, you now have mindless matter writing DNA information programs.  

Amazing.  You present a verse and insist I deal with it literally, then you complain I'm being "woodenly literal." (emphasis Teejay's)    :dono:

 

Why don't you explain how your selected verse does what you claim.... shows billions of years to be wrong?  Since you asked with regard to the flood what I had that indicated those verses were symbolic, why not explain why Gen 1:24 is not literal.   After all, I'm the one being taken to task for NOT taking the creation account literally and YOU are the one who is insisting it should be accepted as literal truth.

 

Also, I do not "now have mindless matter writing DNA information programs" on its own, but at the command of God.  Will you expain why you have a problem with that?

 

 

 Some questions:

Why don't you ever answer any of my questions?

 

 

Is it possible for mindless matter to write a DNA information program?

Strawman.  Where did I say mindless matter wrote a DNA information program?  Ever?  You are again ignoring the "theistic" portion of "theistic evolution."

 

If the living creatures evolved gradually, you are on the horns of another dilemma:  Unless all the parts are present and functional, the most simple cell cannot function and will die.

 

Can you give us an explanation of how to overcome this dilemma?

No one says life began as modern cells.

 

 

And, let's cut to the chase:  If you want to take Gen. 1:24 literal, then present the millions of transitional fossils.  Thus far, I haven't seen any.  Please don't present me some extinct fossil that has already been debunked by YEC's.

You have not shown Archie has been debunked by YEC's.   Notice, fossils is the last item on my list of reasons for rejecting YEC.

 

 

And I will ask you again, why do you believe something for which there is no evidence and reject God's account of how He did it?

I have answered this repeatedly.  In my last post, I gave you a list of seven items in order of their priority.  Though, being a bit more awake now than I was at 2AM, I would slightly revise the list.  Since physics is a factor in 3 or 4 items, remove physics from the #1 position and insert Radioactive decay as #3.  This makes the revised list:

1) Astronomy

2) Geology

3) Nuclear decay

4) Meteorology

5) DNA

6) Genetics

7) Fossils.

 

Do you think you're seriously challenging my position when you attack the bottom items on my list of issues?  If you were buying a new car and told the salesman you weren't going to buy his car because, in order:

1)  It was too expensive.

2)  You don't like the body style.

3)  You don't like the color.

4)  You dont want a manual transmission

5)  It lacks air conditioning

6)  You want bucket seats instead of bench seats

7)  You want a stereo radio with a dvd player.

 

And the salesman says .... "Why do you want a stereo when the car has a really good AM radio?"

 

Would you buy the car or would you expect him to address some of your major issues?

 

When will you start answering some of my questions?



#49 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 02 June 2015 - 02:02 PM

Piasan,

 

I must apologize.  I wanted to get into a more in-depth dialogue.  The reason I have not answered your questions is I have to go out of town and will be busy.  Thank you for answering me.

 

God bless, TeeJay



#50 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 June 2015 - 02:37 PM

I must apologize.  I wanted to get into a more in-depth dialogue.  The reason I have not answered your questions is I have to go out of town and will be busy.  Thank you for answering me.

I'll be happy to get more in depth.... but I feel it's only reasonable you address some of the issues I've raised as well.

 

Thanks for the discussion.... I hope we can pick it up when you get back.



#51 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 06 June 2015 - 01:29 PM

All truth?  No.

 

The purpose of the Bible is instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).  It tells us how to manage our relationships with each other and with God.  As has been pointed out, Galileo said it... The Bible is about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.  It is not a science text.  I like this description which I got from a YEC.... the Bible is:

Basic

Instructions

Before

Leaving

Earth

 

To the extent that western science is based on the belief that a universe created by a rational God would be governed by rational laws that can be understood by rational beings, you are absolutely correct.

Piasan,

 

Science (which is a search for causes) does not enable you to understand the Bible.  It it is not true that we are created in God's image, with a logical mind that is capable of knowing truth, then no truth can be known--whether it be special revelation from the Bible or truth learned from scientific experimentation.  Unless God's word is put first, then science as we know it today, could not exist.  For example, we know that the laws of physics will not change arbitrarily from one day to the next because God promises in His word that He upholds it all with the word of His power.  God promises this in Genesis.  If you take His promise as not being literal, you have no basis to believe that the law of gravity, say, will not be different tomorrow.  Any scientific experimentation must be based on an Ultimate Standard that need not be proved by anything else.  So, you can't deem God's promise to uphold all as metaphorical; you must take it as literal.  But then I must ask why you can pick some of Genesis as literal and some not literal?  

 

Here is where I reason that Old Earthers have a problem.  When I presented to you the soft tissue dinosaur, you immediately did back flips and contortions looking for an escape to justify your worldview.  If your worldview does not comport with what you encounter in reality, shouldn't you stop and question it?  Instead of this irrefragable evidence giving you pause, you are now searching for how this tissue could have been preserved for 70 million years.  If it's impossible for this tissue to be preserved for this time, will you ever find a process that can preserve it?  That preservation of this tissue for 70 million years is not possible should be self-evident to you?

 

TeeJay



#52 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 06 June 2015 - 02:11 PM

Excuse me ! ! ! ! !

 

In the OP, you asked questions about the flood of Noah.  We were still discussing the flood when, in post #15, you led the topic away from the flood by introducing unfossilized dinosaurs.  You specifically asked me to comment on them in #21 and for a comment on dinosaur extinction in #22.  Then in #36, you brought up Gen 1:24.  Now you bring up "DNA code."

 

I'm trying to lead you away..... really ? ? ? ?

 

Piasan, I stand corrected.

 

Gen 1:24 said exactly what I had pointed out all the way back in post #13 (IIRC) .... that God commanded the Earth to bring forth life .... and it was so.  You seem to be forgetting the "theistic" part of "theistic evolutionist."

 

Here again, I must point out that you are being "woodenly" literal.  When I read this, I interpret this to mean that He created all plants and animals fully formed and fully functional and that all would reproduce after its own kind from the nutrients of the earth.  But your interpretation has mindless matter creating and writing DNA information programs--absurd on the face of it.  And I'm sure that you will argue that God micro-managed the evolution by gradualism.  But Behe's irreducible complexity argument makes gradualism impossible.  Take one part from an amoeba and it dies.  Unless there are precreated lungs, oxygen is destructive.  Unless there is a precreated mechanism to capture to the energy of the sun, plants would shrivel and die.  And there is no transitional fossils.  If your theory were correct, wouldn't you expect to find millions of transitional fossils.  Shouldn't the missing transitional fossils make you at least question your worldview? 

 

 

And you may get it .... when our understanding of biological decay matches that of nuclear decay and astronomy.  As it stands right now, for reasons already explained by me and not addressed by you, the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur tissue is interesting but is insufficient to present a serious challenge to billions of years.

 

Which is more reasonable to believe:  Genesis and Job are true as written by God?  Or I can shoot one of my cows and bury it and 70 million years from now we can dig it up and have a BBQ?  Jesus Christ may ask you that someday?

 

 

Archaeopteryx.... but fossils have nothing to do with my rejection of a literal Genesis.

 

#### edit:  

Archie was discovered in 1861.  It's not exactly news.

##### end edit

 

 

Because of (in order):

1) Physics

2) Astronomy

3) Geology

4) Meteorology

5) DNA

6) Genetics

7) Fossils.

 

Notice, nothing remotely related to biological evolution is even in my top four.

 

In one of my classes, I had an 18-year-old senior ask if there were any transitional fossils that showed evolution had happened.  When I told her there was not one single transitional fossil ever found, wide-eyed she practicallly screamed at me the question:  "Then why do they believe it happened?"  My answer to her was from the apostle Paul:  Willful self-deception."  As Paul said, "They suppress the truth in unrighteousness."  

 

Now, Piasan, if you can explain to me, in just the broadest terms, how gradual evolution could occur over billions of years without leaving one transitional fossil, then you will have my attention and probably with a Nobel Prize as well.  But absent the transitional fossil, your belief is arbitrary--arbitrary because you have no reason to believe it happened.  I can believe that it will not rain on my granddaughter's wedding this month.  But I can't know that it will not rain, for my belief is arbitrary.  Even if it indeed does not rain on the wedding, my belief was still arbitrary, for I had no reason to believe it would not rain.

 

Notice that you have now rejected two pieces evidence against your worldview that are self-evident:  Dinosaur soft-tissue and total absence of transitional fossils.  If I were a theistic evolutionist, and if I were presented with these two arguments, I think I would at least question my worldview.

 

TeeJay



#53 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 06 June 2015 - 02:22 PM

Piasan,

 

I'm curious how you will answer this:  In Revelation 21 (I believe it's 21) God will create a new heaven and a new Earth.  Will He take billions of years to do it?  If you answer no, I must ask:  Why is Genesis metaphorical and Revelation 21 literal?

 

TeeJay



#54 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 June 2015 - 09:54 PM

Welcome back, Teejay.  Hope your trip went well...

Science (which is a search for causes) does not enable you to understand the Bible.

You have my absolute agreement.  Science does nothing to improve our understanding of the Bible.  Science is a tool that helps us understand God's creation.

 

It it is not true that we are created in God's image, with a logical mind that is capable of knowing truth, then no truth can be known--whether it be special revelation from the Bible or truth learned from scientific experimentation.  Unless God's word is put first, then science as we know it today, could not exist.  For example, we know that the laws of physics will not change arbitrarily from one day to the next because God promises in His word that He upholds it all with the word of His power.  God promises this in Genesis. 

Presuppositional apologetics?  No thanks.

 

 If you take His promise as not being literal, you have no basis to believe that the law of gravity, say, will not be different tomorrow.  Any scientific experimentation must be based on an Ultimate Standard that need not be proved by anything else.

Ultimate standards that need not be proved by anything else are called "axioms."  Simply stated, we take them "for granted."  There is no reason we cannot consider the constancy of natural laws to be such axioms.... or, as you put it "Any scientific experimentation must be based on an ultimate standard that need not be proved by anything else." 

 

So, you can't deem God's promise to uphold all as metaphorical; you must take it as literal.  But then I must ask why you can pick some of Genesis as literal and some not literal?  

There are many things we see, but should not be able to see if Genesis were literal.... example:  over 99.9999999999% of the universe (#1 on my list of reasons for rejecting Genesis literalism).  There are other things I would expect us to see but don't .... example:  dinosaur and human remains in the same fossil bed (#7 on my list).



#55 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 06 June 2015 - 10:37 PM

...
There are many things we see, but should not be able to see if Genesis were literal.... example:  over 99.9999999999% of the universe (#1 on my list of reasons for rejecting Genesis literalism).  There are other things I would expect us to see but don't .... example:  dinosaur and human remains in the same fossil bed (#7 on my list).

 
I don't want to get away from the...ur...rambling focus of this thread, but, Pi, you bring this up a lot. I'm curious if you're familiar with Don Patton's excavation of ten human skeletons in the Dakota (lower Cretaceous) sandstone near Moab, Utah.

 

malachite-man-1971.jpg

malachite-man-1990-articulated-skeleton.

malachite-man-1990-leg-knee.jpg

 

(And please don't give me Glen Kuban's website as a rebuttal. I'm already familiar with his antics and sophistry)

 

As a side note, Teejay, what browser (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome, etc.), and what operating system (Windows 7, Windows 8, Macintosh, etc.) are you using? Remaining double post deleted.



#56 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 June 2015 - 06:05 AM

Piasan, there are other things we would expect to see if evolution was true, like thousands of missing transitionals from the cambrian, the ancestors of apes and monkey, the ancestors of turtle, bats, Pterosaurs, plants.

 

BD my only problem with Patton, though I admit he makes a great deal of sense in many of his talks, is that he seems to claim to have evidence for everything, like a photo of Noah's ark, dinosaur-human footprints. My only problem is that when someone seems to have all of the evidence we would dearly love to have shown to the world if it was true, then my mind starts to think of Ron Wyatt, who also claimed many things, like finding the blood of Christ as well as the ark of the covenant, as well as Noah's ark. One would think these fellows are chosen prophets the things they find. ;)

 

This doesn't mean I am not open to Patton's claims but I think it would be better if there was some independent corroboration of his claims. 

 

Disclaimer: I am not saying you are wrong about this evidence, I simply think that personally it's best to be cautious when Bubba and his mates claim to have found Noah saddling a T-Rex preserved in amber. ;)

 

I would certainly be open to this evidence if there were more clear-cut inquiries, and I am open to it but would have to read up more about it, but the Paluxy tracks turned out to be a dissapointment to me, it seems eroded dino-tracks that looked like human-prints, were a fairly reasonable explanation. Usually it is a good sign that the source is good, if AIG or CMI also approve of the evidence. IMHO.

 

Feel free to correct me on any misinformation, I am just trying to be objective because in the past I accepted some of Wyatt's claims later to find out some information that just didn't make them seem all that impressive so I now employ caution with big claims about dino/human. 

 

Personally I wouldn't expect dinos to be near humanity at that stage of history, as they would have been agressive animals by then, IMHO. (ecological zonation?)



#57 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 07 June 2015 - 08:06 AM

Piasan, there are other things we would expect to see if evolution was true, like thousands of missing transitionals from the cambrian, the ancestors of apes and monkey, the ancestors of turtle, bats, Pterosaurs, plants.
 
BD my only problem with Patton, though I admit he makes a great deal of sense in many of his talks, is that he seems to claim to have evidence for everything, like a photo of Noah's ark, dinosaur-human footprints. My only problem is that when someone seems to have all of the evidence we would dearly love to have shown to the world if it was true, then my mind starts to think of Ron Wyatt, who also claimed many things, like finding the blood of Christ as well as the ark of the covenant, as well as Noah's ark. One would think these fellows are chosen prophets the things they find. ;)
 
This doesn't mean I am not open to Patton's claims but I think it would be better if there was some independent corroboration of his claims. 
 
Disclaimer: I am not saying you are wrong about this evidence, I simply think that personally it's best to be cautious when Bubba and his mates claim to have found Noah saddling a T-Rex preserved in amber. ;)


I have my own reservations, which is why I generally don't refer to Patton's work, or use it as proof of anything. I don't think he documented the Moab dig well enough to satisfy me, much less a skeptical evolutionist, although in the pictures it certainly looks like the bones are embedded in the sandstone matrix. That's why I just asked Pi if he was familiar with it. As far as Wyatt's stuff goes, don't get me started on his nonsense. I'm glad to see you don't buy it (but puzzled why you used his claim that Jebel al Lawz is Mt. Sinai). Please don't conflate Wyatt with Patton, though.
 

I would certainly be open to this evidence if there were more clear-cut inquiries, and I am open to it but would have to read up more about it, but the Paluxy tracks turned out to be a dissapointment to me, it seems eroded dino-tracks that looked like human-prints, were a fairly reasonable explanation. Usually it is a good sign that the source is good, if AIG or CMI also approve of the evidence. IMHO.
 
Feel free to correct me on any misinformation, I am just trying to be objective because in the past I accepted some of Wyatt's claims later to find out some information that just didn't make them seem all that impressive so I now employ caution with big claims about dino/human. 
 
Personally I wouldn't expect dinos to be near humanity at that stage of history, as they would have been agressive animals by then, IMHO. (ecological zonation?)


I was disappointed by the Paluxy tracks as well. I remember buying John Morris's book on it about 25 years ago, only to find, when I got home, an Impact article inside that said the tracks had developed tridactyl coloration, and shouldn't be used as evidence. :rolleyes: And they were still selling the book because...? :think:  I never did read the book. However, the claim that the human tracks are just dinosaur tracks with a deeper heel impression has not held up. Kuban has to be very selective in which tracks he shows when he makes that claim. Ian Juby briefly goes over much of that in his newsletter. I think AIG and CMI are just completely gun-shy on the subject, and don't even want to touch it.



#58 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 07 June 2015 - 08:33 AM

 

 

\Welcome back, Teejay.  Hope your trip went well...

You have my absolute agreement.  Science does nothing to improve our understanding of the Bible.  Science is a tool that helps us understand God's creation.

 

Hello Piasan.  Thank you.  I did have a good trip.  While we agree, I must point out that science is a process that really tells us nothing.  It is scientists interpreting science that tell us things.  But all evidence will be interpreted through one's presuppositional worldview.  A case in point is that you, as an Old Earther, were presented with an unfossilized dinosaur, but your presuppositional old earth worldview forced you to reject the self-evident proof before your eyes.  Everyone has a worldview (or a philosophy if you like) or a set of presuppositions through which they interpret the reality they encounter.  But if what you encounter in reality does not comport with your worldview, then, of necessity, your worldview is irrational.  

 

 

 

Presuppositional apologetics?  No thanks.

 

Can scientific arguments be dismissed with a "no thinks"?  How about philosophic arguments?  How about logic?  Now you can ignore them if you like, but I will consider your failure to address a presuppositional argument as your admission that you can't answer it.

 

 

 

Ultimate standards that need not be proved by anything else are called "axioms."  Simply stated, we take them "for granted."  There is no reason we cannot consider the constancy of natural laws to be such axioms.... or, as you put it "Any scientific experimentation must be based on an ultimate standard that need not be proved by anything else."

 

Piasan, you can believe all day that gravity will remain constant, but absent God's promise to keep it constant, you have no justification to believe that.  The evolutionist lives in an unguided, mindless, random chance universe.  While you believe in a Creator, you reject His promise to uphold all by the word of His power as metaphorical.  If you take His promise as literal, then you are inconsistent with your original argument that Genesis is metaphorical.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Axioms?  I do not agree that the law of gravity is an axiom that can never change.  Jesus could violate the law of gravity by walking on water and still remain the God the Son.  But could He ever violate the law of non-contradiction and remain truthful?  No!

 

 

 

There are many things we see, but should not be able to see if Genesis were literal.... example:  over 99.9999999999% of the universe (#1 on my list of reasons for rejecting Genesis literalism).  There are other things I would expect us to see but don't .... example:  dinosaur and human remains in the same fossil bed (#7 on my list).

 

Piasan, if you were to see these things, you would not accpt them as evidence that proves your worldview wrong.  I live about 50 plus miles from a riverbed here in Texas and I stood in dinosaur tracks with a boy's footprint inside the dinosaur footprint.  Bonedigger presents evidence to you.  Around the world there are pictographs (and carvings) of dinosaurs that the natives must have seen in order to be able to carve and draw them. And we have God talking to Job about the Behemoth--which has been unearthed in South America.  Again, Piasan, your worldview will not allow you accept any evidence you see.''

 

TeeJay



#59 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 June 2015 - 11:05 AM

I appreciate those thoughts BD.

 

Yeah with Jebel-El-Lawz I know the case is circumstantial. I would think though that there is enough evidence to make it a possibility. I think it is true what an old friend of mine said who is now with the Lord, he said that Wyatt did at least know how to check his bible correctly, for specific biblical descriptions given in the text. When I read how the wilderness had "shut them in" and I saw that Nuweiba beach was the only real area to contain such a vast exodus of people, and when I looked into the reasons for Sinai in the Sinai peninsula, instead of Arabia like the New Testament says, I just thought the whole thing started to look interesting.

 

I am not dogmatic about it being Sinai, but there are some remarkable evidences that fit with that notion. I watched some videos of people showing the rocks burnt at the top, are not burnt underneath. I won't go into a full explanation but I honestly don't believe there is any reason to not believe it might have been the location.



#60 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 07 June 2015 - 11:33 AM

I appreciate those thoughts BD.

 

Yeah with Jebel-El-Lawz I know the case is circumstantial. I would think though that there is enough evidence to make it a possibility. I think it is true what an old friend of mine said who is now with the Lord, he said that Wyatt did at least know how to check his bible correctly, for specific biblical descriptions given in the text. When I read how the wilderness had "shut them in" and I saw that Nuweiba beach was the only real area to contain such a vast exodus of people, and when I looked into the reasons for Sinai in the Sinai peninsula, instead of Arabia like the New Testament says, I just thought the whole thing started to look interesting.

 

I am not dogmatic about it being Sinai, but there are some remarkable evidences that fit with that notion. I watched some videos of people showing the rocks burnt at the top, are not burnt underneath. I won't go into a full explanation but I honestly don't believe there is any reason to not believe it might have been the location.

 

I don't want to hijack Teejay's thread into a discussion of Mt. Sinai, so I'll just say that ABR has couple of excellent articles on the subject (here and here), and leave it at that.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users