Jump to content


Photo

Issues With Evidence


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#61 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 24 January 2011 - 05:05 PM

Evolutionary theory can make NO predictions as it is based on RANDOM mutation, and selection pressures, (of which these pressures are unknown until they occur).

What does discovering new drugs have to do with evolution? Considering this is one of the many avenues of employment for my degree of Biotechnology and is based on finding compounds in nature or developing compounds in the lab.

What does "tracking tumour evolution" entail?  does this mean a tumour can change into something else? (how do tumours "evolve")

What does prediction of pathogen "evolution" entail? Considering, (as said before), evolution makes no predictions as to how a species adapts!! Since its RANDOM mutation.

Vaccine development is medical science.. No evolution used here.

Mutations are a natural phenomenon, (like birth as you said before), how does evolution have anything to do with it in viruses?

How does "Backtracking the origin of a disease based on phylogenic analysis" utilise evolutionary principles?

View Post


Evolutionary models and what has been learned from them are critical in all of what I have listed here.

It falls under the category of Evolutionary Biology...there are numerous papers on the subject.

Evolutionary Biology

Modern applications of evolutionary biology
There are numerous ways to apply evolutionary biology to our needs today, among them:

1.prolonging the life of drug/chemical resistant compounds
2.constructing evolutionary trees
3.pathogen tracking
4.industrial production of biochemicals and other agents


Perhaps you are saying there are no practical applications of 'macro'-evolution...but most scientist do not differentiate between the two. (touchy subject...I think I will tiptoe away from this) :)

#62 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 24 January 2011 - 05:41 PM

Evolutionary models and what has been learned from them are critical in all of what I have listed here.

It falls under the category of Evolutionary Biology...there are numerous papers on the subject.

Evolutionary Biology
Perhaps you are saying there are no practical applications of 'macro'-evolution...but most scientist do not differentiate between the two. (touchy subject...I think I will tiptoe away from this) :)

View Post

Yes that is what I am saying, there is no practical application of macro-evolution, which is the core of what evolution actually is.

I'd like to see how the paper expresses, HOW numbers 1,3 and 4 things are related to evolutionary theory.. Considering (4) industrial production of biochemicals is another facet to Biotechnology, (not Evolutionary Biology).

Good idea, since that is part of the debate, where variation within a species is not part of evolution, (changes to become a new species) :)

As I mentioned to you in the other thread there is a limit to what variation can do, and life has never been observed to "evolve" past this limit.

#63 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 24 January 2011 - 08:36 PM

Evolution may be a religion to some, but it certainly is not when simply part of properly conducted science. It is not a religion to me. It obviously was not to my fellow classmates either, for as I have indicated for they felt no need to give up Christian beliefs when they accepted evolution as a valid scientific principle. Many people have found that there is no reason to give up religious belief when accepting scientific principles.

They did not really convert to anything and they came to conclusions from their own study and through their own free will. This was not a case of people coming into a situation of being restricted from thinking freely. Actually if indoctrination was involved, it was in their previously held Young Earth Creationist beliefs that they accepted before actually being more aware through education.

View Post


What part of the Bible is required for you to give up in order to believe in evolution?

Think freely = choose and believe freely. If a scientist goes and speaks his christian belief in front of a science convention, how long after that would he still be considered a scientist? Unless he recants and denounces God, his career is over.

Theistic evolution separates the Body of Christ through one part claiming more knowledge, more education, and just being smarter than everyone else who does not believe as they do. This goes along the lines of one Christian always putting themselves above another by always claiming to be closer to God, and using their faith as a tool of destruction.

TE makes your faith more based on observation. It basically makes the Christian just like the doubting Thomas in the Bible. And what did Christ say when Thomas would not believe until he felt the wounds as well as seen them:

jn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
jn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

When doubt enters into the heart, it's like a bad seed that can grow. The many years I have debated EVOs and TEs, I have also seen this seed grow until total doubt won out. And the person totally lost faith. How far can a Christian totally lose their faith (err from truth)?

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Far enough to need conversion to come back, which also means they can end up in Hell. What is of God, does not make a person turn away from God.

I can list a bunch of stuff about TE that is wrong and destroys faith. The only thing you can list about YEC is that you think it's stupid to believe in (exalting yourself above other Christians whom disagree with you):

1) 6 day creation.
2) 6000 years.
3) A world wide flood. Which by the way, the water for it was found.

Yet every bit of YEC can be found in the Bible, yet not one thing that supports evolution can. Evolution is an accepted secular world view, YEC is only accepted by those who believe the Bible is 100% true. To believe in evolution means you are friends with the world view, to believe YEC means you are an enemy of the world view.

jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Do you know why adulterers are addressed in that verse? It's because salvation is considered a marriage covenant.

mt 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

To stray outside the word of God, when the truth is known. and you have entered into the covenant, is like committing adultery in your faith. Why? Because you did not trust in Christ enough to believe what was said, so you strayed and believed another instead.

Do you have to believe in exactly what YEC says to be saved? Nope. But your belief has to be supported by the word of God, and has to make you a friend of God and not the world. Besides, how can an idea accepted by most atheists, written by an atheist, make you closer to God?

#64 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 January 2011 - 09:29 PM

I'd prefer you discuss it here yourself, than just reply with a link :)

View Post

I read the first article and skimmed the others. It's bascally a diatribe warning of the horrors of the creationists agenda presented in what my cynical point of view on such efforts would conclude is not unlike a chicken little event, who when hit on the head by a bit of airborne debris, ran thoughout the realm warning others and yelling at the top of her lungs in frantic dismay, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

There are dire predictions of how high school students would be confused by allternatives to evo. Blah! Blah! Blah! I am sure the author is sincere but please!

Protecing students from controversial subjecst (and I say this as a teacher) does more harm than good. It does not teach students to respect others at the least. More importantly if students are exposed to different opinions they learn how to think on their feet and for themselves something a democracy certainly benefits from. The US is touted as the most scientific nation but backwards evolutionary wise second to Europe. The writer obviously would not conclude that our high degree in belief in God and therefore free choice had any thing to do with our inovative and creative output. He seems to forget that Americas arsena; of democracy help save Europe from the ravages of blatant Social Darwinism in the form of Adolph Hitler.


You would think evo science would have learned from the Berlin wall and not try to erect their own version. Perhaps we need a Reagan to say as he did, "Tear down that wall Mr Gorbachev!" It happened and the sky did not fall. Just a wall is all.

Atheistic Evolution was taught almost exclusively in the former Soviet Union. I remember seein Kruschev at the UN taking his shoe off and pounding on his desk yelling, "We will bury you!" And again the sky did not fall and we were not buried.

I had students that I wish had been taugh as you said how to think. They couldn't even give me a definition of every day reasoning let alone the scientific premise.

#65 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 24 January 2011 - 09:38 PM

I read the first article and skimmed the others. It's bascally a diatribe warning of the horrors of the creationists agenda presented in what my cynical point  of view on such efforts would conclude is not unlike  a chicken little event, who when hit on the head by a bit of airborne debris, ran thoughtout the realm warning others and yelling at the top of her lungs, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

There are dire predictions of how high school students would be confused by allternatives to evo. Blah! Blah! Blah!  I am sure the author is sincere but please!

Protecing students from controversial subjecst (and I say this as a teacher) does more harm than good. It teach does not teach students to respect others at the least.  More importantly if students are exposrd to different opinions they learn how to think on their feet.

I had students that I wish had bee  n taugh as you how to think.  They couldn't even give me a definition of every day reasoning let alone the scientific premise.

View Post


Thanks Mike :)

I agree being exposed to all viewpoints of a topic allows for the development of critical thinking on the issue.

#66 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:20 AM

I read the first article and skimmed the others. It's bascally a diatribe warning of the horrors of the creationists agenda presented in what my cynical point  of view on such efforts would conclude is not unlike  a chicken little event, who when hit on the head by a bit of airborne debris, ran thoughout the realm warning others and yelling at the top of her lungs in frantic dismay, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"


My point in several of the articles was how evolutionary sciences are used in predicting, tracking and producing vaccines. Some of this info is mixed in with the debate over creation science being taight in schools. I personally do not have any issues with ID being taught alongside of the standard TOE.

#67 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:09 PM

My point in several of the articles was how evolutionary sciences are used in predicting, tracking and producing vaccines. Some of this info is mixed in with the debate over creation science being taight in schools. I personally do not have any issues with ID being taught alongside of the standard TOE.

View Post

No ptoblem. But I remeber the old addage a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine. some true stuff in the articles but lots of erroror bias.

I think Gilbo summed it up nicely. But I shall put it in my own words. It appears to me that science has a “beloved obsession” with the past via evolution. I think they would serve all of us better if they would teach our students critical thinking skills instead of trying to protect them from obnoxious “reality” (other’s opinions).


As a teacher for 24 years I feel the cognitive skills of my student have steadily declined. Students are capable of critical thinking if they are taught it. Unfortunately my students come to me rote driven zombies trying to find an example or packaged answer who can often be heard to say things like, “That is what was wrong with it last time. So If I put a new one of these in that should fix it" (at this time I am teaching a votech class).

Their diagnostic skills lack the ability to figure out correct cause and effect assignments using reasoning to figure out what is goings on in a non standard situation. To repair something you need an accurate diagnosis for the cause for the current effect. Here is an exaggerated example to make the point. Suppose you have a flat o the rear of your car and you want it repaired but the tech puts a new tire on the front of the car and you think????? What kind of logic would he use to think (a misdiagnosis) putting a new tire on the front would fix the flat on the back of the car? That kind of stupidity is what I have to deal with because my students have poor thinking skills. I can teach them how to think but, that takes away ro teaching the actual subject.

If you are teaching someone to swim at a certain point they are going to have to get in the water. Instead some people want to shield students from other opinions which keeps them unskilled in thinking.

Actually there may be some confusion. My reference was to the articles on anti creation debate not the articles that mention polio. Sorry fo any confusion caused.

Specifically my comments were aimed at the link in post 59.

#68 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 25 January 2011 - 06:21 PM

Actually there may be some confusion. My reference was to the articles on anti creation debate not the articles that mention polio.  Sorry fo any confusion caused.

Specifically my comments were aimed at  the link in post 59.

View Post


Good points...thank you for the clarification.

#69 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 January 2011 - 12:24 AM

I find the comment that there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates or shows that evolution is a valid concept to be a creationist mantra that is simply not true. It is my opinion that in getting stated over and over again that many creationists have become convinced that this is a correct statement when it is not. When pressed they will give a different definition of empirical than the scientific community uses. that bends as much as necessary to exclude virtually any evidence they do not wish to allow as valid.

Schools correctly teach what the evidence shows and where it leads. The creationist viewpoint with its supernatural intervention by God, in no set pattern that follows known natural laws, is religion and not science and does not follow the available evidence, only selected portions that can be force-fit into a preset model constructed from a literal reading of the Bible. There are other creation models that differ from the Christian one and also ignore scientific evidence, should all of these be taught? I am all for teaching all of this, but it should be done in religion, history or philosophy classes for it is not science.

Teaching people how to think is just fine, but this is not education as in gaining useful knowledge that can be applied in professions, etc. You could make a similar case for various subjects, but having such a free-for-all where students must sift through all possible ideas is not practical with the limited time that is available for schooling.

View Post

Empirical research is research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence –


In the first paragraph you contradict yourself. Sure you can have an opinion. But opinions are not considered empirical evidence. In usage, the term scientific evidence is erroneous unless you commit to the meaning of evidence being empirical as defined.

To make the point you personify evidence (consider it sentient) and say that in schools they “follow” the evidence where "it" leads. Evidence can’t lead us anywhere. It is humans that say where “it” is going (actually where they carry it). :lol: One error on top of another results in a mass of errors is my conclusion.

If evo scientists are going to argue evidence must be observable, testable and repeatable then so be it. Now, they need to practice what they preach. How do we test evolution? Since we can’t it’s not scientific. Ok lets go to the evidence used to support it. How do we test a rock or fossil to determine if it evolved? I know. We can ask it. Rock Fossil, did you evolve? Silence.

A fossil is not scientific evidence to prove evolution. We observe it as a fossil—nothing more. That’s it for the evidence part. You, me nor anyone else observed its ancestors life, its subsequent birth, death and fossilization. We can observe it now—a fossil. That’s it. In reference to the so called "process" of evolution, not observable, not testable, not repeatable and not scientific!.

#70 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 28 January 2011 - 04:37 AM

Usually when a student's observations do not jive with accepted ideas in geology, it turns out that they are not considering what they see correctly. I found that to be true in my case as I gained more knowledge of the subject. Particularly in the case of limestones one can tell sometimes tell a great deal about the environment in which an included fossil lived from a study of such "matrix" material.

If you got your wish and majored in science you might find that you would come to the same conclusions that many of my fellow students back in grad school had reached. Probably the majority of them had been Young Earth Creationists before starting the study of geology, yet not one remained so after just a course or two. The great antiquity of the Earth became apparent to them and they no longer found evolution to be an unacceptable notion. Were they diminished by this change? None of them seemed to think so in the discussions I had with them. In fact some seemed to think that a burden of conflict had been lifted from them and everything in their life was better integrated. At that point they all remained religious and followers of Christ in spite of the change in viewpoint.

View Post


Geode,
Thanks to the internet, I've seen bioclastic limestone up close. I don't see any "environment" at all. I see a hardened matrix around scattered and broken up fauna/flora. The matrix is many times micrite, is it not? In other words lime mud burying the environment. This doesn't tell you have fast or how long it toook to form, you only know that lime mud buried these things.

You have no proof that some of the lime mud was not already pre-existent from creation, or that some of it is a precipitate in the ocean water, or, if the diatomic shells within were a result of unprecedented planktonic blooms resourced by the detritus of of the deluge.

As for a conflict, I would be more in a conflict over the principles of evolution. Like how did any new system (i.e. abiogenesis, new organs, new chemical pathways) come into existence via step by step evolution. Despite whether Ken Miller says, these new systems are not going to have an upward cascade of precursors, because they are based on chemical reactions, attractions, folding, pathways, gradients that have to be basically in place in order to work.

An evidence is that even the less complex eukaryotes have a mitochondria, with the same gradient pump in the membrane. You can't have a half a pump--it won't work. Bacteria have a very complex DNA system, just like ours, with the same kinds of replicating enzymes. You can't have a half a DNA polymerase, and half of a helicase, as well as half of the others.

Did they just pop spontaneously into existence by themselves? But no one can give us a model of what these so called organisms were that didn't need a DNA polymerase--they give us rather a hijacked and intelligently engineered RNA molecule that can replicate. It did not come into being by itself, and it's medium is man made--or it would stop. Neither can it do anything else, except relicate itself. Selection has nothing to select from except a self replicating molecule.

So, there is no conflict scientifically with my worldview. As for the age of the earth, there are greater challenges for YEC's, especially in cosmology. But I choose to believe that things like 1987A may be explainable by Einstein's relativity, or something we don't understand about light or space. We are not omniscient.

In other words, I don't let establishment peer pressure shove me into a conflict. I have every confidence God's word will be vindicated in time.

#71 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:43 AM

Did they just pop spontaneously into existence by themselves? 


This may sound like a copout...but as a Theistic Evolutionist, I believe that God is in control....in control of environmental pressures that would affect selection, along with the original design that he may have preprogrammed from the beginning.

It does sound like a 'God of the gaps' excuse...but it works for me as a TE.

For the Atheistic Evolutionists, there are some pretty significant hurdles/obstacle that need to be crossed....abiogenesis for one.

The one thing that a TE has to be careful of, is not to dismiss that possibility that God set everything in motion to come out the way that it did...even the non-life to life transition.

#72 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 28 January 2011 - 06:46 PM

This may sound like a copout...but as a Theistic Evolutionist, I believe that God is in control....in control of environmental pressures that would affect selection, along with the original design that he may have preprogrammed from the beginning.

It does sound like a 'God of the gaps' excuse...but it works for me as a TE.

For the Atheistic Evolutionists, there are some pretty significant hurdles/obstacle that need to be crossed....abiogenesis for one.

The one thing that a TE has to be careful of, is not to dismiss that possibility that God set everything in motion to come out the way that it did...even the non-life to life transition.

View Post


So what do you believe was the first life? Did God create a bacteria, and then start evolving it?

#73 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:07 PM

So what do you believe was the first life?  Did God create a bacteria, and then start evolving it?

View Post


I believe that it is possible that he started out with a single 'super'-seed of life that he allowed to branch out...

...but in keeping more closely with Gen 1, God may have planted separate seeds of life, in the oceans and on land...

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth..." Gen 1:11
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth..." Gen 1:20
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth ..." Gen 1:24

What is bringing forth?...both the earth and the waters.

He didn't say "let there be trees", "let there be whales" God told the land and the waters to produce them.

An analogy:
If I design and build a factory with automated machines that build cars...who is building the cars? I am....I built the factory, I designed the system...I get the credit for creation.

#74 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:29 PM

I believe that it is possible that he started out with a single 'super'-seed of life that he allowed to branch out...

...but in keeping more closely with Gen 1, God may have planted separate seeds of life, in the oceans and on land...

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth..." Gen 1:11
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth..." Gen 1:20
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth ..." Gen 1:24

What is bringing forth?...both the earth and the waters.

He didn't say "let there be trees", "let there be whales" God told the land and the waters to produce them.

An analogy:
If I design and build a factory with automated machines that build cars...who is building the cars?  I am....I built the factory, I designed the system...I get the credit for creation.

View Post


Bring forth would mean that God created the animals from the earth and water, not that God planted a single cell organism in the earth or waters and they eventually brought forth the creature over long periods of time, they would have been created almost instantaneously or during the course of that day. God described creation in layman's terms and not something that is to be confused with over complication of words to means just about anything.

#75 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:05 PM

Bring forth would mean that God created the animals from the earth and water, not that God planted a single cell organism in the earth or waters and they eventually brought forth the creature over long periods of time, they would have been created almost instantaneously or during the course of that day. God described creation in layman's terms and not something that is to be confused with over complication of words to means just about anything.

View Post


God is commanding the earth and the waters to bring forth...sounds like he is commanding the elements to do his bidding.

IMHO, these scriptures are wide open for an interpretation that allows for God to use an evolutionary process. Where we may diffier, is the time references. (day/age)

#76 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:05 PM

Its also good to remember that God spoke everything into existence, so when God said something like "bring forth" such and such, that's what happened. God could have created everything in a millisecond but he didn't because He was laying out the ground work for us to use, the system of days and nights etc. Although God didn't mention trees, its pretty obvious that He did create them during the 6 days of creation.

#77 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:12 PM

God is commanding the earth and the waters to bring forth...sounds like he is commanding the elements to do his bidding.

IMHO, these scriptures are wide open for an interpretation that allows for God to use an evolutionary process. Where we may diffier, is the time references. (day/age)

View Post


I see where you are coming from but is it really "wide open" for interpretation? I just don't see where long periods of time can be interpreted from God saying He created the physical realm in six days. Why would anyone not think God is talking about six literal days? Why would He use some sort of allegory that could be "wide open" for interpretation?

#78 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:39 PM

I see where you are coming from but is it really "wide open" for interpretation? I just don't see where long periods of time can be interpreted from God saying He created the physical realm in six days. Why would anyone not think God is talking about six literal days? Why would He use some sort of allegory that could be "wide open" for interpretation?

View Post


One possible way of explaining this, is the day vision interpretation. God is referred to in third person...who was witnessing his actions?...Could it be...Moses?
Did Moses see a six day vision of God creating the heavens and the earth?
... A National Geographic special on steroids?

The day/evening/morning perspective could have been that of Moses.

What do you think?

#79 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:49 PM

One possible way of explaining this, is the day vision interpretation. God is referred to in third person...who was witnessing his actions?...Could it be...Moses?
Did Moses see a six day vision of God creating the heavens and the earth?
... A National Geographic special on steroids?

The day/evening/morning perspective could have been that of Moses.

What do you think?

View Post


Since Jesus was around before the creation of the world (as stated in the bible) it is easy to answer. Jesus not Moses, Moses was not around before the creation of the world. Since God is three in one, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, When He says Let US make man in our image, the US is God.

I doubt that God was talking about a vision when He explained how He created the world. Revelation was a vision, genesis was reality.

#80 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:53 PM

Remember that God inspired Moses and all the other writers of the bible, even revelation was inspired, it was also given to John by a vision since it was clearly explained that way. Trying to fit mans fallible "ideas" into the bible causes too much confusion.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users