Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Not that I believe in it, but in the day-age reading of genesis 1 isn't there still a God that could have miraculously sustained all plant life without there being a sun... its kinda funny you attack that theory as being impossible when God can do anything...
|
Yes. I would say that the whole idea behind any theistic evolutionary theory is that there is still a God that did it. I do not think that people who reject a literal interpretation of
Genesis 1 will be lost because of it, but I do think they error concerning the scriptures, and actually create a foothold for opponents of the Word to attack the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of scripture. Therefore while it is neither wise nor hermeneutically consistent, I do not think it is a salvation issue. If we are justified by our faith in Christ, then that simply means we must understand and believe the gospel, it doesn't necessitate a complete and 10% doctrinal accuracy in regard to all matters of scripture, the mysteries of the incarnation and godhead, or eschatological perfection.
As far as the day age theory, I attack it simply because it is not scriptural. Its not a matter of "could God have....." because obviously He is sovereign and could do anything He wanted to. He did not have to tell us anything about creation at all. He could have choose in His wisdom to simply give the simple statement that He created everything. No details were necessary. He choose in His providence and sovereignty to give us the details, perhaps as a matter of faith (He knowing all things, the beginning from the ending, and knowing the attacks that Satan would make). But the point in my deploring the day-age theory is not that it was impossible, but simply that it contradicts what God SAID He did. In SIX DAYS the Lord made the heaven and the earth and all that in them is. If we believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then we should be willing to accept the 10 commandments as authoritative. If we don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then obviously the crux of the debate shifts. But amongst Christians, whether young earth or old earth, if they affirm the authority of the Word of God, then I do not see how they can arrive at an old earth conclusion from the scriptures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
But either way, life on earth most certainly arose from nonlife (its not impossible, thats simply what happened).
|
This is humorous. You state an impossibility matter of factly as an absolute certainty, with neither proof nor reason nor authority (save your own) to back up your assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Whether you explain that by saying God did it or whether you search and are eventually able to find a way for it to have happened naturally it still means that life arose from nonlife.
|
If someone affirms that God created life that is not life from non-living matter. I know that is complex, but just think it through. If God, who is alive, creates another life form, then no matter how you slice that pie it is not life from non life. Seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Science is about explaining the world naturally and as such scientists ought to keep searching for a natural explanation for how life arose from nonlife.
|
Except for the last part about non-life I have no problem with that. Real science is good, it is interesting, it is beneficial. Speculation and theory are a part of the field of science, but they are not really science. Real science is demonstratable, and I would argue that real demonstratable, repeatable, science heavy favors a intelligent design and theism. That alone doesn't confirm the God of the Bible, but I do think there is a mountain of evidence within real science that points to the existence of a God. It is such a mountain of evidence only a fool would deny it.
However, in reflecting more on your statement there is a certain level of accuracy, because you are right, "science" starts out with the pre-supposition that life arose from non-life because modern scientists tend to be agenda driven, and thus they approach and analyze research with certain presuppositions such as that life came from non-life. Never mind the FACT that this is impossible and has never happened, much less has it been demonstrated in an experiment, even in labs where they have made every effort to mix chemicals together to remake the mythical primordial soup. Science that doesn't deal with facts isn't science, its speculation. I'm not enemy of real science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Maybe they will find one maybe they will not but science wouldn't progress if it didn't try to find natural explanations.
|
I have no problem with real science. Thank God for real science. Look at the strength of the creationist argument just since we realized the complexities of DNA. Real science is beneficial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Getting off the topic of abiogenisis and moving on to evolution, pelthais has shown many times on this board that macro evolution has much more evidence than the evolution deniers can possibly imagine.
|
Not really. Pel bases his whole argument on scientific speculation, he is a Hugh Ross disciple. There is not any good evidence for macro evolution. No one has observed, nor will they every observe one species/kind turning into another species or kind. No one disputes there are variations within species-there are many kinds of dogs and horse, it doesn't mean one became the other just because they all have 4 legs. There is NO evidence for Darwinian macro evolution. None.
But one thing I noticed when discussing this with Pel was that nearly every single one of his arguments against the young earth view are based on modern scientific theories, not on scripture. I would present the Word of God, he would present the word of some scientist. That's how all theistic evolutionists argue. It reveals their folly, which is that the word of man is placed above the word of God, where there is apparent contradiction, then we should go with the word of man, so we don't look foolish like these young earth creationists. Its as if there whole mindset is "Affirm that God created everything in 6 days, preposterous. We'll be the laughing stock of everyone. The world will never take us seriously."
Right, but we'll be taken seriously if we believe that a snake and donkey talked, that a virgin had a baby, and that a dead man came back to life. Oh, but that's not really any problem for my brethren like Pel, because not only does he throw out the Creation account of Genesis one, He doesn't believe Adam was actually the first human being (and I assume therefore allegorizes all of
Genesis 3), doesn't believe in an actual flood (nor does Hugh Ross), and doesn't believe in most if any of the miracles in the Old Testament. But then DOES believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and I think He believes in the virgin birth, though I'm not certain). So based on what consistent hermeneutic do we deny the literal events of the Old Testament, but then accept the NT miracles as literal? None. Furthermore, if we allegorize
Genesis 1-3, we have real problems with the heart of the gospel explained in
Romans 5 and
1 Corinthians 15, as well as the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ himself referred to Creation, Adam, the Flood, Lot's wife, Sodom & Gomorrah, and many other events of the old testament as literal historical events. Was Jesus wrong? Was he deceived? Was He being deceptive? I think these are real problems for Christians who deny the literal interpretation of
Genesis 1, and I believe the problem is compounded as the more scripture they deny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
The science truly is on the side of evolution but that's something you don't want to hear.
|
Really?
Has evolution ever proved life from non-life? Point me to it, I want to see what they did so I can repeat the experiment (all true science is repeatable).
Has evolution ever proved that species can change into something else? Can evolution explain origins of human language, and how there got to be some many languages? Or why only humans can communicate? Or why if evolution is survival of the fittest and we adapted by keeping beneficial mutations why I almost drowned a couple of years ago? It would have been helpful to still have gills? Or why humans apparently weren't interested in wings? That would be a helpful adaption. I know I'm veering off of the argument into wild speculation, but really evolution is just speculation so humor me for a moment. It really hasn't proved ANYTHING much less does it have science truly on its side, unless you redefine what science actually is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Moving on to what is really important to you, the scriptures. So while you can say that in heaven there is no need for a sun thats fine. Obviously there was a need for the sun on earth or God wouldn't have created it and the bible even tells us what the sun was for in Genesis 1: |
I simply affirmed that God did not need the sun for light to exist in the original creation, nor in the new creation. I think an argument can be made that even now the does not NEED to exist, since God is independent, His existence doesn't depend on anything in creation, and since He is all powerful, I'm sure He has the power to sustain all things in the absence of the sun (in fact, I think we have an illustration of this at the end of Revelation), but to your point God choose to create the sun, and yes, at this time the sun is the source of light on the earth. That's an established fact, I don't deny it, I'm quite happy with the sun. I fail to see your point. If I denied the creation or purpose for the sun, perhaps. But my only argument in regard to the sun was that it is possible to have light without the sun, because of God's mighty power. That's not a denial of the creation of the sun on day 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
To summarize God made the sun and moon to give light upon the earth. So what was the light and darkness and the evening and the morning and even the day spoken of in Genesis 1:2-5 ? |
Day was light. Night was darkness. God defined day and night. There is no further explanation needed. Apparently if the sun and moon were not created until day 4 God allowed for some other means. He is all powerful, and if He wanted to create the sun on day 1 He could have. I'm sure that 1)God had a purpose in not creating the sun until day 4 and 2)He has a purpose in relaying that fact to us. I am not sure why that is, perhaps it is one way to safeguard us against the sun worship that is prevalent in paganism. I do not know, but since I accept the Bible as inspired and inerrant, I will choose to believe the sun came into existence on day 4, even if I do not know the reason why that is.
Linear Mode
