Here it is! Creation debate to date

[velvetpage]

I've received permission to copy the posts/comments and continue the debate here. Welcom, vickimfox!


My original comment:
I must confess I've never understood creationists. To be more specific, I've never understood the point of trying to prove the Bible is one-hundred-percent accurate. Anyone who tries to do so has confused the notions of "accuracy" and "truth". They are not at all the same thing.

I'd be really interested to know what that guy thinks about accuracy vs. truth. :)

Their reply was:

That's okay. Those of us with a God-centric worldview do not understand evolutionists. We don't understand how anyone can look at the structure, organization, information, interconnection, and balance of the universe from the largest to the smallest and think that it came about by random events and by violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics to chemical bonding.

Even in academic circles many scientists are questioning the traditional evolution theories and embracing a hybrid called Intelligent Design. These scientists still do not acknowledge God, but they see that the current state of the evolution framework has more holes than swiss cheese.

Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact. It is a worldview - a mindset used to interpret observations. In academic circles, there is debate among scientists about which evolution framework is "correct". Do you believe in the punctuated equilabrium framework, neo-Darwinism framework, or catastrophy framework? Oh, let's not forget that there are about six or seven different proposed frameworks in academia just hypothesizing about how the original amino acids were formed.


Now, to the matter of "accuracy". The dictionary defines "accuracy" as "absolutely correct, making no mistakes" and "agreeing exactly with the truth".

The reason Bible-believing Christians take this matter of the inerrant nature of the Bible is simple - Jesus told us that is the measure of His Word! [John 3:12] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" What this means is that if God cannot record history and other earthly aspects correctly, then how in the world can we believe what God tells us in the Bible about spiritual, moral, and heavenly things?

Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.

Therefore, if there are errors in the original texts, then the Bible in essence tells us that we should reject it (the whole Bible). If the Bible is not accurate, then it does not tell the truth. Conversely, if the Bible is accurate, then it implies that it is telling the truth.

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same "evidence" but interpret it differently. You may look at a fossil and think million of years. I look at the same fossil, the result of rapid burial, and think of Noah's Flood. You may look at radioactive material and think long dates. I look at the same radioactive measurements and think "Yeah, so what? The dating mathematics is invalid and nobody knows the initial conditions."

PS. I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science. When I was in college I believed in evolution. But, the more I studied, especially the mathematics of radioactive dating and information theory, the more I became convienced about the deception of evolution. This change did not occur until many years after I was saved and became a Christian.

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I am, in fact, a Christian who believes in intelligent design and has defended it in the past in my own journal. You're preaching to the choir in the God-centred worldview part, quite literally - I love to sing. :)

I have a pretty good grasp of the scientific arguments for each side, though less so than you do since I'm not a scientist but just an intelligent, well-educated, interested person. I've heard and looked into everything you've just said. Frankly, I think you're wrong about the necessity of showing the Bible to be scientifically accurate.

See this post for a more long-winded explanation of my beliefs on this.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics...

Please expand on that. Are you going to point to the old thermodynamics chesnut about systems becoming less orderly over time?

Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact.

How do you define theory?

Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.

Yet, if you'll pardon the expression, certain aspects of Christian faith have "evolved" over time. Or, do you believe women should be silent in the church and never cut their hair? If you don't believe that, do you believe Paul (and therefore the Bible) was mistaken? How about the Old Testmament commandment against wearing clothing with mixed fibers? God never rescinded that, so far as I know. Do you wear acrylic/cotton blends?

I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science.

This is what is known as an "arugument from authority." It's considered a bad way to present your ideas. In your case, it's an especially bad idea. What you are basically saying is "Trust me, I have a BA Hon (or whatever) degree in Physics and therefore I know what I'm talking about. But don't listen to all those other people with Physics degrees, because they don't know anything."

That said, I would be interested to know what a trained Physicist and Creation Science believer thinks about the age of the universe, in light of its apparent size and the speed of light. So far as I know, Creation Scientists do not question the speed of light.

So, let's say that an astronomer sees a supernova occur 10,000 light years away. If we accept the idea of the Young Universe, the astronomer is apparently observing an event that took place before the universe was created.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I know a lot of silent women in church that don't cut their hair. I know you know they exist, and this is really off topic, but I happen to associate with an unusually large amount of them. (And I myself headcover, but not fulltime. And am silent in church but my church worships in silence most of the time. Anyways.)

I just didnt know if people knew how prevailent people like that were.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

*nodnods* I don't think this fellow is of that mind, however, to judge by the main character in his furry/Christian webcomic.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

I thought Furryness was supposed to be UnChristian in fundie circles? (Altho' it's true I seem to talk to a lot of Christian furries who seem steadfast enough)

[pyat.livejournal.com]

I'm sure most hardcore Baptists would look askance at a man who draws a webcomic about a sexy Christian fox. They also look askance at me for playing RPGs. But there are many Christian furries, just as there are Christian gamers.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

*thud as penny drops*
Vicki fox is ...sexy? Would't have said so myself, altho' the art is first rate.
Morals clear too.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

She's not without her charm. :) The lynx is cuter, though!

[vickimfox.livejournal.com]

Illustrates your stereotype of Baptists.

FYI . I attend one of the largest Southern Baptist congregations in Florida. Our senior pastor served as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention during early 1990. I work in the Youth ministry and have been teaching the Bible for over 20 years. I use my puppets for teaching.

Oh, the comic strip does include Vicki and friends attending a Southern Baptist church and one of the cast regulars is the new youth pastor at the church - Pastor Steve.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, pyat and I are married. I attended a Baptist church for several years before getting fed up with a few differences of opinion - including the one about roleplaying. It may be a stereotype, but that does not make it untrue.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Illustrates your stereotype of Baptists.

A stereotype gained after a great deal of exposure to Baptists, I can tell you. :) Also a stereotype gained after a great deal of exposure to furry comics.

Naturally, your mileage in both areas will vary according to the individuals you're dealing with and the extremes of their behavior.

Perhaps your pastor would find nothing wrong with the dealer's room at Anthrocon...?

[vickimfox.livejournal.com]

Regarding thermodynamics, I reference the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/370.asp

Dr Bebe's argument of irreducible complexity:
http://www.leaderu.com/science/disilvestro-dbb.html

I define a theory as: A series of statements, usually in mathematical form, that describes currently known observations of some repeatable phenonemon. Some examples of theories are Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theories of Motion (aka mechanics).


Evolution of the Christian faith. Well, people have changed, but God hasn't. People have corrupted the Christian religion, but God's commandments and revelation hasn't changed.

1 Cor 14:34 is the instruction that women should be silent. This verse must be interpreted with all verses in context, starting with 1 Cor 14:31. In this we learn that the restriction is that women are excluded from the role of prophecy (aka teaching) in the local church. Because woman is to be submissive to the spiritual authority in the home, her husband, then it would be a violation of that God given chain of authority for a woman to be a leader of worship in the local church. This does not mean a woman must be silent as in not say anything; it means she must not be a leader or pastor. There are other verses (1 Tim 2:11-12) confirms this.

1 Cor 11:1-16 deals with a woman's covering, her hair. The context is very clear that her hair is representative of two things - her sex (her sexual role) and her having authority over her (her husband). For a woman to cut her hair, she makes herself look like a man. This violates God's design regarding the sexual roles. The Mosaic Law shows that a man pretending to be a woman and vice versa are offensive to God because it is not His plan. Likewise, when a woman cuts her hair, she is symbolically removing the sign of authority over her. This again violates God's plan. Basically, the prohibition is not about not cutting the hair, but cutting it back or shaving it to thus appear more man-like.

Deut 22:11 is the reference about not wearing clothes made of wool and linen woven together. This does not apply to acrylic/cotton or any other combination of threads. It does not apply to a linen undergarmet and wool outergarmet. It specifically references cloth made from wool and linen woven together. From a practical view, this is a common sense prohibition -- linen is very fine and wool is very coarse. So, from one view, such cloth would be unstable. One commentary reports that research has shown that such cloth would be very uncomfortable, would not breath adequately in hot environments, and could cause the wearer to overheat. Secondly, such a mixture merges the two materials used in the priest's outfit.


Dr D. Russell Humphreys, astrophysics, has published a very detailed work that addresses the startlight problem.
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-043


Further, there is growing evidence that the speed of light is decaying.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Ah, the good old fashioned exchange of links. :)

Regarding thermodynamics, I reference the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/370.asp

And for an answer to that, we can look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF000

And here:
http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/tcs.html

And it's not just some guy yelling "The Earth isn't a closed system!"


Evolution of the Christian faith. Well, people have changed, but God hasn't. People have corrupted the Christian religion, but God's commandments and revelation hasn't change

I congratulate you on internal consistency, at least. Though, you know, my mother was a darn fine minister.

Dr D. Russell Humphreys, astrophysics, has published a very detailed work that addresses the startlight problem.
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-043

I assume this book deals with the influence gravity has on time? My impression of that theory is that time is still passing, it simply seems to be compressed or slowed depending on the position of the observer. Admittedly, I've not read much on it, though even most of the Creation Science pages that talk about it seem to be leery of it.

Further, there is growing evidence that the speed of light is decaying.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

Not to an extent that would make a difference in terms of Creation Science.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, let me put my cards on the table.

I believe that evolution is the system whereby God directs Creation. Evolution is not a denial of divine creation, anymore than climate theory is. The argument about the law of thermodynamics is potentially moot, since God is running the show.

I also think it’s intellectually dishonest for Creationists to say “Evolution is wrong because it violates this law of science,” while at the same time pointing out that scientists are constantly finding exceptions to their “laws” and fine-tuning them in ways which leave room for Creationism. And, of course, the “laws” of thermodynamics are more properly called the “current theories of thermodynamics.”

While I believe in divine creation, I also believe that the evidence is in favour of an old Earth. I believe that Genesis is presented as a parable which contains the basic facts – for example, the order of creation roughly matches the order of appearance in the fossil record. You can leave aside or dispute the observations of astrophysics and paleontology and still come to the conclusion that the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Indeed, it was the simple study of human history that led philosophers to come to that conclusion long before Darwin existed.

I believe that the Scriptures are, taken overall, divinely inspired, but obviously filtered through a human lens. We see as through a glass, darkly.

As an example of what I mean, consider the history of the Bible. As you know, the books of the Bible were largely settled on during the Nicean Council. The Bishops and elders examined the disparate bits and pieces, argued about them, and said “This is divinely inspired. This isn’t. This the word of God. This isn’t.” By and large, they agree, though several very large branches of the faith (such as the Orthodox and Ethiopian churches) continue to use books of the Bible that are not recognized by the Catholic or Protestant faiths.

Now, the traditional idea among Christians, especially Protestants, is that those ancient worthies were guided by God to make the right choices. Fine so far.

Curiously, 1500 some odd years later, these divinely inspired choices changed, at least for Protestants, when Martin Luther decided that the books of the Apocrypha were false. This has led many poorly informed Protestants to tell their Catholic friends that there is, for example, no scriptural evidence for Purgatory… when there IS evidence. It’s just not in the Protestant Bible. We can also take the example of the Book of Enoch, which is quoted in Jude, but not accepted as a true book of the Bible by all but a very few churches.

So, who was wrong? Did God divinely inspire the original church fathers to select the real books of the Bible? Or was Martin Luther divinely inspired to make the right choices, despite the warning in Revelations about taking from or adding to the Gospel? Had God allowed Christians to have an inaccurate Bible for the majority of the church’s history?

This questions become moot if you believe that humans just tend to screw up anything they’re involved in. It wasn’t God making the selections. It was a group of fallible humans attempting to identify the Divine will… and we’ve never been very good at that.

[vickimfox.livejournal.com]

I believe that evolution is the system whereby God directs Creation.
I believe what God says He did instead of what men think He could have done.

Evolution is not a denial of divine creation
I believe evolution and Genesis 1-11 are irreconcilable. Only one can be correct.

I believe that Genesis is presented as a parable
So, if Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose there was no Abraham, no Jacob, no Issac, no Joseph, or any of the other fathers of Israel. If Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose when Jesus quotes from Genesis in a literal sense that He is lying to us. Or, is it only parts of Genesis are a parable and others are history? How do you decide which portions are which?

the order of creation roughly matches the fossil record.
Really?

Genesis says plants on dry land was created BEFORE the sun and sea animals. Evolution says the sun came first, then sea animals, then plants.

Genesis says the world was first covered in water. Evolution says the world was first hot with lava and methane atmosphere.

Genesis says birds and fishes created BEFORE land animals. Evolution says birds are derived from land animals (dinosaurs).

Further, if fossils formed BEFORE Adam and Eve, then this would make God a liar since God says death did not enter the world until AFTER Adam sinned.


the books of the Bible were largely settled on during the Nicean Council.
This is a popular lie propogated by critics who want to discount the New Testament. It ignores the fact that the Old Testament books were canonized by the Jews around 400 BC! The New Testament books were agreed upon as early as 100 AD based upon the writings of early church fathers.

The Nicaea Council, with 318 bishops called by Constantine, was to settle a growing heresy issue, the Arian controversy that questioned the diety of Jesus. The council established the Nicene Creed. It established Sunday as the day for Christian worship services. It established the way of calculating the date for Easter. And, the "official" Vatican Manuscript of the New Testament books that were already accepted and in general use was produced. There was NO debating which books were to be included. My source is a massive 14 volume series called "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series" by Philip Schaff (editor). This series reviews all the early council documents.


Regarding the Apocrypha books, these have always played a second tier role. They have never been accepted by the Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible, but they are used as historical references by Jews for the time after about 400 BC.

The Apocrypha books are never quoted by early church fathers. They have never been treated as part of the base Canon, but again used for the historical references during the gap between Babylonian Captivity and Jesus.

Regarding the Jude so-called reference to the Book of Enoch. There is too much debate about if this is even a reference to that book or just a coincidence of similar wording. Even if it were, it does not promote B.Enoch to canon level. After all, Paul quotes Greek poetry (Acts 17:28) and that doesn't promote Greek poetry to canon level.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

I believe evolution and Genesis 1-11 are irreconcilable. Only one can be correct.

So you believe. What is necessary to salvation?

So, if Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose there was no Abraham, no Jacob, no Issac, no Joseph, or any of the other fathers of Israel. If Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose when Jesus quotes from Genesis in a literal sense that He is lying to us. Or, is it only parts of Genesis are a parable and others are history? How do you decide which portions are which?

I meant the Creation story part of Genesis.

This is a popular lie propogated by critics who want to discount the New Testament. It ignores the fact that the Old Testament books were canonized by the Jews around 400 BC! The New Testament books were agreed upon as early as 100 AD based upon the writings of early church fathers.

As it turns out, I was thinking of the Council of Rome from 382. My apologies. The Council of Rome declared that the Apocrypha were divinely inspired, and no less significant than the other books of the Bible.

Yet Luther discounted them. Why?

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, you are of course correct about the order of things presented in Genesis. I should not rely on my faulty memory before making a statement like I did.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Um, prophecy and teaching are two different gifts. Look it up.

Second, re: women in the church: The teachings of Christ seem to conflict with the teachings of Paul in this matter. Christ gave women a lot more billing than the religions of his day. He ate with them, talked with them, permitted them into his inner circle on a regular basis. He commended Martha for wanting to listen to his teachings. Contrast this with Paul, who was a confirmed bachelor and avoided women as much as he could. Also, Paul was a student of Aristotle, who hated women and whose teachings were later used to leave women off the hierarchy of God's creatures almost entirely - putting them below the lowest animals. All of the teachings regarding the subordinate position of women in the New Testament come from Paul, not Christ. So my question is: do you believe that these teachings are still valid, in light of the facts that a) they did not come from Christ, b) they were heavily influenced by a non-Christian philosopher, and c) they do not fit today's moral standards?

I have to admit, this is a catch-22. If you say yes, you've effectively alienated half the population entirely and a large section of the other half (basically, every man who believes their wife should have access to their bank account or work outside the home.) You have also, incidentally, alienated nearly 70% of North America's professed born-again Christians - because women make up a much larger percentage of these than men. If you say no, then you've admitted that a few parts of scripture may have been valid at another time but not now, ergo, there are errors with the original text or with its modern applications or both.

So, which will it be?

[vickimfox.livejournal.com]

Correct. Prophecy and Teaching are different. However, in 1 Cor 14:31, it qualifies what it means by prophecy by adding "so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged". The common interpretation found in most commentaries is that this was a reference to the church's pastor or leader.

Jesus gave woman more recognition than was common in that culture. But, nowhere did Jesus violate the order of authority that God established from the beginning.

Most historians believe Paul was a widower. He also did not avoid women, because some of his best friends were woman; such as Pricilla and Claudia and Timothy's mother.

Paul was not a student of Aristotle. He was a student of the Jewish Sanhedran. He was a Pharasee. As he said, he was a Jew of Jews. As a result, he avoided all contact with Gentiles. He could not have been a student of Greek philosophers. This shows God's humour in that the man most likely to avoid Gentiles was made by God the missionary to the Gentiles.

I stand by what Scripture says because I believe

We do not have the option to pick and choose which Scripture we want to believe. (Likewise Deut 12:32, Rev 22:18)





Regarding risk of alienating some by proclaiming the truth.






Oh ... to answer your question on foxmagic's forum.
I believe that those who call themselves Christian and have not come to accept the literal Creation account is most likely a result of:
(1) They are not truly born again. See Matthew 7:21-23.
(2) They are immature. See Luke 8:14, Eph 4:13, Heb 5:14, Heb 6:1, James 1:4-8
(3) They are deceived. See James 1:16, 2 Tim 3:11-16, 2 Cor 11:3-6, Luke 21:8
(4) They are scoffers. See Jude 1:18-19, 2 Pet 3:3-7


Sola Scriptura! I believe ALL of the Bible. I'm not smart enough to pick and choose which portions I will believe. I believe that God is powerful enough to create the world and powerful enough to preserve His Word through history.


This will be my last note on this thread and on foxmagic's thread.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Is it acutally vicimfox? I can't open that link.

[sassy-fae.livejournal.com]

It's vickimfox.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Hey, he's a furry artist.