Finally Picked a creation stance.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
Also where is the evidence that supports progressive creation? That is a genuine enquiry by the way and not me being flippant.

Silver, you REALLY, REALLY, need to go to Reasons.org, and spend some time searching. They do a great job showing why the evidence points to a PC view.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
Also where is the evidence that supports progressive creation? That is a genuine enquiry by the way and not me being flippant.

Silver, you REALLY, REALLY, need to go to Reasons.org, and spend some time searching. They do a great job showing why the evidence points to a PC view.

Rick, I have a lot of Hugh's books on my shelf and have read them and it has a lot of merit. But it leaves too many questions unanswered. Rtb is another catalyst for me coming to Christ along with this website. But Evolution is the big elephant in the room and a lot of Rtb seems to be arguing against it for the sake of arguing and I never found it fully satisfying. When there is overwhelming evidence for evolution which makes it very plausibly true then I have to see if scripture says the same. And what I have discovered is what I really thought all along is that the bible doesn't really mention the methods of creation but the theological truth behind creation. The bible was and never is a science book but a guide to our salvation so I say again evolution is no longer a obstacle to my faith, because if God did it that way I still find it awe inspiring.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
When there is overwhelming evidence for evolution which makes it very plausibly true then I have to see if scripture says the same.

Silver, I think this is what Kurieuo was talking about. I agree there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Just not macro-evolution. Just because micro-evolution is provable, one can't assume that macro-evolution happens too.
If you want to see something that I believe is evidence against macro-evolution, study the Cambrian Explosion. IMO, it's a tough blow to the Theory of Evolution.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
When there is overwhelming evidence for evolution which makes it very plausibly true then I have to see if scripture says the same.

Silver, I think this is what Kurieuo was talking about. I agree there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Just not macro-evolution. Just because micro-evolution is provable, one can't assume that macro-evolution happens too.
If you want to see something that I believe is evidence against macro-evolution, study the Cambrian Explosion. IMO, it's a tough blow to the Theory of Evolution.

You could have had a breakdown of the continents providing continental shelves which provides a ideal environment for life to flourish and develop. It could have been the end of a long period of glaciation that again changed the environment again providing powerful extrinsic causes. Brian Cox even suggested that maybe at that time light may have broken through the dense cloud barrier at that time where the process of photosynthesis finally worked its magic - the extra abundance of light provided another power extrinsic cause. There are many other theories for the explosion which then led to powerful intrinsic causes in the organisms around at the time. Or of cause God could have caused anyone of these big changes or directly created the massive influx of life himself. Everything I have said above is plausible.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
When there is overwhelming evidence for evolution which makes it very plausibly true then I have to see if scripture says the same.

Silver, I think this is what Kurieuo was talking about. I agree there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Just not macro-evolution. Just because micro-evolution is provable, one can't assume that macro-evolution happens too.
If you want to see something that I believe is evidence against macro-evolution, study the Cambrian Explosion. IMO, it's a tough blow to the Theory of Evolution.

And there is evidence for macro evolution as well - looking at the genetic history of organisms themselves. In our DNA we carry around a lot of redundant genes - pseudogenes that were functional in our distant ancestors but have been switched off in our own genomes. Polyploidy changes in plants and animals that give birth to new specicies of animals and plant. Reproductive isolation that gives birth to a new line of species. The fossil record - although incomplete- still raises questions and cannot be discounted. Again everything I have said above is plausible.

Please remember where I am coming with from this - I am not arguing for TE I am simply stating that I no longer see it is a threat to my faith. I can now happily watch Brian Cox's The Wonder of Life this Sunday without feeling threatened if the word evolution is mentioned. If evolution is God's method then I can see the majesty of it - first setting up the mechanisms in the first place and the physical laws that evolution is bound to - then directing it along its course through intervention - so in no way do I see evolution as a random event and chance never even features in it once.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
Please remember where I am coming with from this - I am not arguing for TE I am simply stating that I no longer see it is a threat to my faith.

You could have fooled me, Silver. I thought by creating a thread with the title, "Finally Picked a Creation Stance", you have actually picked a creation stance.
Wouldn't that mean that since you picked Theistic Evolution, you would actually argue for that stance?

If evolution is God's method then I can see the majesty of it - first setting up the mechanisms in the first place and the physical laws that evolution is bound to - then directing it along its course through intervention

This statement actually more accurately explains Progressive Creationism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but God directing the course of life on Earth "through intervention", is exactly what Progressive Creationism teaches. Believing in a kind of Theistic Evolution that allows for God's intervention along the way, isn't really evolution in the sense of the Theory of Evolution that you said you agree with. That theory is purely naturalistic, with the only possible exception being in the beginning. If God is intervening and creating life at different times in history(like the Cambrian Explosion suggests), then that is not what the Theory of Evolution proposes.

Again, I ask you to look at the Cambrian Explosion. Evidence there shows the sudden appearance of new phyla. The evidence does not show evolution from pre-existing life. The sudden appearance of new phyla is supported by scripture, specifically the fifth "day" of creation.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
Please remember where I am coming with from this - I am not arguing for TE I am simply stating that I no longer see it is a threat to my faith.

You could have fooled me, Silver. I thought by creating a thread with the title, "Finally Picked a Creation Stance", you have actually picked a creation stance.
Wouldn't that mean that since you picked Theistic Evolution, you would actually argue for that stance?

If evolution is God's method then I can see the majesty of it - first setting up the mechanisms in the first place and the physical laws that evolution is bound to - then directing it along its course through intervention

This statement actually more accurately explains Progressive Creationism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but God directing the course of life on Earth "through intervention", is exactly what Progressive Creationism teaches. Believing in a kind of Theistic Evolution that allows for God's intervention along the way, isn't really evolution in the sense of the Theory of Evolution that you said you agree with. That theory is purely naturalistic, with the only possible exception being in the beginning. If God is intervening and creating life at different times in history(like the Cambrian Explosion suggests), then that is not what the Theory of Evolution proposes.

Again, I ask you to look at the Cambrian Explosion. Evidence there shows the sudden appearance of new phyla. The evidence does not show evolution from pre-existing life. The sudden appearance of new phyla is supported by scripture, specifically the fifth "day" of creation.

Yes you are probably right - I am arguing for TE but not quite in the way you think. I am not arguing for it to be true - I am arguing for it to be plausable among the other theories so as to diminsh its threat as implied by the new atheists of the day.

Maybe I am closer to Progressive creationism then I think but it still doesn't deny the possibility of "guided" evolution being the method for God's creation. The evidence for the mechanisms for both micro and macro evolution are there - whether guided by God or not. And I have given you my possible reasons for the Cambiran explosion.

You could have had a breakdown of the continents providing continental shelves which provides a ideal environment for life to flourish and develop. It could have been the end of a long period of glaciation that again changed the environment again providing powerful extrinsic causes. Brian Cox even suggested that maybe at that time light may have broken through the dense cloud barrier at that time where the process of photosynthesis finally worked its magic - the extra abundance of light provided another power extrinsic cause. There are many other theories for the explosion which then led to powerful intrinsic causes in the organisms around at the time. Or of cause God could have caused anyone of these big changes or directly created the massive influx of life himself. Everything I have said above is plausible

I might also add to above that there could have been a sudden change in o2 levels that gave the fuel for adundant new life.

All of above I would add stemmed from already existing life - it is just the environment changed that gave "life" the means to rapidly evolve in that period producing many more species. A bit like the way the eye rapidly evolved when the benefits of it were quickly taken up through natural selection over a very relatively short time in evolution terms. I totally agree that if it was down to just evolution then the diversity you see would not be present today and it did take something like the Cambrian explosion to give it a kick up the butt (maybe caused by God) - but the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favour of evolution before and after that occured - just that with the CE the mechanisms of evolution had a lot more to play with.

[theophilus]

Theophilis, the bible doesn't clearly say that the world was created in six 24 hour days. The text says 6 "yoms". There is more than one LITERAL meaning of yom.

What other literal interpretation is there?

Just because you or anyone else says your interpretation is clearly the correct one, that doesn't make it so.

Any interpretation that contradicts what the Bible plainly says must be false. It is a contradiction of the Bible, not an interpretation.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Theophilis, the bible doesn't clearly say that the world was created in six 24 hour days. The text says 6 "yoms". There is more than one LITERAL meaning of yom.

Theophilus wrote:
What other literal interpretation is there?

The Hebrew word Yom has other literal meanings besides a 24 hour day. From this link:http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

The Hebrew word for “day” is the word “Yom.” Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.

First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.

Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.

And, from Strong's exhaustive concordance:http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons ... /yowm.html

Strong's Number: 3117
Original Word Word Origin
~wy from an unused root meaning to be hot
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yowm TWOT - 852
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yome Noun Masculine
Definition

day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow

So as you can see, it is not necessary to translate "yom" as meaning a 24 hour day. If one interprets yom as meaning a period of time, then one is using a literal meaning of yom. So, if one says the six creation "yoms" are long periods of time, then one is still using a literal meaning of yom.

RickD wrote:
Just because you or anyone else says your interpretation is clearly the correct one, that doesn't make it so.

Theophilus wrote:
Any interpretation that contradicts what the Bible plainly says must be false. It is a contradiction of the Bible, not an interpretation.

Theophilus, the problem is that you are reading an English bible that has translated yom to mean day. In the original Hebrew, the meaning of yom is not that concrete. The Hebrew language had far less words than the modern English language has, so Hebrew words had many literal meanings.

If you are really interested in knowing more about this, and you're not here just to push your Young Earth Interpretation as equal to scripture itself, then you can begin by reading this:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html

[Kurieuo]

Please remember where I am coming with from this - I am not arguing for TE I am simply stating that I no longer see it is a threat to my faith. I can now happily watch Brian Cox's The Wonder of Life this Sunday without feeling threatened if the word evolution is mentioned. If evolution is God's method then I can see the majesty of it - first setting up the mechanisms in the first place and the physical laws that evolution is bound to - then directing it along its course through intervention - so in no way do I see evolution as a random event and chance never even features in it once.

Silver, it is good your faith is not threatened by these documentaries any more. However, I don't fully understand why your faith would have been previously?

Also, while you no longer feel threatened, this doesn't now justify the beliefs simply because you see no conflict between the popular scientific opinion of our day and your Christian beliefs. I believe you're making a mistake here believing that other Christians feel the same, and the reason they reject "evolution" (lets say, speciation through mutations and natural selection), is because it conflicts with their Christian beliefs.

This is a type of ad hominem in that it is an informal fallacy of association. It is not true that because Christians feel conflicted on evolution with their faith, that this is the reason why they they reject evolutionary beliefs. Not even all Christians would feel a faith in evolutionary beliefs would threaten their faith in Christ -- I do not see it as a matter of a Christian must either accept evolution or Christ. CS Lewis for example was a great Christian philosopher who embraced evolution.

When watching these shows that make mention of evolution, it is not a threat to my creation beliefs either but for obviously different reasons to your own. Our modern societies are very highly influenced by secular thought. Panspermia and/or a chemicals origins of life scenario and thereafter some sort of evolution of life (speciation) until you have modern human beings is the best story a secular worldview has to offer.

Given I adopt a Theistic worldview, and this is largely different to the society at large who adopt or are largely influences by secular philosophies, I don't expect to see much support in documentaries. But it does always give rise to a smile on my face whenever in a documentary, the person talks of evolution and in the next breath goes on about how beautifully designed a creature is. There is often so much supporting Theism in these documentaries, even when they talk about speciation as fact.

You know, a lot of news entertainment (in Australia) and TV shows, movies and popular games are highly influenced by the philosophy of the day that is largely secular. This might include the mocking of those who believe in God, or are Christian, and if often very obvious. Other times, the story is very cleverly inserted so as to not be perceivable unless you're philosophically sensitive to detecting the secular messages within. There is a saturation of the secular story and anti-Christianity/God across all forms of media and entertainment.

But you know what? This doesn't threaten me or peeve me off, unless the show or movies is entirely about mocking my beliefs... then I just think them fools and switch channels. What I'm getting at, is you say you no longer feel threatened by documentaries mentioning evolution. Neither am I, but for different reasons, because I understand the secular worldview is the dominant philosophy of our day in Western society. What else do they have? They can't embrace any truly "design" scenario, because such is an affront to them. They'd need to put on a different lens for this to even be a possibility.

The grounded philosophy of today is that of philosophical naturalism -- the belief that only nothing else exists beyond the material and physical world we experience. It is the colour of the lens through which many see the world around them in our societies. It is definitely the lens of most influence in our universities and education, especially biological science. So it is any wonder we have people and scientists drawing conclusions from observations that conforms with the best story the prevailing philosophy of the day has to offer?

You mention feeling threatened by docos, but what about when you come across movies, tv shows, late night shows, comedians, news, media, or friends and work colleges where Christianity and belief in God is also ridiculed? Does this make you feel threatened, especially when every one else seems to be clapping and laughing in their mockery at our expense?

It makes me role my eyes, but it doesn't make me feel threatened. It makes me think them foolish, but I understand it's just a fact in my society that the philosophy of the day is largely secular. With friends and colleges I just try to put a stone in their shoe, more listening and asking questions that make them think.

At some point the line must be drawn. One shouldn't just accept a belief, because they feel challenged all the time by opposing ones. I can watch a documentary on evolution, and find it entirely fascinating, and I'm always keeping my ear to the ground for arguments in support of their evolutionary statements. But in actuality, when watching these docos, they often just make statements as fact because they've bought into the secular story of our origins.

I can accept they believe differently to what I do, so my heart doesn't jump a beat. I still respect their film though which often displays fascinating and beautiful footage of the world and how things work (something that is quite neutral). So for myself, there is very little to feel challenged by other than knowing someone accepts a different philosophy to myself.

[theophilus]

The Hebrew word Yom has other literal meanings besides a 24 hour day. From this link:http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

I know the word has other meanings but not all of them are literal meanings. In the creation account each day consists of a period of light and a period of darkness and is followed by the phrase: "There was evening and there was morning." How many meanings of the word meet this description?

[Canuckster1127]

Before or after the fourth day when several of the necessary components were created that define a 24 hour day were created?

[PaulSacramento]

One needs to be careful in taking Genesis as literal AND concrete AND as a step-by-step process because, if we do we will get into some issues that just don't make sense, just an example of two:
Light and day being created before a source of light.
Vegetation and plants BEFORE sunlight.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
The Hebrew word Yom has other literal meanings besides a 24 hour day. From this link:http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

Theophilus wrote:
I know the word has other meanings but not all of them are literal meanings

Of course they're literal meanings. I just posted a link showing you the multiple literal meanings of yom.

In the creation account each day consists of a period of light and a period of darkness and is followed by the phrase: "There was evening and there was morning."

Theophilus, I suggest you reread Genesis. There is no mention of light and darkness in each of the six creation days. The phrase, "there was evening and there was morning" can simply mean the ending of one "day", and the beginning of another "day". What kind of 24 hour day begins
in the evening, and ends in the morning?
Also notice that the text doesn't use the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning", for the seventh day. Why is that? Could it be because the seventh "day" has not ended yet?

[PaulSacramento]

IMO, the evening and morning symbolize the completeness of the cycle within that given "time frame".
That there is no evening and morning on the 7th day means that God is still working ( even at rest in His Temple), as Christ stated when He said that He is still working as His Father is still working.
John 5:17