Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

radind

New member
I disagree with your 'assessment' and support the Biblical model that in the beginning, God created everything in six days. Without that Biblical 'assessment, you believe that physical death, suffering and pain are not a result of the curse. With your 'assessment', Christ's physical death becomes meaningless. Jesus would not have had to defeat physical death, since you believe that pain, suffering and death were 'very good'.

When anyone tries to assume what another believes, there is a high probability that they are wrong. I think that each of us has free will and that each one of us has sinned. Pain and suffering were not part of God's creation. I do think that the death was spiritual death as opposed to physical death.
It is unlikely that either one of us will change their views.
My position is that God created everything and whatever one believes about creation( young earth, old earth) is not a salvation issue.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So eternal LOVE is in an oxygen bottle? Interesting.


Dear Cross Reference,

Love might be in a oxygen bottle. There are also combinations that God could make with other atoms or elements, or minerals, that He could still be a part of. Like water {add oxygen}, fire {add Helium}, hydrogen peroxide {add more oxygen}, etc. Well, I'm not getting into it. Whatever God is made of or combination of is His to know and be. Hydrogen can be gas, liquid, or solid {ice}. It can also be combined with many other beautiful elements to make fantastic rocks and stones, etc. God is Everywhere Anyways!!

Well, I have to go. It is almost 6 a.m. here and I should have been in bed 3 hours ago. Thanks for your support, CR!!

Praise God!!!

Michael
 

Cross Reference

New member
Dear Cross Reference,

Love might be in a oxygen bottle. There are also combinations that God could make with other atoms or elements, or minerals, that He could still be a part of. Like water {add oxygen}, fire {add Helium}, hydrogen peroxide {add more oxygen}, etc. Well, I'm not getting into it. Whatever God is made of or combination of is His to know and be. Hydrogen can be gas, liquid, or solid {ice}. It can also be combined with many other beautiful elements to make fantastic rocks and stones, etc. God is Everywhere Anyways!!

Well, I have to go. It is almost 6 a.m. here and I should have been in bed 3 hours ago. Thanks for your support, CR!!

Praise God!!!

Michael


At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, God has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause". Love "uncaused". Take this into your thinking: Only Love can create. Arrange all your theological precepts around that fact.
 

6days

New member
. I think that each of us has free will and that each one of us has sinned.
We are born sinners.
Jesus was 'Last Adam'...and not born a sinner like we are.
.
Pain and suffering were not part of God's creation.
But you think physical death was part of what God called "very good". You don't think physical death causes pain and suffering to others.
.
I do think that the death was spiritual death as opposed to physical death.
Did physical death exist before Adam sinned?

After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed. Or...is there merit in the above comment from a TOL member?

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse... and why the comment from a TOLer is unbiblical.
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."


2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19


3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.

1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)


4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4
 

gcthomas

New member
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, God has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause". Love "uncaused". Take this into your thinking: Only Love can create. Arrange all your theological precepts around that fact.

Alternatively,

At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, The Universe has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, magic has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, fundmental physics has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, [insert anything] has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".

That has been determined is a weasel phrase that means nothing. If you think it means something, please logically or evidentially disprove each of my four alternatives.
 

Cross Reference

New member
Alternatively,

At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, The Universe has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, magic has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, fundmental physics has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, [insert anything] has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".

That has been determined is a weasel phrase that means nothing. If you think it means something, please logically or evidentially disprove each of my four alternatives.

The universe was not an uncaused cause but a creation. Try again.
 

gcthomas

New member
You accept that uncaused causes are a usable concept, but they can only apply to the Christan conception of a God, and not to other things? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

The universe was not an uncaused cause but a creation.

How do you know your assertion is correct?
Your model: Uncaused cause (personal God) causes universe which causes everything else.
Rejected model: Uncaused cause (Universe) causes everything else.

We can only observe the 'everything else' part, so why pick the more complex model when the simpler one requires fewer unevidenced steps for the same outcome?
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Alternatively,

At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, The Universe has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, magic has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, fundmental physics has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".
At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, [insert anything] has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause".

That has been determined is a weasel phrase that means nothing. If you think it means something, please logically or evidentially disprove each of my four alternatives.
why do all the UK people deny God's word? Is it because they are becoming Muslims?
 

gcthomas

New member
They believe in a god.

You said that believing that God was an uncaused cause was necessary because it was God's Word, but now it is just the Philosophers' Word, but that is the same since they believed in God. Is that what you meant to say?

But then so do you.

(And no, I don't believe in God, or Allah, or Yaweh, Zeus, The Sun God of Egypt, or any other deity. Just for clarity. :up: )
 

Cross Reference

New member
You said that believing that God was an uncaused cause was necessary because it was God's Word, but now it is just the Philosophers' Word, but that is the same since they believed in God. Is that what you meant to say?



(And no, I don't believe in God, or Allah, or Yaweh, Zeus, The Sun God of Egypt, or any other deity. Just for clarity. :up: )

So you consider yourself a god. That's nothing new. What you consider yourself and God to be is is all too often far removed from actualities..
 

Cross Reference

New member
Is English your second language? You seem to be having problems parsing simple sentence structure and grammar. Or else you are trying to distract me from your previous unsupported claims.

No. Yu are your own god. Your resistence to there being a god has created a lag in your growth of your capability to understand there is always a god in the life of a person irrespective of his not wanting to entertain the idea.
 

gcthomas

New member
No. Yu are your own god. Your resistence to there being a god has created a lag in your growth of your capability to understand there is always a god in the life of a person irrespective of his not wanting to entertain the idea.

I'm lucky that the strength of your belief does not affect the absence of a God in reality. And no, I am not my own god, since gods don't seem to exist.
 

Rosenritter

New member
This is an interesting creationist argument.

Basically, we have lots of fossilized dinosaur remains...we've had them for centuries. Starting over 200 years ago, just by looking at the geological characteristics of the areas the fossils were found in, geologists and paleontologists concluded that dinosaurs existed very long times ago. Then about 100 years later scientists discovered radiometric dating, which not only confirmed the ancient ages for the fossils, but allowed scientists to put approximate dates on the fossils, which in turn allowed scientists to uncover a surprising amount of detail about dinosaurs, e.g., their evolution, their life history, and their demise. All of the available data supported the general narrative of dinosaurs living tens of millions of years ago and dying out around 65 million years ago.

Corrections:
1. Radiometric dating does not confirm ancient ages for fossils. Regardless, you should qualify "ancient" when you use it in a sentence in this forum.
2. Those "approximate dates" you reference are concocted and bogus. They do not reveal "surprising amount of detail on dinosaurs." Some of the evidence already shown confirming man and dinosaur coexistence already contradicts your assumption.


So what does that mean for the C-14 results on dinosaur remains? It means those results are extreme outliers. We also know that C-14 dating isn't useful for objects that are over ~45,000 years old. We also know of mechanisms by which C-14 can find its way into old objects (it's been tested and demonstrated in the lab).

3. We already know that the evolutionists toss out dates they don't like all over the place.
4. Carbon dating would only be reliable when certain assumptions are true. One of the assumptions is the object is less than 50,000 years old. Another assumption is that the earth environment has been relatively constant during those 50,000 years and that radioactive carbon has been at an equilibrium, rather than still increasing.

Put that all together and you see the situation. The creationists are arguing that the outlier results, generated by misused methodology, should overrule all the other congruent results from all the other fields of science.

5. Rather, the evolutionists leap into logical fallacy. They start by assuming an old earth where more than 50,000 years exist. Then the constant (uniform) environment is assumed. Then the age of the objects is assumed. So when it is inconvenient to submit the objects to the same tests, they say "it wouldn't work anyway" and won't do the test. Why? Because the results are inconvenient.

That leads to an obvious question....why? Why should scientists throw out centuries of congruent results from multiple fields of science, and go with outlier results derived by a misused methodology?

6. You don't have congruent results silly. If coal beds and soft dinosaur tissue register at all on carbon dating tests, it proves that your initial assumption was wrong. But you won't question your assumption, that's your Holy Cow that you dare not kick. That's why it's circular logic. You start off by assuming (old earth) what it is you wish to prove (old earth). Those carbon dating tests do with a young earth model. I'm not saying that you will get accurate dates from them, but they are at least somewhat ballpark.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Wow. Now you are really getting original in saying things the article didn’t even intimate. Atheists now have their own years, and somehow humanists are involved, and both the atheists and humanists are just plain dumb about what years really are.

Yes, Atheists do have their own years. Any "millions of years" is something that exists in their imagination. They don't relate to the real world except when massively scaled, like perhaps a million to one in some extreme cases.

I’m not sure that I am interested in a discussion that degenerates into this level of silliness. My interest has been on the scientific question of the C-14 age of dinosaur bones. You know as well as I do that a huge number of faithful Christian scientists (does Christian mean they are not inherently dumb?) have no problems with long dinosaur ages (see above post from radind in which he mentions ASA). Same goes for the followers of a whole variety of religious traditions. For now I will attribute your need to stoop to this level of dialogue as an excusable mental lapse.

If you think you have the self-control, then let’s talk science. Then if the answers from science align with your literal Genesis, I will agree with that.

If you will stay focused then sensible talk is possible. I will try to avoid confusing you and Jose (who seems to be merely inflammatory.) Are old-age Christian scientists dumb? Perhaps, perhaps not. I can't say without knowing them. Are they in agreement with scripture? No, they aren't. Are they considering all the evidence? I doubt it.

Point of clarification. Though dinosaurs fit within the evolutionary timeline, evolution is not dependent on the validity of dinosaur ages, and if evolution were falsified, that would not cause a mass adjustment to the dates dinosaurs are believed to have lived. We are talking C-14 dating, not evolution. Can we stick to that?

Since you seem anxious to engage this C-14 issue, I am going to assume that you know the counterarguments to what you just said. No?

I've said before that I "evolution" might as well try to fit itself into a short time span. After all, "spontaneous generation" was believed once upon a time too. Flies from meat, etc. It's the same thing just a different time scale. More time doesn't make it any more or less possible.

As for "counterarguments" I was rather sharp on the subject ten years ago. I doubt much new has surfaced since then. As to whether you have anything that I don't know about, how am I supposed to know what I don't know? I can't say if you have something unknown to me.


I thought that had already been covered. We touched on the Genesis timeline (< 7000 years) earlier. And repeating the opening claim from the article:
Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.​

Note they say they were dated using Carbon 14, but they explicitly say they are “22,000 to 39,000 years old”, not atheist years, or Carbon years or any other goofy type of years you want to claim. Any normal person reading that opening statement in that article would conclude they meant 22,000 regular, ordinary, earth-go-around-sun, fall-winter-spring-summer years. Maybe in your world 7000 lies somewhere between 22,000 and 39,000. Doesn’t look like the article jibes with you timeline.

We aren't talking about normal spring summer years. We are talking about "Carbon dating" years. The current "carbon dating" system is based on an unfounded (and bad) assumption that radioactive carbon has been constant in the atmosphere for the last 50,000 years. You start with that assumption and anything dated from a young earth is going to show up as massively old.

Yes, "5000 years old" under the Genesis model (as the book describes) would show up as 20000-40000 years old when Carbon dated. Thus the difference between real years and "carbon dated" years. What the comparison does do is disprove the assumption that "dinosaurs lived millions of years ago" because if the old earth evolution model is correct, they shouldn't be even registering AT ALL after millions of years.

1. Freshly created earth starts with no radioactive carbon, and input increases as exposed to the sun.
2. "Mist covers the earth" and "waters above and below" likely shields earth from much radiation during the first 1600 years. Also evidenced by the recorded long human lifespans and extreme sizes of reptiles from earlier eras.
3. Radioactive carbon still increasing and evidenced by life spans starting to take a drop until they approach and reach modern day lengths.

So when you measure an item that only had a fraction of Carbon-14 radiation available to it than what is (falsely) assumed, it's going to show up as being a lot older. Thus the difference between "carbon 14 years" and "real years."

So the article is still useful. It didn't intent to engage further issues, you've got to deal with the really dumb assumption of "millions of years" before you can calibrate the fine tuning past that.

Hey, if you want to call me stupid, then feel free, and put me on ignore. But if you dare, how about a (more polite, please) examination of these factors you mention?

You guys are the one that pointed to that article. If you have a better article, why didn’t you use it instead?

Knock yourself out, mock away, if that is the best you have. That says more about you than it does about me.

Sorry for the terse reply. Didn't have much time then. Still not much now. Take care. I'll try to check in now and then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top