The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Asiaprod

Son Goku wrote:

Wooooo!!, somebody has a crush.

10 to zero !!!

Now Christian Common Sence would tell us that you can't have water turn to humans.

Now tell me about the water into wine one.

pH

I like the bit where atheists lose a point and end up at -1.

Folks its a joke/satire site - check out its main page.

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

Folks its a joke/satire site - check out its main page.

Does not stop us having fun though;)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Are we using different meanings for "met"? I think we are. I meant physically, while you are happy to accept Paul's "spiritual meeting" with Christ, for which, I think, we only have Paul's word, not Christ's. I don't accept Paul's word, you do. Are you a Pauline?

No, I'm a Christian. That involves believing all that Christ's apostles taught.

Paul shows us that this was not a dream or other impression you or I might have. His meeting with Christ was real - whether with Paul's body or with his spirit it doesn't say - and marked him as an apostle, someone who met the Lord and was commissioned personally by Him.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

The reason I brought this up is that mummies are independently dated by radiocarbon techniques, tree-rings, and historical records. As I say, that gives the earliest mummies a date before the flood, which as you say, can't be the case!

We have tree-rings from before the Flood? I'd be interested to hear of them. As I would of any historical documents.

You might also want to read this summary of fossilisation methods. Note that dinosaur skin impressions have been found - the dinosaurs in question were mummified, then fossilised.

Excellent article. Hope you come to believe it.:)

You're aware that we have literally hundreds of thousands of examples of fossils, fossil assemblages, fossil beds, death layers, detritus layers, etc? Not one of them contains "man and his artifacts...found with the other fossils", not one single one. For most of us I think this constitutes "sufficient evidence" - in that statistically, we're at well over 99.9% confidence.

If a great tsunami covered America 400 years ago, what is the likelihood of finding human remains amongst the forests and herds so buried? It would be rare. So with the Flood that laid down most of our fossils. Hundreds of thousands of fossils is just a drop in the ocean, pardon the pun.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Geology is "evolutionist" because that's what works - it's what gets the oil out of the ground. Creationism doesn't work. It doesn't get oil out of the ground. Here everyone can see Creationism publicly failing a major practical test, one motivated not by scientific peer pressure or atheistic conspiracy, but by a practical need for something to work. Explain that one away.

Creationism doesn't work. It doesn't get oil out of the ground.

This is precisely what the writer of the article refutes. He says there is no need for any evolutionary knowledge for one to locate oil. The evolutionary jargon comes from the geologists, not from the operations. Creationists have the same data on rock structures as do evolutionists. They have their theory of how the layers came to be that way, as do evolutionists. Both know what they are looking for when they search for oil.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

I don't see a contradiction between God creating a world that involved death and predation and it being described as very good. The ecosystems in the world around us are really wonderful, and they all involve creatures with life cycles who are born and die, plants. But the bible has no problem with animals dying. God commanded a sacrificial system that involved countless thousands of animal dying, and while it was not perfect, it was certainly very good. The bible also describe God providing prey for ravens and young lions. There is no suggestion that God was not very good to do so. Does the bible actually tell us that animal death was the result of the fall?

This is the crucial part of the argument, so I'll cut to it. I'm glad you face the fact that to hold to Theistic Evolution one has to regard suffering and death as 'very good'.

Surely your conscience should tell you otherwise? I know mine did, even in my unsaved days. But I leave that to you.

The Bible tells us that the whole of creation fell when Man sinned:
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Death came to man through sin:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

The Bible has no problem with animals being killed in sacrifice or for food - because both became necessary consequences of our sin. They are not good in themselves. Man was not given animals to eat in Eden. Man did not offer animals in sacrifice in Eden. The Fall brought all that. The Fall brought not only the animal sacrifices, but the One sacrifice of which they were the appointed types: Christ's substitutionary atoning death at Golgotha.

When God completes His purpose, the salvation of His elect, then death and suffering are forever banished:
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

This is precisely what the writer of the article refutes. He says there is no need for any evolutionary knowledge for one to locate oil. The evolutionary jargon comes from the geologists, not from the operations. Creationists have the same data on rock structures as do evolutionists. They have their theory of how the layers came to be that way, as do evolutionists. Both know what they are looking for when they search for oil.

In no way, even to the most confused, can it be pretended that the author "refutes" the fact that oil companies don't use Creationist geology. He says, as you say above, that he believes it would work, if it were used.

So why is Creationist geology not used by the oil companies?

If it is correct, it would be used, because it would find oil. If it is not correct, it wouldn't be used, because it wouldn't find oil. Which of these options is the case?

Since the latter is the case, whereas you believe it should be the former, why don't they use it? Neither you nor the author have answered this question.

I have offered an answer, which as far as I can see you have not refuted, and I believe that you cannot refute, short of claiming a world-wide conspiracy by oil companies to their own detriment. Oil companies do not use Creationist/Flood Geology because it is rubbish, and for no other reason.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

We have tree-rings from before the Flood? I'd be interested to hear of them. As I would of any historical documents.

"Overlapping timbers from modern forests, buildings and archaeology has allowed the annual tree-ring record to be extended backwards over the last 10,000 years."

..quoted from here.

wolfsbane wrote:

Excellent article. Hope you come to believe it.:)

Even I like to be kind from time to time!

wolfsbane wrote:

If a great tsunami covered America 400 years ago, what is the likelihood of finding human remains amongst the forests and herds so buried? It would be rare. So with the Flood that laid down most of our fossils. Hundreds of thousands of fossils is just a drop in the ocean, pardon the pun.

Except that we have plenty of human remains from 400 years ago in America! Without even needing a tsunami to kill a lot of people at the same time. Hundreds of thousands of fossils is a statistically significant sample in terms of the maximum populations allowed by the Biblical timeline.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No, I'm a Christian. That involves believing all that Christ's apostles taught.

Paul shows us that this was not a dream or other impression you or I might have. His meeting with Christ was real - whether with Paul's body or with his spirit it doesn't say - and marked him as an apostle, someone who met the Lord and was commissioned personally by Him.

Except, of course, that Paul is only marked as an apostle of Christ because of his meeting with Christ, for which we have only his word, which you accept because he's an apostle of Christ...except of course, that Paul is only marked as an apostle of Christ because of his meeting with Christ, for which we have only his word, which you accept because he's an apostle of Christ...

Well, that might work for you, but I have to say it doesn't for me, being so perfectly circular and all...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Assyrian

wolfsbane wrote:

This is the crucial part of the argument, so I'll cut to it. I'm glad you face the fact that to hold to Theistic Evolution one has to regard suffering and death as 'very good'.

Surely your conscience should tell you otherwise? I know mine did, even in my unsaved days. But I leave that to you.

I take it you are a vegetarian then? I can understand if your conscience tells you that eating animals is wrong, you might think that God creating a world that included predators would be wrong too. But surely the question of vegetarianism is one the bible leaves open. Romans 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

But if vegetarianism is a position believers are free to take or reject, how can it be used as an argument against evolution? Perhaps Hindu creationists could take this line, but surely not Christians?

The Bible tells us that the whole of creation fell when Man sinned:
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Actually Paul never mentions the fall or sin in this whole passage, just that 'the bondage of decay' was God's idea. There is nothing in the passage to connect it to the fall.

Death came to man through sin:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Notice that this says nothing about animals dying, just human death. It is not even clear if Paul is referring to physical or spiritual death. Paul speaks of himself in the same context, when sin first entered his life Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. He is clearly talking about spiritual death here, he was obviously physically alive when he wrote the letter So it was spiritual death that spread to him when he first sinned.

But the most important thing for our discussion is that Paul doesn't say that animal death was the result of the fall, in other words there is no reason to say evolution could not have happened because there was no death before the fall.

The Bible has no problem with animals being killed in sacrifice or for food - because both became necessary consequences of our sin. They are not good in themselves. Man was not given animals to eat in Eden. Man did not offer animals in sacrifice in Eden. The Fall brought all that. The Fall brought not only the animal sacrifices, but the One sacrifice of which they were the appointed types: Christ's substitutionary atoning death at Golgotha.

Certainly it was sin that led to the need for Christ to give his like for us, and the old testament sacrifices that symbolised Calvary. But if killing animals was wrong, was somehow bad, God would never have commanded a sacrificial system that entailed killing animals. I certainly think the death of Jesus was very good.

God has no problem in providing prey for lions and ravens. You may see it as a necessary consequence of the fall, but isn't this situational ethics? I mean if killing animals would have been bad before the fall, necessity wouldn't make it right. How could a holy God do something bad? Job 38:41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food? Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. I really think the Young Earth Creationist view that predation is something intrinsically bad really does not fit the biblical view of the created world.

When God completes His purpose, the salvation of His elect, then death and suffering are forever banished:
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

In fact the phrase used to describe death pain sorrow and crying, is not just 'former things' but literally 'the first things' ta prota. It certainly sounds like decay and death was all part of the world God first created. But according to the passage in Romans you quoted, God plan was that nature he subjected to decay would join the liberty of the sons of God when we receive the redemption of our bodies.

Assyrian

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

And as I've said, you know the reason why creationist arguments don't get peer-reviewed by evolutionists. They do of course by creationist scientists.

indeed... I know why... The reason is because they are not up to the standards of the scientific community. Remember that the people who reject creationist articles are incredibly well educated in the matter, and their combined expertise far outweighs that of creationists.

Sure, creationists can complain and construct conspiracy theories, but they aren't important.

Your trust in the scientific establishment should be reviewed. See following for another reason why.

The testimonies I have from trusted Christians who have experienced suppression in their professional lives, the Smithsonian incident, and now: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0215ohio.asp make me sure about a conspiracy.

Do I have to repeat myself?

I trust the scientific community because they are more informed than any list of creation 'scientists' you can provide. If they reject a paper, then I trust that it is because the paper wasn't up to standards. So your claims of supression are meaningless unless you can provide evidence in the form of an independant investigation of widespread creationist supression.

Many are not Christians in the authentic, NT sense. But those who are have either not bothered checking the facts or are too scared to do so. They have chickened-out in the face of persecution. The best of Christians can fall likewise: Peter, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%202:11-21;&version=50;; Archbishop Cranmer, http://englishhistory.net/tudor/pcranmer.html
Repentance will mark the genuine.

Sorry, they don't subscribe to your particular form of Christianity. And they have scholars backing them. Scholars which have performed rigorous studies that put any ramblings from AiG to shame.

Assyrian

Scofflaw wrote:

Except, of course, that Paul is only marked as an apostle of Christ because of his meeting with Christ, for which we have only his word, which you accept because he's an apostle of Christ...except of course, that Paul is only marked as an apostle of Christ because of his meeting with Christ, for which we have only his word, which you accept because he's an apostle of Christ...

Well, that might work for you, but I have to say it doesn't for me, being so perfectly circular and all...

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think Paul's apostleship was based on having seen Christ, but on God calling him to be an apostle. This calling was recognised by the other apostles, as we can see in the council of Jerusalem in Acts and in Peter's epistles.

Assyrian

Scofflaw

Assyrian wrote:

I don't think Paul's apostleship was based on having seen Christ, but on God calling him to be an apostle. This calling was recognised by the other apostles, as we can see in the council of Jerusalem in Acts and in Peter's epistles.

It's tempting to get involved in Biblical exegesis, but better to resist! I can understand that acceptance of the NT as the word of God involves acceptance of Paul as an Apostle, and I won't challenge that just to support my cheeky throw-away remark...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Assyrian

:cool:

crazy shtuff

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html

Scofflaw

A couple of links, while everything's quiet:
water-land transition fossils

and:

10,000 signatures on the Clergy Letter Project! More Christian clergy support evolution than scientists support Creation. Well, well, well.


pleased,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

"Overlapping timbers from modern forests, buildings and archaeology has allowed the annual tree-ring record to be extended backwards over the last 10,000 years."

..quoted from here.

Thanks for that. Here's something I found on the creationist perspective:
The author: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp
The article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

10,000 signatures on the Clergy Letter Project! More Christian clergy support evolution than scientists support Creation. Well, well, well.

Thanks for that link too - it is good to keep track of the sort of religious folk who support evolution. I think this says more about the state of 'Christianity' than it does about the state of evolution. Remember: the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians were all agreed on one issue too.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

I take it you are a vegetarian then? I can understand if your conscience tells you that eating animals is wrong, you might think that God creating a world that included predators would be wrong too.

No, I eat meat with a clear conscience, just as the Lord Jesus did. But permission for that was not given until after the Fall - in fact, it seems to come only after the Flood.

But the most important thing for our discussion is that Paul doesn't say that animal death was the result of the fall, in other words there is no reason to say evolution could not have happened because there was no death before the fall.

How does God describe a perfect world? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011:6-9%20;&version=50; But theistic evolutionists say 4 billion years of death and suffering were 'very good'. God says suffering and death is very bad, the result of man's wickedness.

But if killing animals was wrong, was somehow bad, God would never have commanded a sacrificial system that entailed killing animals. I certainly think the death of Jesus was very good.

God is sovereign over all life, to give and take away. He even delegates that authority to man, in the execution of criminals. Romans 13:4For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

But your comment on the death of Jesus brings the argument to a height. We agree that it brought supreme good - our salvation. But it was not good in any way: it was the vilest crime against God:
John 19:10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
Acts 7:52Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,

Obviously, if Christ's murder can be described as 'very good', so can billions of years of suffering and death. But it is beyond my understanding how theistic evolutionists can believe that.

God has no problem in providing prey for lions and ravens. You may see it as a necessary consequence of the fall, but isn't this situational ethics? I mean if killing animals would have been bad before the fall, necessity wouldn't make it right. How could a holy God do something bad? Job 38:41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food? Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. I really think the Young Earth Creationist view that predation is something intrinsically bad really does not fit the biblical view of the created world.

Both judgement and mercy are involved in animals being given for food. When man fell, all of creation fell. So it too groans with us. But in mercy, God gives us what we need to survive with our less than perfect bodies in our less than perfect enviroment. And as I've said above, God is entitled to do as He pleases with all life. He is the potter, we the clay.

In fact the phrase used to describe death pain sorrow and crying, is not just 'former things' but literally 'the first things' ta prota. It certainly sounds like decay and death was all part of the world God first created. But according to the passage in Romans you quoted, God plan was that nature he subjected to decay would join the liberty of the sons of God when we receive the redemption of our bodies.

The 'first things' can more naturally be related to the final things - what goes before with what goes after. Our fallen condition with our coming restored condition. Just as Paul spoke of his wretched state and the deliverance that Christ brings. His wretched state was not that of man before the Fall, but of man after the Fall.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

I don't think Paul's apostleship was based on having seen Christ, but on God calling him to be an apostle.

It would seem from the criteria the apostles used to select a replacement for Judas that immediate contact with Jesus was necessary:
Acts 1:21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Also, Paul's description of himself as one 'born out of due time' suggests he is referring to an unnatural circumstance qualifying him for the apostolic office. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=8&version=50&context=verse

Asiaprod

Its long but interesting, cannot post a link as it is a members only database.


Some scientists think humans descended from Martian microbe

Monday, April 03, 2006

Yet seven years after NASA launched a formal astrobiology research program, scientists of every stripe — geologists, biologists, chemists, paleontologists, oceanographers and astronomers — have rallied to the quest. They've spent as much as $65 million a year trying to solve a mystery that has underpinned religion and inspired thinkers from Seneca to Carl Sagan: How did life on the lonely Earth begin? And is Earth really the only source of life in the universe? With the help of modern tools such as the genome, high-powered computer modeling and robotics, they're finding some out-of-this-world answers, ones that may lead to Mars and beyond.
During an astrobiology conference in Washington last week, scientists debated the newest evidence and worried that funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is vaporizing, just as their cross-disciplinary work is unearthing extraordinary discoveries, such as the organic matter in bits of Jovian comet dust recently collected by NASA's Stardust probe. Many scientists favor the theory that life began as oxygen-loathing microbes in superheated deep-sea vents 3.8 billion years ago, when water probably covered the planet. Others suggest life's assembly could have occurred along the crystal face of damp volcanic rock. And then there is the theory known as panspermia. Once the province of science-fiction novels and cartoons, the notion that the vital ingredients of life came from outer space has garnered respect from some lofty places of late. A few scientists think there's evidence that humans actually descended from Martian microbes, not exactly what the author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus had in mind. But it merits further study, said chemist Steven Benner, who has founded a new institute in Gainesville, the Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology, which aims to bridge chemistry and biology, with evolution as its guide."If you really want to find a place to get life started, it's Mars, and if you want to get a place to get life to flourish, it's Earth," Benner said. While at the University of Florida a few years ago, Benner's team collaborated with scientists at The Scripps Research Institute to explore what kind of chemistry is necessary to support life.
In the process of trying to synthesize a living, evolving molecule in his lab, Benner seized upon minerals containing the element boron, the substance that makes some fireworks glow green. Was boron the ingredient that enabled the Earth to go green as well? Benner found that boron, with calcium at hand, had the talent of helping hold together the chain of carbon needed to stabilize a ribose sugar, the backbone of ribonucleic acid, the scaffolding for our genes. Without boron and calcium, heat, water and lightning would cause ribose to disintegrate into a tarlike mess, unable to support genes. For geologic reasons, Benner's boron finding points directly to Mars as a likely source for Earth life, said Cal Tech geobiologist Joseph L. Kirschvink."When Steve told me of his work on ribosynthesis with boron, I said, 'Steve you've just proven to me that we're Martians.' "That's because the boron needed to make ribose must come as calcium borate, a mineral that's soluble in water, Kirschvink believes.
A few places on Earth, including Death Valley, have a good supply of calcium borate, but they were under water at the time the first evidence of microbes appears on Earth, Kirschvink said. That was not the case on Earth's nearest neighbor, Mars, which was sending off bits of rock and dust in the Earth's general direction every time it took a hit from a meteorite. "We know we have about a ton of Martian rock coming in a year," Kirschvink said. "And it wouldn't take more than a few spores to seed the Earth with life."Could Mars possibly have had spores? Space exploration and powerful telescopes have revealed that the red planet has polar ice, just like our own planet. In 2004, NASA's Opportunity rover found evidence that it once had liquid water running across its surface. And 3 billion or 4 billion years ago, at the time when the Earth apparently was covered with water, Mars may have had a warmer atmosphere and abundant microbial life. "It's entirely reasonable that there was life on Mars, but maybe long extinct," said Gerald Joyce, a professor at Scripps in La Jolla, Calif., who has collaborated with Benner. "The way to find it is to go there, drill down a bit, bring back samples to Earth and look at them."
Unfortunately, a plan to do just that has fallen victim to NASA budget cuts. "It's very sad," Joyce said. Plus, President Bush's budget request to Congress for next year proposes slashing funding for astrobiology research in half. Kirschvink fears religious sentiment may be playing a role in the money cuts. "There are fundamentalists who don't like the idea that their creator put life anywhere other than Earth," he said. In the meantime, Joyce and other scientists are going as far as they possibly can with their science here on Earth. In the journal Chemistry & Biology, Joyce's lab describes using evolutionary principles to convert RNA into DNA and keep its chemical activity intact.Such conversion may have been necessary for more advanced life to evolve. It's one more clue as to how life might have assembled, Joyce said.
Meanwhile, the Marsophiles are excited about a new paper from Martin Fisk, a University of Oregon marine geologist. Fisk has studied several pieces of Martian meteorite, including one called Nakhla, donated from the Smithsonian Institution. In the journal Astrobiology, Fisk describes finding tunnels etched into the Martian rock — tunnels just like ones he has seen in Earth rock. On Earth, only microbes cause those types of tunnels."They are not known to be made by any other process that we know of," Fisk said. It's a controversial notion, one that has been debated since 1996, when another bit of Martian meteorite stored at NASA labs near Houston was found to contain organic material and what appeared to be fossilized microbes. At the time, critics shot down the idea, insisting that inorganic activity might have made the marks in the rock. Fisk notes that his samples contained no DNA, the code for life. Benner thinks it's not a deal-breaker.
"The failure to find DNA in the Martian rock is assumed to argue against Martian life. But this logic is coherent only if Martian life must use the same type of DNA as Earth life uses," Benner said. Kirschvink agreed. "DNA would not survive 4 billion years, even on Mars," he said. "It barely survives in frozen mammoths that are only 12,000 years old."For now, there are more skeptics of Mars' seeding life on Earth than there are advocates. Conel Alexander, a geochemist with the Carnegie Institution of Washington, suspects life arose organically on Earth. "The worry is nobody really understands how well microbes would survive the shock that is required to put something into orbit. To knock it off Mars, how would it survive the radiation? That's one of the many questions," Alexander said. "Nonsense," retorts Kirschvink. "The European Space Agency demonstrated more than five-year survival to space conditions, and some of the Martian meteorites get here within one year of a major impact on Mars." Matt Schrenk, a geobiologist at the Carnegie Institution, favors the deep-sea vent theory, although he's not ruling anything out yet.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Thanks for that link too - it is good to keep track of the sort of religious folk who support evolution. I think this says more about the state of 'Christianity' than it does about the state of evolution. Remember: the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians were all agreed on one issue too.

And many christians are all agreed on some biblical translation issues too, does that mean we should apply the same comparison to them?

Assyrian

The odd thing is, many atheists agree with young earth creationists about the literal interpretation of Genesis, they both claim the bible teaches a six day creation

Assyrian

wolfsbane wrote:

No, I eat meat with a clear conscience, just as the Lord Jesus did.

So how is our conscience supposed to be able to tell us eating meat before the fall would have been wrong?

But permission for that was not given until after the Fall - in fact, it seems to come only after the Flood.

To Noah perhaps, though I sometimes wonder what Abel did with the rest of the sheep when he offered the Lord the fat portions, but either way, it says nothing about carnivorous animals before the fall. And if the morality of eating meat simply depends on whether God allows us to eat other creatures he created, then there can be nothing intrinsically bad about God using evolution and forming carnivorous animals before the fall.

How does God describe a perfect world? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011:6-9%20;&version=50; But theistic evolutionists say 4 billion years of death and suffering were 'very good'. God says suffering and death is very bad, the result of man's wickedness.

Not in any verse I have read. Where does God say animal death is the result of the fall? God told Eve Gen 3:16 "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing..." But how could God multiply her suffering if she didn't already experience pain? How can you multiply something that isn't already there?

The Isaiah passage is telling us about a future perfection, not a past good. We need to look at verses that actually deal with creation, not the future.

God is sovereign over all life, to give and take away. He even delegates that authority to man, in the execution of criminals. Romans 13:4For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

But your comment on the death of Jesus brings the argument to a height. We agree that it brought supreme good - our salvation. But it was not good in any way: it was the vilest crime against God:
John 19:10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
Acts 7:52Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,

Obviously, if Christ's murder can be described as 'very good', so can billions of years of suffering and death. But it is beyond my understanding how theistic evolutionists can believe that.

It probably comes from thinking of Christ's death as 'good news'.

You do realise that this murder of the Son of God was foreordained before the foundation of the world? The creation of the world had the death of Christ written into it. So when God created iron and tree he understood he was creating the implements that would torture and kill his son. You do realise that when God made living creatures mortal he made possible the greatest act of love the universe has ever seen? How can you say it would be bad for God to have created mortal creatures?

Both judgement and mercy are involved in animals being given for food. When man fell, all of creation fell. So it too groans with us. But in mercy, God gives us what we need to survive with our less than perfect bodies in our less than perfect enviroment. And as I've said above, God is entitled to do as He pleases with all life. He is the potter, we the clay.

Quite. So when God formed velociraptors a hundred million years ago, he was entitled to do as he pleased. Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Isaiah 45:9 Can you tell the potter what he made was bad?

The 'first things' can more naturally be related to the final things - what goes before with what goes after. Our fallen condition with our coming restored condition. Just as Paul spoke of his wretched state and the deliverance that Christ brings. His wretched state was not that of man before the Fall, but of man after the Fall.

So the first things weren't really the first things?

It would seem from the criteria the apostles used to select a replacement for Judas that immediate contact with Jesus was necessary:
Acts 1:21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Also, Paul's description of himself as one 'born out of due time' suggests he is referring to an unnatural circumstance qualifying him for the apostolic office. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse

The qualification of being one of the twelve was beening a witness to all that happened from the time of Jesus' baptism to the resurrection. Seeing the risen Christ would not have been enough.

Paul referring to himself as an abortion, untimely born, could be read that way, but I don't see how he would have met the qualifications. But there were more apostles than the twelve in Jerusalem who had been witnesses to Christ's ministry. Barnabas was an apostle too as were Silvanus and Timothy Acts 14:14 1Thess 1:1 & 2:6.

Assyrian

robindch

Good heavens, two days without a post -- practically an eternity.

Anyhow, I wonder what our embattled creationist colleague(s) make of the following account, derived from the writings of an indian chap:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=187

...in which the world isn't said to have been created so recently as 6,010 years ago, but a pleasingly accurate-sounding 155,521,971,961,600 years ago, or around 12,000 times older than atheistic evilutionists think. Some more on this kind of creationism is here.

Are christian creationists worried? Think it's all bonkers? Any thoughts at all?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Anyhow, I wonder what our embattled creationist colleague(s) make of the following account, derived from the writings of an indian chap:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/...nt.php?num=187

...in which the world isn't said to have been created so recently as 6,010 years ago, but a pleasingly accurate-sounding 155,521,971,961,600 years ago, or around 12,000 times older than atheistic evilutionists think. Some more on this kind of creationism is here.

Are christian creationists worried? Think it's all bonkers? Any thoughts at all?

Interesting article. Shows once again that when one doesn't believe in the True God, one believes in anything.

I'm not worried that Hindus believe in an original creation of mature man. I'm sure your're not worried that they believe in a billions of years old universe. Maybe it's the theistic evolutionists who have most in common with them?:D

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

And many christians are all agreed on some biblical translation issues too, does that mean we should apply the same comparison to them?

If the cap fits. If they speak against God's Word:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

The odd thing is, many atheists agree with young earth creationists about the literal interpretation of Genesis, they both claim the bible teaches a six day creation

Nothing odd about it. Both are just being honest about what the Bible actually teaches.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

So how is our conscience supposed to be able to tell us eating meat before the fall would have been wrong?

It isn't. My point was we are now permitted to do so, in answer to your question if was was a vegetarian.

Not in any verse I have read. Where does God say animal death is the result of the fall?

Well, here is a passage that clearly teaches that human death is a result of the Fall. If the greater case is true, the lesser is also, and the other texts that speak of the whole of creation groaning with us makes perfect sense.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

It probably comes from thinking of Christ's death as 'good news'.

Then you have a very distorted view of the gospel. The good news is that Christ's death has paid for the sins of all who trust in Him; not 'Whoopee, the Messiah has been murdered'.

You do realise that this murder of the Son of God was foreordained before the foundation of the world? The creation of the world had the death of Christ written into it. So when God created iron and tree he understood he was creating the implements that would torture and kill his son. You do realise that when God made living creatures mortal he made possible the greatest act of love the universe has ever seen? How can you say it would be bad for God to have created mortal creatures?

Yes, I rejoice in the predestination of God. That does not make suffering and death 'very good' any more than it makes Satan very good. Your reasoning must have suffering, death, sin, Satan, sinners all good. It is totally distorted reasoning. Christ would not have died for His people had they not sinned; but that does not make my sins good. Think about it. Suffering and death are a result of the Fall.

Quite. So when God formed velociraptors a hundred million years ago, he was entitled to do as he pleased. Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Isaiah 45:9 Can you tell the potter what he made was bad?

That takes us back to the nature of suffering and death. If they are 'very good' as you say, then of course God could have done it. But if they are the consequences of sin, then God could not without being unjust - and that is impossible.

Paul referring to himself as an abortion, untimely born, could be read that way, but I don't see how he would have met the qualifications.

He met the qualifications because Christ revealed all to him; all the truths that the disciples heard over their time with Christ; and much more beside: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20corinthians%2012:1-7;&version=50; And of course, he was able to say he had met the risen Christ.

Son Goku

With my curiosity satisfied I think that I will bow out of this debate, however before I do I'd like to make a few closing points.

I think the main reason I find ID and Creationism (although particularly ID) to be scientifically worthless isn't because they're religiously motivated, vague or rely on arguments that are, at best, non sequiturs.
Rather I find them worthless because they're boring scientifically and in reality aren't driven by a desire to understand the world.

The main strength of evolution is in it's ability to explain things. It can tell you why finding a fossil in such and such a place isn't unexpected. However, more to the point, this explanatory power is more than retroactive. Evolution can tell you what you should find in such a situation before you find it and when we do create or explore that situation we do find what was predicted.

Creationism and ID are nothing like this. Instead they follow evolution around saying "you missed a spot" and when somebody decides to look at the spot in detail it turns out to be vague pseudo-metaphysical whatiffery.
That doesn't matter to Creationism though, because the goal isn't explaining the natural world.

One of the most surreal examples of this is when Creationists bring up entropy. No matter how many times you say it doesn't apply to evolution(And to be very honest it doesn't, at all. It makes very little sense to use it in a biological context) they maintain it does. At this point I think the Creationist definition of entropy is "that which makes evolution impossible".

Not only is evolution like this, but so is cosmology, e.t.c.

Mainstream Science has given things like wave-particle duality, curved spacetime, plate tectonics, a knowledge of long extinct ecosystems, a picture of the Earth during its formation, told us why we get sick, why we age.....................e.t.c.

Creationism has given us a collection of 70-page threads of nonsense across the internet.