Theistic Evolutionists and the Truth of Jesus: The Two Don’t Mix

While I’m preparing my next fine-tuning article, I got into an interesting conversation with airtightnoodle.  I’m so used to educated evolutionists also being atheists, I forget that there are some intelligent and educate theistic evolutionists out there.  Airtightnoodleis one of them.  Upon re-discovering that airtightnoodle refers to himself as a Christian (I erroneously lumped him in with the rest), I wondered what he would say about Jesus’ understanding of a literal six day creation.  The verse I referred to was Mark 10:6, where Jesus was asked about divorce:

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

I fully expected for airtightnoodle, if I even heard from him again on the topic, to deflect with some screed about “Well, did Jesus REALLY say that?”.  However, airtightnoodle devoted an entire article to the topic, and did a good job of tackling the meat of the issue and talking about Scripture in it’s context, which I love of course.  Let me respond to airtightnoodle directly.

airtightnoodle

I’m glad that you pointed out this article to me so I may directly respond to your full argument.  This is very helpful.

In regards to Jesus’ Mark 10:6 statement, you say:

However, this statement ignores the fact that no matter how one reads the text, marriage did NOT begin at the beginning of creation.”

Ah, but Jesus isn’t just talking about marriage, he’s talking about the REASON for marriage.  His reason for marriage is that God created them male and female, created that with the PURPOSE of being of one flesh (Gen 2:24).  So even with out Jesus’ statement of “from the beginning of creation”, we know that Jesus is saying that molecules-to-man evolution didn’t take place because if it did then God wouldn’t have “MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE”.

Let’s say that molecules-to-man evolution happened, and let’s say you’re correct in your argument that, “Jesus is simply explaining the institution of marriage as was commanded to the first two creatures it applied to“, Jesus is STILL wrong because God did not “make them” in any sense of the word, the Natural Selection of random genetic mutations did.

Yet, you go further and say . . . “The passage has no bearing on the age of creation.”

Let’s quote Jesus again, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE“.  Jesus is EXACTLY saying that at the beginning of creation God created humans.  In order to interpret the passage the way you are, that Jesus is merely talking about the beginning of the species, you must change Jesus’ words to “But from the beginning of human creation . . .” or “But from the beginning of humanity. . .”.  Let’s quicky dissect Jesus’ words phrase by phrase.  “But from the beginning . . .” (of what?) “. . . of creation” (Ok, what happened at the beginning of creation?), “God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.”  It’s that easy. 

What you are practicing, airtightnoodle, is an interpretive fallacy known as eisegesis.  You are literally inserting your own preconceived ideas into the passage instead of doing exegesis, which is taking out of the passage what the text says in itself .  Your erroneous logic goes something like this, “Molecules-to-man evolution happened, and Jesus can’t be wrong, therefore Mark 10:6 is talking about the beginning of the species”.  As I’ve shown, your conclusion is wrong therefore either Premise A is wrong or Premise B is wrong. 

By strongly adhering to the truth of molecules-to-man evolution, airtightnoodle, you are, by default, saying that Jesus was wrong and humanity wasn’t made at the beginning and that God didn’t “make” them at all.  There is just no way around it without inserting words into passages.

In your article, you also site another passage that you say “Creationists use” to show a literal six day Creation.  Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

As you said, Moses is talking about a literal six day creation.  Your counter-argument to Moses’ understanding of a six day creation is:

However, God declared other Sabbaths. A Sabbath for the land consists of six years of cultivation followed by a seventh year of rest (Leviticus 25:2-4). This establishes the principle of six periods of work followed by one period of rest. And in this case, the “days” are not six 24 hour periods.

For the sake of clarity, let’s quote Leviticus 25:2-4:

For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops.  But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.

You are attempting to say that since the Sabbath principle used at creation and associated with “days” is used again in Leviticus and is associated with “years”, therefore the creation account of “days” doesn’t necessarily mean six 24 hour periods.  Despite your efforts in the opposite, you prove that the “days” cited in Genesis really are literal days.  Let me show you: 

In Exodus, Moses is talking about a six day Creation and in Leviticus, Moses is talking about a 7 year crop rotation.  A seven year crop rotation is LITERALLY what they did.  The agricultural principle of giving the land rest and rotating crops is standard practice to this day!  There is no figurative language or context attached to the words “year”, “rest”, or “day” in ANY of the passages.  It’s a literal six year crop rotation with a literal year of rest taken after it.  The Jews were meant to literally follow this commandment from God.  If the use of “years” in Leviticus was figurative then you would have a point about the use of “days” in Genesis.  But all you’ve done here is help to point out that the other time the Sabbath is evoked in Leviticus, it is regarding a literal seven year crop rotation.  This lends creedence to the idea that the first time the Sabbath principle was spoken of, it was in regards to a literal six day creation.

In conclusion, in order to believe that Jesus wasn’t wrong about creation you need to practice eisegesis and insert words into passages.  In order to believe that the word “days” used in Genesis weren’t literal, you need to insert the idea of figurative language in regards to the Sabbath where none exists.

I know that you believe in the Christian God.  But I also know that you believe that to not believe in molecules-to-man evolution is to go against almost the entirety of biological academia (which assumes the supremecy of the human mind and the supremecy of the scientific method).  I would seriously consider which one you would rather risk doing, going against the man-made, man-glorifying academic construction or inserting words and ideas into the Word of God that don’t exist in the text itself.  You must choose which is more important to you.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Discussion, evolution, Theology

Tags: , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

72 Comments on “Theistic Evolutionists and the Truth of Jesus: The Two Don’t Mix”

  1. Sirius Says:

    Eric,

    Thank you for expounding upon [dare I say, rightly dividing] these passages. I’ve been meaning to address the contradiction of their particular submission of the Bible to the authority of the reasonings of men.

    I’m always interested in how theistic evolutionists, or progressive creationists or whatever-the-devil they care to call themselves, like the enigmatic airtightnoodle, propose to handle verses that claim that Christ was the Creator and verses that note that we all sinned in Adam, but are saved in the Last Adam. If the Genesis Creation record is figurative or allegorical, what does this do to the claim that “by Him and for Him were all things made, visible and invisible, and without Him was not anything made [paraphrased from memory]” if Christ was not the Creator, but merely a product of evolution? What does it do to the incarnantion? In what way have we sinned if the Genesis account is allegorical? Why wouldn’t God relate the real incident upon which our sin nature is actually based? Jesus validated Noah [“as in the days of Noah…”], but if the world-wide flood was only local, God has broken His promise innumerable times not to judge the world by water in like manner again and the rainbow is the symbol of a God who breaks his oaths!

    This sort of judging the Bible by the knowledge of men [the magisterial approach] makes a shipwreck of Christian doctrine and swiss cheese of the reliability of the Bible, particularly passages foundational to the Gospel message and Christology. Far preferred is the ministerial appraoch, whereby we judge the suppositions of men by the sure word of God.

    –Sirius Knott

  2. Eric Kemp Says:

    Sirius

    Thank you for the encouragment. The questions you raised are all huge problems for the theistic evolutionist who also desires to be true to orthodox Christian theology. I think it would be fun to tackle all of them, especially if airtightnoodle is involved.

    Like you, I believe that the presupposition of the ultimacy of the human mind is oft over looked and convenienty swepped under the rug by those who use it to interpret Scripture.

  3. Herman Cummings Says:

    Here we are again, trying to open the blind eyes of creationists, and yelling into the deaf ears of skeptics, about the truth of Genesis. When will creationists stop their foolishness concerning “young Earth” doctrines, and false teachings about theistic evolution, and come together with the truth to expose the false secular conclusion of evolution?

    Evolution is a false conclusion of the fossil record of death (not of “life”), and words can not describe the idiocy of the scientific community that continues to support such a theory, and advocating the teaching of such in public schools. There is no such evidence to support the conclusion. It is supported because it is the most convenient avenue the atheists can use to advance their agenda. When (misguided) creationists try to have an alternate conclusion presented, the atheists come up with the line “that’s not science, and there is no evidence for creation”. They are afraid of the competition. The world of science has no idea how our universe began, and how life began on Earth. But when it comes to either teaching “Santa Claus coming down the chimney”, or “the virgin birth”, they gladly pick Santa Claus because it denies the existence of God.

    But creationists are not much better. For over 18 years, the truth of Genesis has been available, and they fail to even examine it. They want to cling to their old false and foolish doctrines, such as the dinosaurs and dimetrodons dying in the flood of Noah, the days of Genesis chapter one being long ages instead of 24-hour days, God using evolution to develop life, and there being no death on Earth until Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden (in 4267 BC). That is all nonsense, and it borders on stupidity because of their refusal to seek the truth of Genesis.

    There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. God did not show Creation Week to Moses, therefore Moses didn’t write about creation. Creationism refuses to examine what the Genesis text is about. They prefer to teach the same old failed doctrines that do not make sense, and which misrepresent the Word of God. There are no myths in Genesis.

    What we should be teaching in public schools is the “observations of Moses”, as it pertains to the geologic history of Earth, and the fossil record of death. We presently teach about the observations of Charles Darwin, and his conclusions. Genesis conveys what happened in the ancient prehistoric past of Earth’s history, and how life developed into what we now see.

    But who is taking the time to examine the facts of Genesis? Who is willing to learn the truth about Genesis? We have fools that are quick to run their mouth about something that they have not taken the time to understand. Did you know that Genesis specifically declares the existence of prehistoric mankind, and that mankind was not made in “God’s image” until about 64 Million BC? Don’t be a fool and laugh. That is exactly what Genesis is telling us. But creationism and theology refuse to re-examine their doctrines, and want to keep their heads in the sands of ignorance.

    God did not create this Earth just for a bunch of prehistoric animals to roam around in!! God created Earth for mankind, which he put on Earth at the beginning, on the Sixth Day of Creation Week. When will mankind accept the truth about Genesis?

    Herman Cummings

    ephraim7@aol.com


  4. “His reason for marriage is that God created them male and female, created that with the PURPOSE of being of one flesh (Gen 2:24). So even with out Jesus’ statement of “from the beginning of creation”, we know that Jesus is saying that molecules-to-man evolution didn’t take place because if it did then God wouldn’t have “MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE”.”

    How does this possibly contradict evolution? Be more specific.

    “Let’s say that molecules-to-man evolution happened, and let’s say you’re correct in your argument that, “Jesus is simply explaining the institution of marriage as was commanded to the first two creatures it applied to“, Jesus is STILL wrong because God did not “make them” in any sense of the word, the Natural Selection of random genetic mutations did.”

    You’re setting up a false dichotomy. It isn’t an “either-or” argument (either God created or evolution did.)

    “Let’s quote Jesus again, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE“. Jesus is EXACTLY saying that at the beginning of creation God created humans. In order to interpret the passage the way you are, that Jesus is merely talking about the beginning of the species, you must change Jesus’ words to “But from the beginning of human creation . . .” or “But from the beginning of humanity. . .”. Let’s quicky dissect Jesus’ words phrase by phrase. “But from the beginning . . .” (of what?) “. . . of creation” (Ok, what happened at the beginning of creation?), “God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.” It’s that easy.”

    Then you must believe, as I pointed out in the article, that Jesus was wrong. God did not create humans at the beginning of creation according to Genesis 1.

    “What you are practicing, airtightnoodle, is an interpretive fallacy known as eisegesis. You are literally inserting your own preconceived ideas into the passage instead of doing exegesis, which is taking out of the passage what the text says in itself .”

    The passage says, in itself, that God did not create humans at the beginning of creation. The passage says, in itself, that there is a solid firmament somewhere in the sky that we have yet to discover. The creation account says, in itself, that according to one story, vegetation was made first, yet in the second story, Adam was made first…etc, etc. Sounds like perhaps you need to be a bit more careful about how you are interpreting the account to be literal.

    “By strongly adhering to the truth of molecules-to-man evolution, airtightnoodle, you are, by default, saying that Jesus was wrong and humanity wasn’t made at the beginning and that God didn’t “make” them at all. There is just no way around it without inserting words into passages.”

    Again…you have made the error of saying Jesus got it wrong, and I have never said God is not the creator of all things. You are assuming evolution and God must be mutually exclusive.

    “As you said, Moses is talking about a literal six day creation.”

    No…I said that is what creationists believe.

    “You are attempting to say that since the Sabbath principle used at creation and associated with “days” is used again in Leviticus and is associated with “years”, therefore the creation account of “days” doesn’t necessarily mean six 24 hour periods.”

    Eric, you continue to twist and give them meanings they never originally had. Either you are doing this intentionally, or you already had some preconceived idea of the sorts of arguments I was making and are, in reality, arguing against those and not what I actually said. I see that you entirely missed the point about the principle of the Sabbath, and I see also that you failed to mention how the vast majority of Christians today, whether creationists or not, ignore the Sabbath directive as being literal.

    You’ve also erroneously assumed I should be referred to as a “he”.

  5. Eric Kemp Says:

    Herman

    “But creationists are not much better. For over 18 years, the truth of Genesis has been available, and they fail to even examine it. They want to cling to their old false and foolish doctrines, such as the dinosaurs and dimetrodons dying in the flood of Noah, the days of Genesis chapter one being long ages instead of 24-hour days, God using evolution to develop life, and there being no death on Earth until Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden (in 4267 BC).”

    So dinosaurs couldn’t have died in the flood? That’s not possible? Also, I’m not a “Day-Age” guy so that doesn’t apply to me. God did not use evolution to “develop” life, Natural Selection has continued ever since life began. Um, there WAS no death until Adam sinned.

    “There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. God did not show Creation Week to Moses, therefore Moses didn’t write about creation.”

    Please support this.

    ” Creationism refuses to examine what the Genesis text is about. They prefer to teach the same old failed doctrines that do not make sense, and which misrepresent the Word of God. There are no myths in Genesis.”

    If only you would have been specific to what you are referring. As it is, I have no idea what you are talking about.

    “We presently teach about the observations of Charles Darwin, and his conclusions. Genesis conveys what happened in the ancient prehistoric past of Earth’s history, and how life developed into what we now see.”

    Please elaborate.

    “Did you know that Genesis specifically declares the existence of prehistoric mankind, and that mankind was not made in “God’s image” until about 64 Million BC? Don’t be a fool and laugh. That is exactly what Genesis is telling us. But creationism and theology refuse to re-examine their doctrines, and want to keep their heads in the sands of ignorance.”

    I’m not laughing at you because of an outrageous notion, I’m laughing at you because you make outrageous notions with no support/evidence/explanation and expect me to be impressed.

    Herman, this article was specifically about Jesus’ understanding of a literal six-day Creation. Could you elaborate on your claims AND tell me how this relates to the point of my article?

  6. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    “You’re setting up a false dichotomy. It isn’t an “either-or” argument (either God created or evolution did.)”

    As far as Jesus is concerned, since that is what we are talking about, this a is direct dichotomy. Jesus claimed that God “MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE” as He was quoting Gen 2:24. Evolution says the opposite, that random genetic mutations, selected for their biological fitness, is what “made” human beings as we now know them. You can’t have it both ways, Jesus being right and evolution being right. You can say all you want that it’s not a false dichotomy, but you’ll have to show it for it to be a valid statement.

    “The passage says, in itself, that God did not create humans at the beginning of creation.”

    Wait a second here, are you claiming that since humans weren’t created until the sixth day that that means they weren’t created “at the beginning”? Is that what you’re going with? Six days . . . in comparison to the BILLIONS of years that evolution claims it took humans to show up? Which is MORE “in the beginning”, six days or billions of years?

    “The passage says, in itself, that there is a solid firmament somewhere in the sky that we have yet to discover. The creation account says, in itself, that according to one story, vegetation was made first, yet in the second story, Adam was made first…etc, etc.”

    Nope, you don’t get to distract from what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about Jesus’ understanding of when humans were “made”. We can discuss those topics at another time.

    “Again…you have made the error of saying Jesus got it wrong, and I have never said God is not the creator of all things. You are assuming evolution and God must be mutually exclusive.”

    You have not shown how they can be reconciled. Jesus claimed God “made” males and females, which is untrue if evolution is true. Jesus claims it was “from the beginning of CREATION”, evolution says that humans weren’t around until billions of years later. These are two opposite viewpoints.

    “I see that you entirely missed the point about the principle of the Sabbath, and I see also that you failed to mention how the vast majority of Christians today, whether creationists or not, ignore the Sabbath directive as being literal.”

    I understand the principle of the Sabbath. You were attempting to use the Sabbath being spoken of later than Creation as evidence that the Sabbath is nothing more than a figurative principle. However, I have shown very clearly that when God talks about the Sabbath in Leviticus that he is talking about a literal six year cycle of planting and harvesting with a literal seventh year of rest. In Leviticus, God is using the word Sabbath to describe a literal year of rest, this is evidence for God using the word Sabbath to describe a literal DAY of rest at Creation. This is an argument you haven’t responded to.

    Also, we are not talking about what Christians believe, we are talking about what the text of the Bible says.

    “You’ve also erroneously assumed I should be referred to as a “he”.”

    Well, I apologize for the assumption, I didn’t see you referred to as either.


  7. “Evolution says the opposite, that random genetic mutations, selected for their biological fitness, is what “made” human beings as we now know them.”

    I agree that evolution itself has nothing to say one way or the other about God, His existence, etc. What I am saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive. The Bible says that God is the Creator…it does not go into detail about how God went about His creative work. As the bible is not a science text, I find it completely plausible that the two are not mutually exclusive and that evolution could be, in fact, one of God’s creative processes.

    “Wait a second here, are you claiming that since humans weren’t created until the sixth day that that means they weren’t created “at the beginning”? ”

    You’re the one that insists on interpreting it literally. You tell me what else it could mean. Or are you picking and choosing which parts are meant to be literal?

    “Nope, you don’t get to distract from what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about Jesus’ understanding of when humans were “made”. We can discuss those topics at another time.”

    As they go right along with the topic of interpreting it literally, I don’t find it a distraction at all. You told me to read the passage in itself…I’m telling you what the passage in itself says.

    “…the Sabbath is nothing more than a figurative principle…In Leviticus, God is using the word Sabbath to describe a literal year of rest, this is evidence for God using the word Sabbath to describe a literal DAY of rest at Creation. This is an argument you haven’t responded to.”

    “The agricultural principle of giving the land rest and rotating crops is standard practice to this day! There is no figurative language or context attached to the words ”year”, “rest”, or “day” in ANY of the passages.”

    You’re missing the point of the principle again, Eric. Yes, man was literally commanded to rest, or to rest the land, etc. This is oringally based on the principle that God rested after the sixth day of creation. Are we to assume God literally had to rest following only six literal days of work? Does God tire so easily? These figures, as applied to God, are not the realities themselves, but rather convey some greater spiritual truth or principle.

    It might be essential for man to renew himself…or man to renew the land in the case of agriculture. God the Father is setting an example for His children. The analogy of Exodus 20 works no matter how long the days of creation were. God structured the Israelite work week, and the agricultural principle as discussed previously, but there is no reason to assume that His creative week was the same length as one of ours.

  8. steve martin Says:

    Hi Eric,

    I’m not going to jump into the fray here re: the specific reference of Jesus (from my perspective, airtightnoodle is addressing that nicely). I do want to address one early note you made:

    I’m so used to educated evolutionists also being atheists, I forget that there are some intelligent and educated theistic evolutionists out there

    In fact, there are quite a few of us out there .. although many of us prefer to use the Evolutionary Creationist nomenclature … it puts the emphasis on the most important part of the title … ie. God’s creation. In fact, you may be surprised to know that among Evangelical scientists, particularly biologists, this is an increasingly common position. I’m guessing that a majority of biologists at Evangelical colleges and universities do support evolution & see no conflict between it and their Christian faith. It is only recently that they have been getting their message out.


  9. Airtightnoodle is a GIRL? Don’t hit the girl, guys. Be nice out there.


  10. No fear. I can take care of myself.

    Especially since I’m pregnant. Those mood-swing causing hormones are almost like super-powers… 😉

  11. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    The responses you gave show a universal assumption on your part that the Earth is old and that evolution happened. I will show you:

    “I agree that evolution itself has nothing to say one way or the other about God, His existence, etc. What I am saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive.”

    This is what you’re not understanding, Jesus claims that they ARE mutually exclusive. Examining this passage and your beliefs, your problems are several. Let me be specific:

    Let’s quote Jesus again, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.”

    Problem #1: If evolution is correct, then it WASN’T from the beginning of Creation. Now, you say that Jesus is talking about the beginning of the species. In order to say this, you must put words into Jesus’ mouth that he didn’t say, as I have already explained to you and you have not argued against.

    Problem #2: Jesus claims that God “made” humans. This is not what evolution claims. The theory of evolution claims that, with natural processes, without the need of divine intervention, random genetic mutations by the guiding hand of Natural Selection accounts for humanity. So, you have two problems here and you can’t have it both ways. Per problem 2., either God did not make humans and Jesus is wrong or . . .

    Problem #3: . . . evolution is wrong and God DID make humans. In that case you’d be unable to call yourself an “evolutionist” any more because you are in DIRECT violation of the theory. You’d have to call yourself a “progressive creationist”.

    Problem #4: In light of the clear direct contradiction to Jesus’ words and evolution, you must ignore Jesus’ words. This is the only way to continue with your current beliefs. In doing so, you display your dogmatic, absolute belief in evolution and an old Earth.

    “As the bible is not a science text, I find it completely plausible that the two are not mutually exclusive and that evolution could be, in fact, one of God’s creative processes.”

    Evolution IS a process which started after God created humans “from the beginning” of Creation as Jesus said He did.

    “You’re the one that insists on interpreting it literally. You tell me what else it could mean. Or are you picking and choosing which parts are meant to be literal?”

    On the sixth day of Creation, Creation wasn’t finished yet, God had not rested from His creative work yet . . . it was still the beginning of Creation. So Jesus is literally correct, because on the sixth day was still the beginning of Creation. In order to believe differently you must insert words into the passage that aren’t there (“From the beginning of humanity” when Jesus said, “from the beginning of creation”).

    “As they go right along with the topic of interpreting it literally, I don’t find it a distraction at all. You told me to read the passage in itself…I’m telling you what the passage in itself says.”

    When I’ve shown you your error on Mark 10:6 and on Leviticus and you turn your attention to other passages without answering the error on those two, that is dodging and disengenuous.

    “Are we to assume God literally had to rest following only six literal days of work? Does God tire so easily? These figures, as applied to God, are not the realities themselves, but rather convey some greater spiritual truth or principle.”

    Based on your presupposition that the earth is old and that molecules to man evolution happened, you assume that a greater spiritual truth or principle must be absent of literal meaning. You ignore that just because God uses the Sabbath for a greater spiritual meaning that He can’t also use it to teach the Jews proper crop rotation and to describe His rest after Creation. No one is saying that God “had to” rest, I’m saying that He did. Just because God may have “rested” to show a spiritual principle doesn’t mean that He didn’t create the Earth in six days. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Here, I’ll ask you a similar question. God is unable to create the universe in six days? He is so devoid of power that he must make processes and billions of years to finish His creative work for Him?

    “God structured the Israelite work week, and the agricultural principle as discussed previously, but there is no reason to assume that His creative week was the same length as one of ours.”

    Sure, but Jesus and Paul and Moses clearly understood Creation to be a literal six day period. After this conversation, you can no longer rationally argue otherwise (up until now you’ve had no counter-argument). So we’re back to this . . . were Jesus, Paul and Moses wrong?

  12. Eric Kemp Says:

    steve martin

    Wait a second, Steve Martin is commenting on my Blog!!!! Holy amazing comedian, batman! Steve, I have just one request, can you do King Tut for me?

    “I’m not going to jump into the fray here re: the specific reference of Jesus (from my perspective, airtightnoodle is addressing that nicely).”

    Well, you are welcome to the fray and please, read my most recent response to airtightnoodle, I show clearly that you can either have the truth of Jesus’ words, or you can have evolution, you can’t have both.

    “I’m guessing that a majority of biologists at Evangelical colleges and universities do support evolution & see no conflict between it and their Christian faith. It is only recently that they have been getting their message out.”

    I would challenge these men the same way I am challenging airtightnoodle and would be very interested to see what they have to say.

  13. steve martin Says:

    Hi Eric,
    Sorry .. not that Steve Martin 🙂 .

    re: NT references to the creation accounts in Genesis. Yes these can be difficult for those of us struggling with the reconciliation between our faith & the evidence from God’s creation – I would say that Paul’s theology (eg. Rom 5) is much more difficult than Jesus references. But there are other references of Jesus that are equally difficult to justify (eg. the mustard seed being the smallest) without taking into context the cultural assumptions of his day, what Jesus’ meant, & how his hearers would have interpreted his words. Taking one verse at what our culture says is “face value” to invalidate all the evidence God has placed in his creation is not appropriate.

    re: what evangelical scientists have to say, see a list of 10 recent books released by them at: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/ten-books-and-what-they-mean-for.html .

  14. Eric Kemp Says:

    Steve Martin

    I agree that we should not take Jesus’ words out of context, or any singular verse out of it’s context. But, go ahead, read Mark 9 and 10, and research the cultural context of the day, and then provide an argument for why Mark 10:6 can’t be taken at face value. Until then, all you’ve done is suggest that the context will refute my position without actually making an argument.

    As for progressive creationism: If it’s a numbers game than your 10 books are in contrast to the thousands of Christian and evolutionary books that disagree with you. If it’s an evidence game, then you are either denying the clear words of Jesus in Mark 10:6 or you are in direct opposition to the theory of evolution, it’s one or the other. The theory of evolution and the Bible make it quite clear that you can’t have both.

    Please Steve, don’t take this as an offense to you personally; but progressive creationism is a farce. A fanciful position created by Christians that aren’t educated enough to rationally defend their Christian faith so they ignore the words of Jesus OR by Christians who are more worried about offending the majority of academia than denying the words of their Savior. The progressive creationist would rather hold to the biggest presupposition of our time, the ultimacy of the human mind, than hold to the truth of God’s word, which is the ultimacy of God’s mind.

    Honestly, progressive creationism is more offensive to me than anything the most belligerent atheist could say.


  15. “Problem #1: If evolution is correct, then it WASN’T from the beginning of Creation. Now, you say that Jesus is talking about the beginning of the species.”

    Actually, I don’t believe I said that anywhere. I don’t personally have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether Adam and Eve are literal or figurative people.

    “Let’s quote Jesus again, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.””

    I see that you still have not addressed the fact that if you read this literally, as you insist on doing, you must admit Jesus had it wrong, as God did not create Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation.

    “Jesus claims that God “made” humans. This is not what evolution claims. The theory of evolution claims that, with natural processes, without the need of divine intervention, random genetic mutations by the guiding hand of Natural Selection accounts for humanity. So, you have two problems here and you can’t have it both ways.”

    If God is the creator and author of natural laws, I see no reason why He can’t be credited for the process of evolution. That would still make Him still the Creator of everything, even if the process He used to achieve the ends to His means was evolution (etc).

    “In light of the clear direct contradiction to Jesus’ words and evolution, you must ignore Jesus’ words. This is the only way to continue with your current beliefs. In doing so, you display your dogmatic, absolute belief in evolution and an old Earth.”

    I wonder if you type this with a straight face in light of the fact that you often ignore others’ points, displaying your dogmatic belief that God and evolution cannot be compatible.

    “When I’ve shown you your error on Mark 10:6 and on Leviticus and you turn your attention to other passages without answering the error on those two, that is dodging and disengenuous.”

    “Evolution IS a process which started after God created humans “from the beginning” of Creation as Jesus said He did.”

    Whoa, back up! What makes you believe this?

    Actually I addressed what you said, explained why I brought up those points, and you have dodged them. Again, ironic in light of your above comment.

    “On the sixth day of Creation, Creation wasn’t finished yet, God had not rested from His creative work yet . . . it was still the beginning of Creation. So Jesus is literally correct, because on the sixth day was still the beginning of Creation. In order to believe differently you must insert words into the passage that aren’t there (”From the beginning of humanity” when Jesus said, “from the beginning of creation”).”

    Ah, I see…so beginning doesn’t mean literally the start of. Yet we are supposed to read LITERALLY that light and darkness were created on day 1 (literally a day, as in 24 hours, if we are reading literally after all), the sky and sea were literally created on day 2, on day 3 plants, and so on…and we are supposed to read the events in Genesis 2 literally as well, even though some of it conflicts with Genesis 1. So according to your rules we’ll just change what is literal and how we read it literally when it’s convenient for us. I like this game!

    “You ignore that just because God uses the Sabbath for a greater spiritual meaning that He can’t also use it to teach the Jews proper crop rotation and to describe His rest after Creation.”

    Nope, never said that. All I said was the important bit here was the spiritual principle behind the action.

    “God is unable to create the universe in six days? He is so devoid of power that he must make processes and billions of years to finish His creative work for Him?”

    I never said God is unable. In fact, I find your statement rather ironic in light of your comments about how God didn’t “need” to rest; He just did. Couldn’t I just say God didn’t NEED to use billions of years…He just did?

    “Sure, but Jesus and Paul and Moses clearly understood Creation to be a literal six day period. After this conversation, you can no longer rationally argue otherwise (up until now you’ve had no counter-argument). So we’re back to this . . . were Jesus, Paul and Moses wrong?”

    Rather ironic for you to say I have no counter-argument when you’ve completely ignored many things I’ve asked of you.

    By the way, arrogant ultimatums such as “after this conversation you cannot rationally argue otherwise” are VERY unbecoming of you.

    I believe that this is probably one topic you are not very well-versed on Eric, compared to some others you frequently comment on. You seem to be reading into things ideas that are not necessarily there. I’d recommend doing some research in this area, at least for your own personal edification.

  16. Sirius Says:

    noodle:

    “If God is the creator and author of natural laws, I see no reason why He can’t be credited for the process of evolution. ”

    Because macroevolution is a lie and God is Truth.

    Perhaps we should reframe this argument with a more cogent definition of terms. There seem to be some different definitions of evolution and understandings of how we interpret by a historical, literal hermeneutic going around here.

    I’m out of time today, but I should like to address some of these points.

    –Sirius Knott

    P.S. Congratulations on little gift from God, noodle!

  17. Viggy Says:

    Airtightnoodle-

    I see Eric answering your questions and then you not answering any. Why is that? You state that he lacks the knowledge of creation but continues to show you proof. You are biased to the point that it does not matter what he says, you will not listen to him. So here are some questions to you.

    God cannot lie, Jesus is God, so how can he be wrong?

    God spoke through his prophets, thus the scripture is God breathed, are you stating that God has either lied, or is wrong when things are stated the way they are in the Bible?

    What proof do you have that the days were not 24 hours? I never read that in the Bible. In fact, the sun rose and the set. There are other occurrences that show of a 24 hour day. What evidence states otherwise? If it is science, how does science now that?

    Please answer the question, don’t revert to “look at what I said before, or I said it somewhere else.” I am asking you, right now, are they wrong. Yes or no. If they are, then why? If they are not, then you are contradicting yourself and cannot believe what you believe (or at least what I am comprehending from what you are writing).

  18. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    I won’t have time until later today to fully respond to you. However, if you could please be more specific about what I haven’t answered and what I’ve “ignored”. I was unaware that I you had asked me questions that I didn’t answer. Please be specific so that we can be on the same page. Thanks.

    Eric Kemp


  19. Sirius–
    “Congratulations on little gift from God, noodle!”

    Thank you!

    Viggy–
    “I see Eric answering your questions and then you not answering any. Why is that?”

    I have tried my best to answer each of Eric’s points. Please point out to me what I have not answered to your satisfaction.

    “God cannot lie, Jesus is God, so how can he be wrong?”

    I never stated that God, in any figurehead (whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) was wrong.

    “God spoke through his prophets, thus the scripture is God breathed, are you stating that God has either lied, or is wrong when things are stated the way they are in the Bible?”

    Neither. You should re-read what I posted here as well as the posts on my own blog. I’m saying man is in error by reading and interpreting the creation story in such a literalist manner.

    “What proof do you have that the days were not 24 hours? I never read that in the Bible. In fact, the sun rose and the set. There are other occurrences that show of a 24 hour day. What evidence states otherwise? If it is science, how does science now that?”

    Ok, a few quick points in addition to the ones I’ve already addressed here:
    The Hebrew word “yom” does not always refer to a literal 24 hour day…and this is true whether is in conjunction with “ereb” (evening) and “boquer” (morning) or not. When “yom” is combined with a number, it also doesn’t necessarily refer to a literal 24 hour day.

    There are gaps in the biblical genealogies…thus no reason to firmly believe that Adam had to have been created around 4000 B.C.

    In my opinion, it’s hard to make a case for day 3 being a 24 hour day due to the use of the word “zera”, which is often translated as “descendants”. This would mean that on day 3 plants sprouted and grew to maturity but also produced descendants that same day.

    Also, it’s hard to make a case for day 6 being a literal 24 hours. God creates animals, man, brings the animals to Adam for him to name according to Genesis 2, and then creates woman. Adam would have had to name at least thousands of species (and recall that this would have included all the organisms now in the fossil record that are extinct). It is also interesting to note that according to some translations, Adam says “at last” as a response to Eve’s creation.

    Genesis 2:23–
    “This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”

    Eric–
    Here are some of the things I feel you have not addressed, as requested.

    <>

    <>

    I asked you what makes you believe this.

    <>
    The points in reference here.

    <>

    <>


  20. Oh crud. Stupid formatting. Hang on…arg.


  21. Eric–
    Here are some of the things I feel you have not addressed:

    “His reason for marriage is that God created them male and female, created that with the PURPOSE of being of one flesh (Gen 2:24). So even with out Jesus’ statement of “from the beginning of creation”, we know that Jesus is saying that molecules-to-man evolution didn’t take place because if it did then God wouldn’t have “MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE”.”

    How does this possibly contradict evolution? Be more specific.

    “we are supposed to read the events in Genesis 2 literally as well, even though some of it conflicts with Genesis 1.”

    “Actually I addressed what you said, explained why I brought up those points, and you have dodged them.”
    In reference to the firmament, etc, as discussed above.

    ““Evolution IS a process which started after God created humans “from the beginning” of Creation as Jesus said He did.”

    Whoa, back up! What makes you believe this?”

    ““Let’s quote Jesus again, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.””

    I see that you still have not addressed the fact that if you read this literally, as you insist on doing, you must admit Jesus had it wrong, as God did not create Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation.”

  22. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    “Actually, I don’t believe I said that anywhere. I don’t personally have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether Adam and Eve are literal or figurative people.”

    In your post on your blog, you said that when Jesus said “from the beginning” in Mark 10:6 that he was talking about the beginning of the species. And I pointed out that to believe that you must put words into Jesus’ mouth.

    “If God is the creator and author of natural laws, I see no reason why He can’t be credited for the process of evolution. That would still make Him still the Creator of everything, even if the process He used to achieve the ends to His means was evolution (etc).”

    In a different part of the NT, Paul claims that (speaking of God and specifically Jesus), “All things are made by Him and for Him and in Him all things hold together.” And in Mark 10:6, Jesus says that God “made them.” Neither of these two passages are true if God “made the natural laws that made everything.”

    Sure, you can attribute anything you want to God, but does the Bible say that “God created the natural laws that created everything”? No, it says God “made” everything and everything was “made by Him”. In order to state your natural laws theory, you must insert your ideas into what “made” means. Is this an honest thing to do?

    “I wonder if you type this with a straight face in light of the fact that you often ignore others’ points, displaying your dogmatic belief that God and evolution cannot be compatible.”

    *sigh*, this is the kind of strawman that I hoped you weren’t capable of. I never said that God and evolution weren’t compatable, in fact, we’re not even talking about that. We’re talking about how Jesus viewed Creation, specifically in Mark 10:6.

    “Actually I addressed what you said, explained why I brought up those points, and you have dodged them. Again, ironic in light of your above comment.”

    You have just not addressed this airtightnoodle, you haven’t. You repeated your assertion that six days makes humanity not “from the beginning”. You’ve done that. What you haven’t done is addressed the problem that I clearly pointed out to you. Which is this: Which is more “from the beginning” . . . The sixth day when Creation wasn’t complete yet, or billions of years after creation as evolution claims? You’ve ignored this question.

    You also JUST ignored my argument that Jesus statement “from the beginning” was literally accurate because, on the sixth day, Creation STILL WASN’T OVER YET! So humanities’ existence was “from the beginning” because God had not rested from his creative work.

    Frankly, airtightnoodle, I’ve been nice about this position of yours and I’ve given you ample opportunity to rethink it. But holding to that the sixth day of Creation isn’t “from the beginning” is just straight idiocy. It’s asanine and ludicrous. But it shows the lengths you must go to be a progressive creationist.

    Shortly, on the sixth day of creation, Creation wasn’t over, hence, “From the Beginning”.

    “Nope, never said that. All I said was the important bit here was the spiritual principle behind the action.”

    I would agree that the spiritual principle is important. But you are taking the spiritual principle as evidence AGAINST the literal meaning. That’s exactly what you are doing.

    “Couldn’t I just say God didn’t NEED to use billions of years…He just did?”

    You could absolutely says this. But the Bible says that God rested; the Bible doesn’t say that God took billions of years. So, go ahead and continue what you’ve been doing so far, which is to take modern scientific thought over the Word of God and believe that just because men believe it, then the Earth really must be billions of years old.

    I wanted to respond to your statements here while I wait for you to show me what I have “ignored” so that the conversation can continue.

  23. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    Wow, while I was writing my response, you wrote three! That’s not fair.

    “How does this possibly contradict evolution? Be more specific.”

    Evolution claims that random genetic mutations selected by Natural Selection account for humans forming the way we know them. Jesus claims that God “MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.” These two don’t sound contradictory to you?

    Yes, I dodged a firmament and Gen 2 discussion because that’s not what we’re talking about, we’re talking about Jesus’ understanding of Creation.

    I said: ““Evolution IS a process which started after God created humans “from the beginning” of Creation as Jesus said He did.”

    You said: “Whoa, back up! What makes you believe this?”

    This is the Creationist position. That evolution is going on all around us as we can test and observe it (change in allele frequencies over time). But it started AFTER God created the universe and everything in it about 6k years ago. The evolution that DIDN’T happen is the molecules-to-man type which is also the type we have no evidence for. But again, this is a conversation for another time.

    I answered the others in my most recent reply.

  24. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric Kemp says: “This is the Creationist position. That evolution is going on all around us as we can test and observe it (change in allele frequencies over time). But it started AFTER God created the universe and everything in it about 6k years ago.”

    This is very true. No imformed Creationist (or IDer, for that matter) denies that Animals and humans change with time. — The fact that evolutionists present us as willfully ignorant fanatics that believe in the so-called “fixity of species” really gets to me.

    Besides, the term “Evolution” is such a broad term. It simply means “Change over time.” — Again, “change over time” is not denied by Creationists. For example, Dogs “changed” with time, but they are still dogs. — And the same thing goes for “Darwin’s Finches.” — They were still finches.

    Heck, humans have changed over time. There’s lots of variation in our species, but we’re still humans.

  25. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    I was reading over one of my responses to you, and I wanted to apologize. I shouldn’t have used the words “idiocy” and “asanine” to describe your “the 6th day of Creation isn’t ‘the beginning of Creation'” argument. I shouldn’t have used them not because they are inaccurate, but because my use of them came out of my frustration towards that argument instead of a desire to be accurately characterizing it.

    What I should have done is admitted my frustration with the argument and helped you to understand that frustration. I thought of a good analogy so here it goes.

    You are in a conversation about a movie with a friend, and she asks you,
    “Now, at what point during the movie did Bob kill Steve?”
    You answer, “It was at the beginning.”
    Your friend says, “No, I don’t think it was at the beginning”.
    So to solve the argument, you pop in the DVD and begin to watch the movie. Six seconds into movie, Bob kills Steve.
    You say, “See! It was in the beginning of the movie!”
    You friend replies, “Nope! It wasn’t in the beginning of the movie because it wasn’t in the first second of the movie! Six seconds in is NOT the beginning.”

    Don’t you see how ridiculous your friends’ argument is? But that’s exactly the argument you’re making in regards to the sixth day of Creation not being “from the beginning of Creation” as Jesus claims it is. Do you now better understand my frustration with that argument? I hope you do.

    Eric Kemp

  26. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    Amen. The ironic part of all this is that the only definition of evolution that Creationists reject is that which we can’t observe, test or falsify!

  27. Sirius Says:

    Kriss’ points about the definition of evolution are exactly on point. Eugenie Scott came up with the idea of giving folks a fuzzy definition of “change over time” to get them to accept Darwinism hook, line and sinker. She was following in the footsteps of Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the neo-Darwin synthesis, who stated that macro- and microevolution must be equated as the same thing since no one could observe mac-evo due to the long periods of time it is supposed to occur over. To clarify, the following definitions are used on my site:

    “Macroevolution or mac-evo: The microbes to man evolution that Darwin speculated occurred. Darbots often assume that microevolutionary processes are sufficient to account for macroevolution, but mac-evo actually requires an increase in existing information as opposed to a change within existing information to change one kind [baramin] of animal into another.

    Microevolution or mic-evo: Contrasted with mac-evo, it is the observable speciation within an established kind or baramin of animal. No Creationist actually doubts that mic-evo occurs. In fact, we believe rapid speciation within the genetic restrictions of the animal kinds occured post-Flood.”

    It is observed that genetic mutations are unable to perform the miracle required by Darwinism. Consider the following from Francis Hitchings in The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong [pp. 57,61]:

    “In a remarkable series of experiments, mutant genes were paired to create an eyeless fly. When those flies in turn were interbred, the predictable result was offspring that were also eyeless. And so it continued for a few generations. But then, contrary to expectations, a few flies began to hatch out with eyes. Somehow the genetic code had a built-in repair mechanism that re-established the missing genes. The natural order reasserted itself. There are also built-in contraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. The genetic system, as its first priority, conserves, blocks, and stabilizes.”

    This agrees both with what creationists believe about the limitations of baramins [created kinds] and also with Edward Blyth’s beliefs that natural selection was a passive, stabilizing force rather than the creative force Charles Darwin hypothesized it was. Incidentally, Blythe documented his beliefs about natural selection 20 years before darwin and he was a creationist.

    Let’s get down to the knuckles here. The following quote is from the book Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati [page 55 – I just like the way he words this argument]:

    “If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible unambiguously teaches long ages. Rather, usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teacha young earth but may allow for an old earth. We never hear something like, ‘Yes, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field and rapid reversals seem to provide irrefutable proof of a young earth. But we mustn’t allow even the strongest science to overrule the clear teaching of the Word of God that the earth is billions of years old.'” [Emphasis on phrases “unambiguously teaches” and “may allow for” in original text]

    He makes an excellent point. The plain meaning of these passages is a young earth created by the word of God in six literal 24-hour days. An old earth is only supported biblically by a long string of ad hoc arguments meant to try to harmonize Scripture with the interpretation of long-age uniformitarianism.

    I should also like to make a comment about airtightnoodle’s admission that she doesn’t “personally have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether Adam and Eve are literal or figurative people.” Don’t you think the answer to that question is important. The Bible plainly teaches that they were literal people. We’ve noted that Jesus mentioned them as historical without qualification.
    Consider the judment of atheist Frank Zindler:
    “The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.” [given in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.]
    He has a point. The Last Adam’s remedy for sin, the need for salvation itself, is based upon the historicity of the First Adam.
    Here is where I get preachy. The central question of Eve’s Temptation and Man’s Fall is this: “Did God really say?” And this is the primary problem of old earth creationism. They have judge the Bible by the opinions of fallible men [rather than the way they should!]. In essence, when confronted with the Genesis account of origins they are merely repeating the Serpent’s question:
    “Did God really say?”
    Think about it.
    –Sirius Knott

  28. Sirius Says:

    My, my, look at the end of that mess. Looks like noodle isn’t the only one with formatting problems!

    God preserve us from the whimsy of our computers!

    –Sirius Knott

  29. Eric Kemp Says:

    Sirius

    I completely agree with Frank Zindler about the importance of Adam and Eve being literal people. Paul uses the fact of a literal Genesis account to establish his basic theology of why we need a savior! If Paul is wrong, then we don’t need a savior! Well done my friend.

    Any progressive creationist must, and does, as you said, take the words of men and apply it to the Word of God, shaping Genesis to conform to the ultimacy of current scientific thought, all the while ignoring the assumption of that ultimacy. The progressive creationist must decide which is more important. . .

    In short, well put Sirius.

    Eric

  30. Viggy Says:

    Eric and Sirius

    Very well put. I hope the repetitiveness and simplicity of your arguments are able to clarify things for Miss Airtitght. In essence, it would seem that Miss Noodle, and many others (especially creationist that also believe in macroevo) have been making their own interpretations of things.

    So the way I like to put it is in a simple math problem. Cause dang it, I like math problems!!!!

    Creationist + Macroevo= eisegesis.

    Eisegesis does not = truth.

    Ok, I was writing this before I head off and see more troubled kids. No time for other things.

    V

  31. Eric Kemp Says:

    Viggy

    You like math? Ewwwww.

    Eric

  32. SmokieMan Says:

    This comment section is made of funny. Theres nothing like watching people argue about the color of Invisible, Undetectable Unicorns for a good belly laugh.

  33. Eric Kemp Says:

    Smokie

    I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Dead-end Pete and Anonomous but I’ll bite on this one.

    There is nothing like hypocritical and unself-reflective athiests pulling out the “invisible” screed on Christians while ignoring their own belief in an invisible and miraculous nothing turning itself into something, the invisibility and impossiblity of non-life forming into life all by itself, and the never-seen, never-tested, farce of macro-evolutionary change. Not to mention ignoring their dogmatic belief in the all-knowing, all-powerful “god” of the atheist that created us; a god the atheists call Pure Chance.


  34. Viggy–

    I see that you did not respond to my comments to you at all.

    Others–
    I will respond later as this will take some time.


  35. “In your post on your blog, you said that when Jesus said “from the beginning” in Mark 10:6 that he was talking about the beginning of the species. And I pointed out that to believe that you must put words into Jesus’ mouth.”

    “Sure, you can attribute anything you want to God, but does the Bible say that “God created the natural laws that created everything”? No, it says God “made” everything and everything was “made by Him”. In order to state your natural laws theory, you must insert your ideas into what “made” means. Is this an honest thing to do?”

    It says God made everything. God is the creator. Agreed. It says nothing about HOW God created. I’m not claiming that the bible teaches anything particularly scientific. In fact, I’ve stated many times the bible is not a science text. I don’t believe the bible teaches evolution, the big bang, Newtonian physics or Einstein’s theory of relativity. I don’t believe the bible is primarily concerned with such matters. What I do think, however, is that these things are not incompatible with Christianity or the bible. And, of course, I don’t think the creation story is meant to be read literally…might I add, this is not because I believe in evolution. My opinion on the Genesis creation story came before I even became educated about evolution.

    “Sure, you can attribute anything you want to God, but does the Bible say that “God created the natural laws that created everything”? No, it says God “made” everything and everything was “made by Him”. In order to state your natural laws theory, you must insert your ideas into what “made” means. Is this an honest thing to do?”

    And you haven’t shown how it isn’t from the beginning. You say that on the sixth day creation wasn’t done yet. When do you think creation was finished, Eric? By reading Genesis 1 literally, Adam and Eve are the last things created. God creates them, gives them dominion over the animals and speaks a couple of mandates about food, and then He is finished and rests on day 7. Sounds to me that by reading this literally, Adam and Eve were created at the end of God’s creative work, not at the beginning.

    I looked at my post again and nowhere did I use the word “species”. I said (as I’ve said here repeatedly) that humanity was not created at the beginning of creation according to the Genesis creation account. Adam and Eve were created on the very last day of God’s creative work. However, what you say is actually plausible due to the Greek used in Mark 10:6…something I touched on, but not specifically, in my blog post. It’s interesting to note that the Greek word for “create” (ktisis) is also used to mean “institution” or “ordinance”. Since Jesus is speaking of the institution of marriage in Mark 10:6, a better translation might be “from the beginning of the institution of marriage.”

    “In a different part of the NT, Paul claims that (speaking of God and specifically Jesus), “All things are made by Him and for Him and in Him all things hold together.” And in Mark 10:6, Jesus says that God “made them.” Neither of these two passages are true if God “made the natural laws that made everything.””

    How would these passages then be untrue? Please be more specific.

    “But it shows the lengths you must go to be a progressive creationist.”

    Again, I must restate that I think this is one topic you aren’t too well-versed on. I’m not a progressive creationist.

    “Evolution claims that random genetic mutations selected by Natural Selection account for humans forming the way we know them. Jesus claims that God “MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.” These two don’t sound contradictory to you?”

    Nope.

    “This is the Creationist position. That evolution is going on all around us as we can test and observe it (change in allele frequencies over time). But it started AFTER God created the universe and everything in it about 6k years ago. The evolution that DIDN’T happen is the molecules-to-man type which is also the type we have no evidence for.”

    I know many creationists that flat-out deny evolution–period. You must run with a slightly more educated group than I am used to encountering.

    I see you (among others) are going to continue to ignore the many other points I have raised as a result of this conversation. I shall be blogging about many of these things in the near future on my own blog for any who are interested.

    krissmith:”The fact that evolutionists present us as willfully ignorant fanatics that believe in the so-called “fixity of species” really gets to me.”

    That’s because there are many such willfully ignorant people out there. Just remember that many evolutionists likewise get upset when being categorized as atheists, heathens, etc. But, to be fair, there are many such evolutionists out there.

    Sirius–To sum up the majority of your post, you are basically saying that mutations can’t add information. They have in fact been demonstrated many times to do so (no matter which definition you give “information”, might I add).

  36. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    “I don’t believe the bible is primarily concerned with such matters. What I do think, however, is that these things are not incompatible with Christianity or the bible.”

    While I agree with you that the Bible isn’t concerned with science, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t say anything about it. I also agree with you that you can make the Bible compatible with evolution, or anything else you want to make it compatible with. But I’m talking about what the Bible says.

    I’ve given you several examples of how the Sabbath is not just a spiritual principle but is always associated with literal periods of time (literal days and years). You still have not given me a single reason to take “days” in Genesis as anything but 24 hour periods except that you “can”.

    On to the “from the beginning” issue:

    1. You continue to argue that 6 days into Creation isn’t “from the beginning of creation” while completely ignoring my movie analogy. You are basically attempting to tell me that 6 seconds into a movie isn’t techinically “from the beginning” of the movie. It’s ludicrous.

    2. In your view, God didn’t “make” humans (through evolution) until billions of years after Creation. You are just flat out ignoring which of my view is more in the beginning, six days or billions of years.

    3. You are also flat out ignoring that, in your view, Jesus is wrong EITHER WAY. You are ignoring that you are choosing modern scientific thought over the words of Jesus. I am directly challenging you here: how can you do this and still call yourself a Christian?

    “Since Jesus is speaking of the institution of marriage in Mark 10:6, a better translation might be “from the beginning of the institution of marriage.””

    Oh, so now you’re a Greek scholar who can interpret the Bible better than the hundreds of scholars who spent decades translating the NASB and NIV versions? Jesus was talking about WHY the institute of marriage is the way it is. He gave us a specific reason why (because God made them to be together from the beginning of creation), and no amount of twisting will change His words.

    The sentence you just created out of Mark 10:6 doesn’t make any sense. “From the beginning of the institute of marriage, God made them male and female.” So God made the institute of marriage BEFORE He made humans male and female? Don’t you see the lengths you must go to be a progressive creationist?

    Progressive Creationist:

    I am calling you this because you are not an evolutionist. By stating that God made everything through Natural Selection, you are in direct opposition to the theory of evolution.

    “I know many creationists that flat-out deny evolution–period. You must run with a slightly more educated group than I am used to encountering.”

    I don’t “run with a crowd”. I’ve had a good amount of scientific training and I recognize science when I see it and non-science masquerading as I science when I see it.

    “I see you (among others) are going to continue to ignore the many other points I have raised as a result of this conversation. I shall be blogging about many of these things in the near future on my own blog for any who are interested.”

    Please scroll up a few posts and you’ll see that when you accused me of ignoring points, I asked which points I ignored, you abliged and told me what you felt I ignored, and I answered you.

    You are also flatly ignoring what Sirius said to you. Sirius pointed out that if Genesis is not taken literally, then there is no original sin. And if there is no original sin, then there is no need for a savior. And if there is no need for a savior, Christianty is null and void. A none literal translation of Genesis absolutely destroys the most basic theology of Christianity, a need for a savior. What do you say to this?

  37. krissmith777 Says:

    airtightnoodle said “krissmith:”The fact that evolutionists present us as willfully ignorant fanatics that believe in the so-called “fixity of species” really gets to me.”

    “That’s because there are many such willfully ignorant people out there. Just remember that many evolutionists likewise get upset when being categorized as atheists, heathens, etc. But, to be fair, there are many such evolutionists out there.”

    You’re right. There is willfull in every group. But I do not catagorize ALL Evolutionists as Athiests. I know many are not. — I freely admit that there are true Christians that accept evolution.

    BUT, (and it’s a heavy “BUT”) as Eric Kemp points out, accepting the two together is inconsistent.

    Look at it this way: — When God created, he made it all Good. (Genesis 1: 25). Also, the original sin is what brought death and suffering into the world.

    Now, If I’m to accept that God worked through evolution, then that would mean that death and suffering entered the world before original sin.

    Remember, evolution is dependent on Natural Selection, (the strong survive and the weak die.)

    This means we went through that process before we ever became accountable to sin, because Apes are not held accountable because they do not have the distinction of right and wrong we have.

    If a God used a process of “only the strong survive” and “survive or die” before sin entered the world, then God has to be very twisted because he said his creation “was good.” — What is good about a never ending struggle for survival?

    A god that subjects us to that when he claimed that the creation of everything was good has got to be a really crummy God.

    That is why Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

  38. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric Kemp says “By stating that God made everything through Natural Selection, you are in direct opposition to the theory of evolution.”

    This is a great point. — Natural selection was actually a creationist term before Darwin ever used it.

    He just had a different use of it (i.e., the strong surviving and the weak dying”)

  39. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kriss

    This is a great point. The very idea that death existed before humans is in direct contradiction to basic Christian theology. Reconciliation is impossible with out total denial on the part of the thinker.

    Eric Kemp


  40. I have the day off technically but am working on TAKS review materials so I have to make this as quick as possible. Besides this, I have grading to do, supplies to order, grades to put in the computer…work is never done. Bear with me.

    “You still have not given me a single reason to take “days” in Genesis as anything but 24 hour periods except that you “can”. ”

    Eric, you need to go back and read what I’ve written here. Go back and read the post I wrote to Viggy (which he/she refused to respond to).

    “1. You continue to argue that 6 days into Creation isn’t “from the beginning of creation” while completely ignoring my movie analogy. You are basically attempting to tell me that 6 seconds into a movie isn’t techinically “from the beginning” of the movie. It’s ludicrous.

    2. In your view, God didn’t “make” humans (through evolution) until billions of years after Creation. You are just flat out ignoring which of my view is more in the beginning, six days or billions of years.”

    Eric, I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying that if you believe you should read the creation account literally and Jesus’ words literally (being consistent, after all) then it doesn’t matter which is more “in the beginning”.

    “You are also flat out ignoring that, in your view, Jesus is wrong EITHER WAY. You are ignoring that you are choosing modern scientific thought over the words of Jesus. I am directly challenging you here: how can you do this and still call yourself a Christian?”

    Again, read what I wrote to Viggy.

    “I am calling you this because you are not an evolutionist. By stating that God made everything through Natural Selection, you are in direct opposition to the theory of evolution.”

    You can call me whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it correct.

    “Oh, so now you’re a Greek scholar who can interpret the Bible better than the hundreds of scholars who spent decades translating the NASB and NIV versions?”

    First of all…you’ve been incredibly rude, in my opinion, several times throughout this conversation. This is yet another demonstration of such.

    Secondly, I wouldn’t jump to conclusions about someone’s knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic if I were you. I don’t consider myself a “scholar”, but yes, I am somewhat educated in this area.

    Third, why are you only picking out the NASB and NIV?

    And fourth…there are others (even creationists!) who actually agree with such a slightly different translation.

    “I don’t “run with a crowd”. I’ve had a good amount of scientific training and I recognize science when I see it and non-science masquerading as I science when I see it.”

    Then why don’t the thousands of other scientists who have likewise been well-trained (and most probably better than both you and myself) see “non-science masquerading as science”? Sounds kind of similar to your argument above about “thousands of Greek scholars”…I guess you think you can have it both ways.

    “Please scroll up a few posts and you’ll see that when you accused me of ignoring points, I asked which points I ignored, you abliged and told me what you felt I ignored, and I answered you.”

    Actually, no, you still ignored several of the things I said (admitting that you dodged some of them, for example), and considering that I have to keep repeating myself or referring you back to other parts of the conversation, it seems like you simply aren’t following the conversation very well, or are willfully ignoring what I am saying.

    “You are also flatly ignoring what Sirius said to you. Sirius pointed out that if Genesis is not taken literally, then there is no original sin. And if there is no original sin, then there is no need for a savior. And if there is no need for a savior, Christianty is null and void. A none literal translation of Genesis absolutely destroys the most basic theology of Christianity, a need for a savior. What do you say to this?”

    No, I didn’t flatly ignore it, but I apologize for not responding until now. I actually never got a chance to finish reading Sirius’ post until today.

    The Bible says that God has created people to be good, but we have chosen to do evil. We are condemned on the basis of our own sins. Thankfully God provided a way of escape for those who recognize their own inability to live up to God’s standards in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    Put another way…Christians claim a savior is
    needed because all people are sinners. Why all people are sinners is an important question but an answer to it isn’t required in order to recognize the need for salvation.

    krissmith:

    “Look at it this way: — When God created, he made it all Good. (Genesis 1: 25). Also, the original sin is what brought death and suffering into the world.”

    Notice that He made it “good”. I think it’s always interesting to point that out. We tend to think of the creation as originally being perfect, but does the text really say that?

    Secondly, there is much debate about what original sin really means, and what type of death and suffering were brought into the world as a result of it (physical or spiritual, the death of man or the death of all living things, etc, etc…the list goes on).

    I’m afraid my time on this thread may have to come to a close. This is due to several factors.

    First, I have a massive amount of work I am currently glaring at, as mentioned previously, and this is very time consuming (though enjoyable at times).

    Secondly, quite frankly I’m getting tired of the conversation, tired of repeating myself, and tired of being treated rudely by fellow Christians.

    Third, I’m bringing up lots of points here that I intend on writing about at my own blog, and as I already said, I hate repeating myself.

    So, as I have stated previously, I do intend to further discuss these topics at my own blog, and have already touched on some of them there. Please feel free to go and check them out.

  41. krissmith777 Says:

    airtightnoodle responded, ““Look at it this way: — When God created, he made it all Good. (Genesis 1: 25). Also, the original sin is what brought death and suffering into the world.”

    “Notice that He made it “good”. I think it’s always interesting to point that out. We tend to think of the creation as originally being perfect, but does the text really say that?”

    You fail to actually answer my point!! I said God made it good and therefore “Evolution by Natural Selection (i.e., the struggle for survival)” is ruled out, because according to God (and any sane person), death is NOT good!!!

    — I didn’t insinuate perfection in creation — I don’t think God is bound by our human and trivial definition of perfection.

    “Secondly, there is much debate about what original sin really means, and what type of death and suffering were brought into the world as a result of it (physical or spiritual, the death of man or the death of all living things, etc, etc…the list goes on).”

    According to who?–

    “I’m afraid my time on this thread may have to come to a close. This is due to several factors.

    “First, I have a massive amount of work I am currently glaring at, as mentioned previously, and this is very time consuming (though enjoyable at times). ”

    — I wish you well.

    “Secondly, quite frankly I’m getting tired of the conversation, tired of repeating myself, and tired of being treated rudely by fellow Christians.”

    — I don’t see anyone mistreating you here. All we are saying is that when all things are considered, Evolution and Christianity are inconsistent. — Nobody is insinuating that you aren’t a Christian because you believe in evolution.

  42. krissmith777 Says:

    To Eric Kemp:

    I placed you on my list of REcommended Websites:

    http://evolutionexpo.wordpress.com/websites/

  43. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    “I placed you on my list of REcommended Websites”

    Wow, thanks!

    “Nobody is insinuating that you aren’t a Christian because you believe in evolution.”

    To be fair, I AM challenging airtights’ Christianity. More specifically I’m challenging her willingness to take modern scientific thought over the words of Jesus. Is someone who does this actually a Christian? I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.

  44. Viggy Says:

    I see that someone has a problem with me not “responding” I will later. I haven’t been able to read most of the responses thoroughly. I am so busy with life and being sick and such. I will get back to you soon Ms. Noodle.

  45. Eric Kemp Says:

    Airtightnoodle

    “Eric, you need to go back and read what I’ve written here. Go back and read the post I wrote to Viggy (which he/she refused to respond to).”

    Since it was addressed to Viggy, I didn’t thoroughly read your response to him. But I have now:

    There is nothing I can respond to, you have made very vague claims here about the Hebrew words used in Genesis 1.

    You said: “The Hebrew word “yom” does not always refer to a literal 24 hour day…and this is true whether is in conjunction with “ereb” (evening) and “boquer” (morning) or not.”

    What am I supposed to say to that? You gave me no evidence for the claim that “yom” isn’t always a 24 hour day, you only stated it. You also gave me no evidence that even if, in certain contexts, “yom” isn’t literally a day, that this different usage of “yom” is used in Genesis 1. Please, give me a reason to think that an alternative meaning to “yom” was used in Gen 1 instead of just stating it, especially with “ereb” and “boquer” being there as well.

    “There are gaps in the biblical genealogies…thus no reason to firmly believe that Adam had to have been created around 4000 B.C”

    Again, can you provide me with evidence for these gaps?

    “This would mean that on day 3 plants sprouted and grew to maturity but also produced descendants that same day.”

    You find it unlikely that God created descendents of the plants He just created? Come now.

    “Adam would have had to name at least thousands of species (and recall that this would have included all the organisms now in the fossil record that are extinct). It is also interesting to note that according to some translations, Adam says “at last” as a response to Eve’s creation.”

    Thousands? Where do you get that number? How do you know that there were thousands in the Garden of Eden? And what translations would these be that include “at last”?

    I’m seeing a habit of you stating things as fact without giving support for them as you did above several times. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. So, as it is, I look forward your blog posts on the subject where you give more support for your assertions.

    “Eric, I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying that if you believe you should read the creation account literally and Jesus’ words literally (being consistent, after all) then it doesn’t matter which is more “in the beginning”.”

    So now you are saying that Jesus’ words in Mark 10:6 of “from the beginning” are figurative? What support do you have for this claim? I mean he WAS being asked about divorce and was answering them directly, it wasn’t a parable. Anything?

    “You can call me whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it correct.”

    You can deny it but that doesn’t make it correct either. The theory of evolution states that natural processes account for the way life is as we know it. You state that God is the creator of all. You are in direct opposition to evolution. Sorry, you just are. I find this incredibly ironic considering what your blog is about.

    “First of all…you’ve been incredibly rude, in my opinion, several times throughout this conversation. This is yet another demonstration of such.”

    My intention is not to be rude, believe me. But dodging a question by calling me rude is disengenuous. You seem to be under the impressiong that all translations of the Bible are created equal and you can switch between any that suit you at any point in a conversation. In your post you use the NASB and then we push comes to shove you claim some other translation that is contradictory to the NASB and that you don’t reference.

    “Secondly, I wouldn’t jump to conclusions about someone’s knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic if I were you. I don’t consider myself a “scholar”, but yes, I am somewhat educated in this area.”

    If you are, then you should have no trouble defending your different translations. Something you haven’t done yet.

    “Third, why are you only picking out the NASB and NIV?”

    Because, if I remember correctly, both took a decade of research before they were published and both were worked on by hundreds of scholars from several different countries and denominations. These lends creedence to my position that they both, and the NASB in particular, are the most accurate translations we have today.

    “Then why don’t the thousands of other scientists who have likewise been well-trained (and most probably better than both you and myself) see “non-science masquerading as science”?”

    Ah, so that’s what this is all about? The majority of scientific thought believes a certain way so that makes it true. This displays your presupposition that I already I pointed out to you, that the human mind is the ultimate in knowledge. You are literally preferring the scientific thought of the day over the Word of God. In order to do this, you translate the Word any way you like, making any verse in the Bible that challenges evolution “figurative”. Your logic goes like this, since evolution is true, X passage must be figurative.

    “Actually, no, you still ignored several of the things I said (admitting that you dodged some of them, for example)”

    Admitting that I dodged an issue is not ignoring. I gave a reason for dodging the issue (it has nothing to do with Jesus’ words in Mark 10:6), a reason you haven’t challenged.
    The other things I “ignored” were not addressed to me so I did not pay attention to them. Finally, you were specific about what I ignored and I answered you.

    “Notice that He made it “good”. I think it’s always interesting to point that out. We tend to think of the creation as originally being perfect, but does the text really say that?”

    Me saying the phrase “death is not good” ruins your position quite easily.

    “Secondly, quite frankly I’m getting tired of the conversation, tired of repeating myself, and tired of being treated rudely by fellow Christians.”

    Again, I apologize if you viewed anything I said as rude, that was not my intent. I take nothing personally in discussion nor do I mean anything personally. However, I will not shy from challenging someone, ESPECIALLY a fellow Christian on bad theology, inconsistent and unsupported intrepretation, eisegesis, and denying or twisting the words of Jesus.

    “Third, I’m bringing up lots of points here that I intend on writing about at my own blog, and as I already said, I hate repeating myself.”

    I agree, perhaps these topics will be better discussed when more time is spent developing them. I’ve never had a conversation of this depth with a progressive creationist before, this should be fun and interesting. Until then!

    Eric Kemp

  46. SmokieMan Says:

    “Pure Chance.”

    As others have repeatedly pointed out to you, in the context of the universe “Pure Chance” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Simple: The Universe has always existed.

    Complex: A Thing that exists outside the Universe and has the power to create them, has always existed.

    Even More Complex: A Christian Thing that exists outside the Universe and has the power to create them, has always existed.


  47. […] October 16, 2008 · No Comments The majority of this post originally appeared as comments on Eric Kemp’s Intelligence Science blog. I highly recommend that you read the post in question: Theistic Evolutionists and the Truth of Jesus: The Two Don’t Mix. […]

  48. Eric Kemp Says:

    SmokieMan (Anonomouse, Dead-end Pete)

    Go ahead and defend your “pure chance” statement. I know you won’t but I must ask anyway.

    I think your Simple to Complex thing is a poor attempt at Occam’s Razor.

    “Simple: The Universe has always existed.”

    This statement is a logical impossiblity. If the Universe has existed for eternity then the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago. And plus, cosmology states that the universe is still explanding, this means that the universe started at a point called the Singularity.

    “Complex: A Thing that exists outside the Universe and has the power to create them, has always existed.”

    Are you saying that the universe creating itself out of nothing is a more plausible explanation?

    I don’t know why I keep asking you questions, I forgot that trolls don’t answer any.

  49. FatFrank Says:

    “This statement is a logical impossiblity.”

    So is the statement, “God that created the Universe”. Who created him? or is it “Turtles all the way down”.

    “This statement is a logical impossiblity. If the Universe has existed for eternity then the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago. And plus, cosmology states that the universe is still explanding, this means that the universe started at a point called the Singularity. ”

    Not undersanding a thing != “Gawd” Well, maybe it does if you are a credulous Thiest.

    Its funny how when you look at history “Gawds” were Potent, raising the dead, parting seas, laying waste to entire citys and angels flitting about. They took action all the time in ways that could not be denied and they were the explanation for everything unexplicable. But as science and recordkeeping progresses the “Gawd” explanation keeps shrinking and shrinking and becoming more impotent.

    Now the poor things have to hide at the beginning/phase change of the universe.

  50. RedTurtle Says:

    “Go ahead and defend your “pure chance” statement. I know you won’t but I must ask anyway.”

    Why do I need to re-explain it to you, when you’ve run away from the explanation so many other times?

  51. Eric Kemp Says:

    RedTurtle, Fat Frank, SmokieMan, Anonomouse, Dead-end Pete

    “Why do I need to re-explain it to you, when you’ve run away from the explanation so many other times?”

    Ok, now you’re just slandering. I haven’t run away from anything, I’ve always answered legit questions as seriously and honestly as I can. Feel free to insult me and be as sarcastic as you want, but don’t bear false witness.

    But, to answer your question, you should answer the questions I ask you and defend your statements because it makes you look like you know what you’re talking about, and have intellectually thought through your positions, which is the opposite of how you look now.

    “So is the statement, “God that created the Universe”. Who created him? or is it “Turtles all the way down”.”

    Since God is outside of Creation, and is the Creator, the physical laws that require things to be begun don’t apply to Him. How could something non-physical, eternal, and outside of time have a beginning?

    Are you admitting that “God created the Universe” is a more logical explanation than “The Universe always existed”.

    “They took action all the time in ways that could not be denied and they were the explanation for everything unexplicable. But as science and recordkeeping progresses the “Gawd” explanation keeps shrinking and shrinking and becoming more impotent.”

    You are assuming that God didn’t use naturalistic means to cause phenomena to happen in the past, and that He doesn’t do so now. This betrays your naturalistic bias. Are you really trying to claim that because we can explain something naturalistically then God CANNOT have something to do with it? Come now.

    Basically what you are putting forth here is a science-of-the-gaps argument. You have no idea how the universe came about, nor how life came about, but you assume that “someday” science will have the answer. And you also assume that that answer will exclude God.

  52. krissmith777 Says:

    Hey, Eric.

    I just wrote a blog post on this subject myself:

    http://evolutionexpo.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/theistic-evolution-no-way-no-how/

  53. MetroHetero Says:

    That response is unintentionally Hilarious!

    “science-of-the-gaps argument.”

    I gottta cut and paste this into a mail message to my friends…

  54. MetroHetero Says:

    I say again, “pure chance” you are using it wrong.

    “Ok, now you’re just slandering. I haven’t run away from anything, I’ve always answered legit questions as seriously and honestly as I can.”

    Hmmmph….
    Bad Idea Blog Aug 29th 2008

    [As to your definition of chance, I don’t know how many ways it can be explained: you are trying to use concepts of “unpredictable” in a context where they have no real meaning. How can you possibly “predict” or not what is likely for a universe to be like? You keep equivocating around this issue by pointing to the “no assignable cause” part of the definition, but this part is immaterial. Yes: we don’t know if there was a cause or not, what it was, or if there even had to be or not. But this has nothing to do with whether or not something is actually a chance occurrence in the sense you are trying to use it in your argument: i.e. that it is somehow unlikely to expect the universe to be uniform. Whether we know the cause of something or not has nothing to do with whether or not it was all up to pure, infinite possibility metaphysical chance in the sense your argument employs the idea]

  55. AwesomeSaucome Says:

    “Since God is outside of Creation, and is the Creator, the physical laws that require things to be begun don’t apply to Him. How could something non-physical, eternal, and outside of time have a beginning?”

    LOL, so gawd Poofed outta nowhere but the Universe can’t? Because you say so.

    Your credulity is showing, you might want to tuck that back in.

    I suppose I’m not allowed to say the Universe is cyclical and once the energy runs out it perfectly rebounds and starts up again?

    “Are you admitting that “God created the Universe” is a more logical explanation than “The Universe always existed”.”

    Why? Your points are so silly. All one has to say is theres a universe outside of this one and it somehow caused this one to start. Theists aren’t the only one that can move the goalposts.

    “You are assuming that God didn’t use naturalistic means to cause phenomena to happen in the past, and that He doesn’t do so now. This betrays your naturalistic bias. Are you really trying to claim that because we can explain something naturalistically then God CANNOT have something to do with it? Come now.”

    Yep.
    If when your gawd does something and it’s indistinguishable from naturalistic processes then it’s the same as hot air and wishful thinking. Come now, you call that god?

    Otherwise it gets credit for ABSOLUTELY everything, from making the blood pump in my body, the exchange of oxygen in my hemoglobin and the “magical” process of typing on a keyboard and sending information across the internet. I better start praying right now, or everything will just quit.

    “Basically what you are putting forth here is a science-of-the-gaps argument.”

    Well DUH!
    Thats kinda how science works.

    And you seem to be going with a God of the Gaps argument. Good luck with that its got a great track record.

    “You have no idea how the universe came about, nor how life came about, but you assume that “someday” science will have the answer.”

    Well Science has given humanity alot of answers. We gave religion a couple thousand years and got bupkis except lots of purty churches.

    You have no idea how the universe came about nor how life came about, but you assume the God is the answer.

    “And you also assume that that answer will exclude God.”

    I also assume the answer will exclude, Unicorns, Purple Fairies, allah, zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, and xenu.

    Why do you think its a Christian god, and not any of the above?

  56. krissmith777 Says:

    AwesomeSaucome says: “I also assume the answer will exclude, Unicorns, Purple Fairies, allah, zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, and xenu.

    “Why do you think its a Christian god, and not any of the above?”

    Actually, it can be said “Allah” DID create. — “Allah” happens to be Arabic for “God.” — Een Chrsitan Arabs call him Allah.

    AwesomeSaucome”You have no idea how the universe came about nor how life came about, but you assume the God is the answer.”

  57. krissmith777 Says:

    Opps, I accidently ent my last comment before finnishing.

    AwesomeSaucome says: ”You have no idea how the universe came about nor how life came about, but you assume the God is the answer.”

    Well, why not? Science certainly doesn’t have the answer, and it never will. It does not answer how life came to be or how anything first originated at the beginning of time. And to assume that life began without any life before would violate an important law of Biology: The law of Biogenesis.

    So, why not a god? The law of Biogenesis says life only comes from life. — So therefore the first life on earth MUST have had a creator, i.e., a God. To say otherwise is unreasonable.

    That would mean, with no intelligence, with no desig, and ony at random did life come out of non-living matter.

  58. PictureFrame Says:

    “Actually, it can be said “Allah” DID create. — “Allah” happens to be Arabic for “God.” — Een Chrsitan Arabs call him Allah.”

    REALLY?

    I had assumed, incorrectly it appears, that my audience would be capable of concluding by allah, I would be referring to the islamic gawd. I’m sorry, perhaps this page will enlighten you:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

    “Well, why not? Science certainly doesn’t have the answer”

    Its got some models and people working on refining them. We already tried godidit for a few thousand years.

    “and it never will.”

    You can see the future!?
    As if giving up, sitting on your hands, and saying goddit has provided so many more answers.

    Well wait a min. Goddidit, can answer any question. Science is looking for the correct answer.

    “It does not answer how life came to be or how anything first originated at the beginning of time.”

    Well thats where god must be hiding, outside the universe at the beginning of time.

    Hey, how can something outside the universe affect the universe?

    “And to assume that life began without any life before would violate an important law of Biology: The law of Biogenesis.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

    You got that law from a scientist, didn’t you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    Its a Young field but the work does progress.
    Sorry we don’t get all the answers overnight. Science is slow. We cant just make stuff up, put it into a book and make people believe it. Actual tests need to be done, and repeated independently.

    But relax there will be plenty of gaps in human knowledge for Gawd to hide in for a very long time.

  59. Pepto Says:

    “Actually, it can be said “Allah” DID create. — “Allah” happens to be Arabic for “God.” — Een Chrsitan Arabs call him Allah.”

    REALLY?

    I had assumed, incorrectly it appears, that my audience would be capable of concluding by allah, I would be referring to the islamic gawd. I’m sorry, perhaps this page will enlighten you:
    wiki – Creator_gods

    “Well, why not? Science certainly doesn’t have the answer”

    Its got some models and people working on refining them. We already tried godidit for a few thousand years.

    “and it never will.”

    You can see the future!?
    As if giving up, sitting on your hands, and saying goddit has provided so many MORE answers.

    Well wait a min. Goddidit, can answer any question. Science is concerned with looking for the correct answers.

    “It does not answer how life came to be or how anything first originated at the beginning of time.”

    Well thats where god must be hiding, outside the universe at the beginning of time.

    Hey, how can something outside the universe affect the universe?

    “And to assume that life began without any life before would violate an important law of Biology: The law of Biogenesis.”

    wiki -Biogenesis

    You got that law from a scientist, didn’t you?

    wiki – Abiogenesis

    Its a Young field but the work does progress.
    Sorry we don’t get all the answers overnight. Science is slow. We cant just make stuff up, put it into a book and make people believe it. Actual tests need to be done, and repeated independently.

    But relax there will be plenty of gaps in human knowledge for Gawd to hide in for a very long time.

  60. Pepto Says:

    Whoops hit post too soon.

    “And to assume that life began without any life before would violate an important law of Biology: The law of Biogenesis.”

    wiki -Biogenesis

    You got that law from a scientist, didn’t you?

    IRONY!
    Thats a “law” that was originaly used to dispel the ignorance from where the thinking was that maggots and disease spontaneously occured on objects. Just poofed into existence just like you claim gowd poofed the Universe into existance.

    Hilarity to see it used to reinforce ignorance now.

  61. krissmith777 Says:

    To Pepto

    Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously without life comming before. — Even Evolutionary Textbooks says that spontanous generation is impossible. — In an Evolutionist Textbook I have, the term “Spontaneous generation” is defined as “an old and incorrect idea. . .” (Physical Anthropology, page 11, 9th Edition)

    Besides, Abiogenesis has never been observed or tested positively.- – – And just in case you don’t know it, the Miller experiment was invalid.

    Biogenesis, on the other hand, is both observable and testable.

    Pepto says:”Its a Young field but the work does progress. Sorry we don’t get all the answers overnight. Science is slow. We cant just make stuff up, put it into a book and make people believe it. Actual tests need to be done, and repeated independently.”

    Um, what tests have been done have been admitted to be invalid. Even Miller admitted to the invalidity of his experiment.

    There is not one example in which life can generate itself under ANY circumstances. PERIOD!!!

  62. PictureFrame Says:

    So Life can only come from Life.

    Gawd must be Alive. (what does it eat)

    So where is the Life that created Gawd?

    Because only Life can create Life.

    If you look behind you, you will see two walls.

    Put away the paint when you’ve finished, ok?

    “There is not one example in which life can generate itself under ANY circumstances. PERIOD!!!”

    I’m sorry if it upsets you. You don’t have to help. The search for answers will go on without you.
    You can try praying for me, maybe it will work THIS time.

  63. Eric Kemp Says:

    Pictureframe, Pepto, Monomoon, AwesomeSaucome, MetroHetero, FatFrank, Red Turtle, Anonomous, Dead-end Pete, Smokie-Man

    Oh heck, this is ridiculous. I’m just going to call you Troll from now on. How’s that sound, Troll?
    Perhaps you think you’re being cute by changing names almost every time you post, but I know it’s the same person, so it actually makes you look ridiculous and cowardly. So to end the confusion, I’ll just call you Troll when I respond to you.

    Troll,

    Honestly, I have a hard time following what you’re saying. Your sentences lack almost any kind of punctuation or structure and the grammar is horrendous. Also, you make little to no attempt to be clear about to what you are referring or attempting to make a case for your position past a single sentence answer (most of the time).

    The ironic thing about you, Troll, is that you have zero self-reflectiveness about your positions. You make fun of Creationists for positing an invisible God, and yet you give supernatural powers to invisible “natural” phenomena. Phenomena you have no evidence that happened and everything we’ve studied up to this point tells us it CAN’T happen (life from non-life and universe out of nothing). Then, when pointed out to you that you don’t have the answer, you belligerently charge forward with, “Someday we’ll have the answer” without realizing that this statement admits defeat AND the massive amount of faith that answer takes.

    Also, you laugh at “science-of-the-gaps” while using it every step of the way, “Someday we’ll know everything therefore God is out of job,” takes just as much faith as “God did it”.

    You think that “well, what created YOUR God?” is a valid argument without realizing that in order for this argument to be valid you must first admit that God is a more logical answer than “something out of nothing”.

    Frankly, Troll, unless there is more thought put into and more substance out of your arguments I might just start ignoring you but keep approving your comments to allow my readers (all three of them :-p ) to see what dogmatic naturalism looks like in action. Please, if you want to look as intelligent as you think you are, especially in comparison to us creationist country bumpkins, you should seriously consider putting more into your responses.

    Eric Kemp

  64. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric says:”Also, you laugh at “science-of-the-gaps” while using it every step of the way, “Someday we’ll know everything therefore God is out of job,” takes just as much faith as “God did it”.”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. It may take faith to believe God exists. But it takes faith to believe that he doesn’t.

  65. Thomas Says:

    Wow, there’s a lot going on here: arguments between atheists and Christians and arguments between 24-hr creationists and theistic evolutionists. There is nothing like evolution to set off such an emotional discussion!

    As a Christian who has come to read Genesis 1 in a non-literal way, let me make a comment on something that has been said a number of times in various preceding comments. The claim has been made that there is a contradiction between things arising from evolution and things arising from God creating. I don’t see how there is a contradiction.

    Imagine this conversation:

    Thomas: “That house was built with saws and hammers.”

    Eric: “No it wasn’t. Bob built that house.”

    Why is it so hard to imagine that Bob used saws and hammers to build the house?

    Consider this also. I am going to teach my future kids that God made the trees they see. Their science teacher will tell them that those trees arose from seeds that over time developed into what they presently are. We are both right. God designed it, and God guides it. But natural processes are in effect.

    I don’t see why that can’t be the case with evolution. I am not talking about other objections here, just the claim that evolution and God as creator are contradictory.

  66. Thomas Says:

    As far as what Jesus said in Mark about marriage, I don’t see a real problem here either. Why can’t “from the beginning of creation” simply mean “when man was first created?” That’s what Jesus is talking about, right? “True, Moses let you guys have divorces, but at the beginning it wasn’t like that. God made them male and female.” I think it’s a mistake to make this a proof text against evolution.

    One more point, or rather, a question. Is it ever okay for you to use science to help understand scripture better? It seems from your comments that the answer would be “no.” This was done in church history, though, at a very critical point. Much of the church was convinced that the scriptures taught an earth that was fixed in place. Now, everyone agrees that scripture was speaking from the perspective of the time, but how would we know this without science?

  67. Boogeymen Says:

    “Oh heck, this is ridiculous.”

    It amuses me too. I thought I’d drive up the virtual audience for ya.

    “I’m just going to call you Troll from now on. How’s that sound, Troll?”

    If I don’t care what name I use, why would I care about what name you want to use for me?

    “Perhaps you think you’re being cute by changing names almost every time you post”

    It amuses me. See the above.

    “but I know it’s the same person”

    So it’s kind of a waste of time for you to post all the various names.

    “so it actually makes you look ridiculous”

    Am I the one retyping the names in every response?

    “and cowardly.”

    Call me more names if it makes you happy. I see you are past the reasoning stage and just want to get right into the name calling and emotional appeals.

    “So to end the confusion, I’ll just call you Troll when I respond to you.”

    See the above.

    “Honestly, I have a hard time following what you’re saying. Your sentences lack almost any kind of punctuation or structure and the grammar is horrendous.”

    Attacking grammar always works. It will hide the fact that you have nothing new to say except for the tired god of the gaps stuff.

    “Also, you make little to no attempt to be clear about to what you are referring”

    Name three.

    “or attempting to make a case for your position past a single sentence answer (most of the time).”

    As you have, project much?
    Hey What about that “pure chance” thing you ran away from? or is “Supernatural” the new location of the goalpost?

    “The ironic thing about you, Troll, is that you have zero self-reflectiveness about your positions.You make fun of Creationists for positing an invisible God, and yet you give supernatural powers to invisible “natural” phenomena. Phenomena you have no evidence that happened and everything we’ve studied up to this point tells us it CAN’T
    happen (life from non-life and universe out of nothing). Then, when pointed out to you that you don’t have the answer, you belligerently charge forward with, “Someday we’ll have the answer” without realizing that this statement admits defeat AND the massive amount of faith that answer takes.”

    Shorter form of the above. “Pot. Kettle. Black. and a truly staggering lack of understanding of the scientific method.”

    “Also, you laugh at “science-of-the-gaps” while using it every step of the way”

    Yes I laughed at it. It was very apt. You obviously meant it as some kind of accusation not realizing thats what science does. Fills in the gaps of human knowledge. It has worked fabulously so far. Sure it gets things wrong sometimes, but thats part of the learning process. You learn more from your mistakes anyway.

    “Someday we’ll know everything therefore God is out of job,” takes just as much faith as “God did it”.

    Faith you are using it wrong.
    Sure if Science didn’t have a proven track record of figuring things out it might take faith. Good thing we’ve got all this evidence that science works. Unlike all that faith stuff credulous theists have used to spread ignorance for a couple thousand years.

    “You think that “well, what created YOUR God?” is a valid argument without realizing that in order for this argument to be valid you must first admit that God is a more logical answer than “something out of nothing”.

    NO. I can use it as an example of how your argment falls apart when you hold up a scientific “law” that was once used to dispel ignorance and then try to use it to prop up your own ignorant belief.

    If by your spurious reasoned example, Life can only come from life. Then you admit that your Creator Diety must also have a creator, and then a creator for that one, and another…. all the way down. Of course you will claim an exception because you say life sits outside of the universe. Thats where the wheels come off your life-comes-from-life wagon.

    “Frankly, Troll, unless there is more thought put into and more substance out of your arguments I might just start ignoring”

    Pot. Kettle. Black x2
    Claiming that other people believe in boogeymen is a thoughtful argument?

    “you but keep approving your comments to allow my readers (all three of them :-p ) to see what dogmatic naturalism looks like in action. Please, if you want to look as intelligent as you think you are, especially in comparison to us creationist country bumpkins, you should seriously consider putting more into your responses.”

    In other words you will Declare Victory and move on. This does not suprise me. You ignore the points you want to, and when called on your BS about pure chance you pretend you didn’t hear me.

  68. Outside Says:

    “Couldn’t have said it better myself. It may take faith to believe God exists. But it takes faith to believe that he doesn’t.”

    LOL I disbelieve in the same number of Gawds you disbelieve +1.

  69. Eric Kemp Says:

    Thomas

    Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your questions have made me think it’s time to put forth my full case for why millions of years are bunk and frankly, unbiblical. This would be better served as full post. I will begin working on the post tonight but I’m not sure if I’ll finish. I will let you know when I post it.

    Eric Kemp

  70. krissmith777 Says:

    Outside says: “LOL I disbelieve in the same number of Gawds you disbelieve +1.”

    Okay. Lack of a sensible answer noted.

  71. Thomas Says:

    Thanks, Eric. I look forward to reading.

  72. Eric Kemp Says:

    Troll

    Your comment on 10/19 was somehow in my spam folder which I never check. I actually would have approved right away if I had seen it. My apologies that it took so long for me to catch.

    Eric


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: