'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are inherently NOT disciplines

[David1701]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Literal approaches to scripture would also require that the sky is a solid dome supported by physical pillars and that the sun revolves around the earth. There are parts of the Bible that I am certain that you accept as figurative language already. All I ask is to consider that it might be appropriate regarding the creation timeline, as well.

Some parts of Scripture are figurative (everyone agrees about that); but Gen. 1-3 is not written in a figurative style.  It is written as straightforward narrative.  As an example "day" can mean an unspecified period of time; but, when it is accompanied by a number and/or morning/evening, it means a literal day.

Quote

It does not take an evolutionist to recognize that the evidence of a far older universe and planet is stronger than that for an earth roughly 6,000 years old. Geologists recognized the earth was far older many years before Darwin's work. Additionally, astronomy and chemistry/physics (through radiometric dating) offers very clear evidence of a universe far older than 6,000 years.

Some geologists claimed that the Earth was millions of years old, before Darwin's suppositions, e.g. Charles Lyell; but without proof.

Radiometric dating (any of the various methods) relies upon unprovable assumptions.  Was there any of the daughter element present originally? Has there been contamination? Has there been any leeching?  Have rates of radioactive decay always been as they are now? 

Quote

 

As I mentioned earlier, we are in agreement on this point. However, evolution is the change in populations of living things over time, not how they came into being. Evolution does not (and cannot) address that question.

That's fine, I'll be happy to answer questions you may have if you want to know more. My point is that the evidence clearly contradicts the common and misinformed notion that mutations can only damage cells.

 

Sadly, I lack the knowledge to be able to respond to this point properly.  It really is for a Christian scientist to answer.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

but Gen. 1-3 is not written in a figurative style.

There are multiple figurative elements embedded in the passage. I don’t see why the 144-hour creation period could not be figurative.

Additionally, certain aspects of Genesis 1-3 are affirmed throughout the Bible, while the creation time frame is not.

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Some geologists claimed that the Earth was millions of years old, before Darwin's suppositions, e.g. Charles Lyell; but without proof.

The evidence is in the geological record. God’s very earth speaks of a much older time frame.

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Radiometric dating (any of the various methods) relies upon unprovable assumptions.  Was there any of the daughter element present originally? Has there been contamination? Has there been any leeching?  Have rates of radioactive decay always been as they are now? 

AiG spent two million dollars on the RATE project, which ended up with a final conclusion that the radioactive decay rates must have differed by orders of magnitude in the past, but without any evidence to substantiate the claim.

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Sadly, I lack the knowledge to be able to respond to this point properly.  It really is for a Christian scientist to answer.

That’s ok, nothing to be sad about. I wish I knew a lot more about auto mechanics than I do.

In any case, I am a Christ follower and a PhD Biologist. I can assure you that “mutations only degrade things” is absolutely incorrect.

Edited June 1, 2020 by one.opinion
Fixed typos

[teddyv]

I's a Christian scientist as well, but a geologist, not a biologist, so I can't speak authoratatively to the field of biology. I know enough biologists (and now another one!). I find it curious as the need to qualify a scientist as Christian at all.

[David1701]

On 6/1/2020 at 4:56 PM, teddyv said:

I's a Christian scientist as well, but a geologist, not a biologist, so I can't speak authoratatively to the field of biology. I know enough biologists (and now another one!). I find it curious as the need to qualify a scientist as Christian at all.

All scientist start with presuppositions.  It's helpful to know whether or not they claim to be Christian and whether or not their suppositions accord with that profession.

[David1701]

On 6/1/2020 at 3:58 AM, one.opinion said:

There are multiple figurative elements embedded in the passage. I don’t see why the 144-hour creation period could not be figurative.

I've already given one reason why: in the Bible, when "day" is qualified by a specific number (day one, day two, etc.) or by morning/evening, it always refers to a normal, literal day, not an indeterminate period of time.

You have also not said which elements of Gen. 1-3 you think are figurative.  I can't think of any, offhand.

Quote

Additionally, certain aspects of Genesis 1-3 are affirmed throughout the Bible, while the creation time frame is not.

Yes, it is.

Exodus 20:8-11 (VW)

8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 and the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. In it you shall not do any work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your sojourner who is within your gates.
11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah has blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

Quote

The evidence is in the geological record. God’s very earth speaks of a much older time frame.

No, it doesn't - your turn.

Quote

AiG spent two million dollars on the RATE project, which ended up with a final conclusion that the radioactive decay rates must have differed by orders of magnitude in the past, but without any evidence to substantiate the claim.

That works both ways.  Where is the proof to substantiate the claim that the rates were the same in the past, as they are now?

Quote

That’s ok, nothing to be sad about. I wish I knew a lot more about auto mechanics than I do.

The sad part is that I studied biology at university (a B.Sc. course) but it was in the early 1980s and I have not used any of it since then, so I have forgotten almost all of it.  Even if I could remember it, much of it would be woefully out of date by now.

Quote

In any case, I am a Christ follower and a PhD Biologist. I can assure you that “mutations only degrade things” is absolutely incorrect.

I won't just take your word for it, but neither can I refute it, so I'll have to leave that point on the shelf, for now.

[BorderCowboy]

Interesting enough, but I'm a simple country boy an now my brain hurts LOL

Just my two bits, JJ

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

I've already given one reason why: in the Bible, when "day" is qualified by a specific number (day one, day two, etc.) or by morning/evening, it always refers to a normal, literal day, not an indeterminate period of time.

That isn't sufficient reason to claim there could not be exceptions to this general pattern.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

You have also not said which elements of Gen. 1-3 you think are figurative.  I can't think of any, offhand.

One portion that I mentioned earlier in the conversation is the description of the event of Adam naming the animals in Genesis 2.

¹⁸ Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ¹⁹ Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. ²⁰ The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

The passage, if read literally, suggests that God brought all animals to Adam to try to identify an appropriate helper. Only when no appropriate helper was found, God decided to create Eve. This is clearly figurative, unless one believes Adam had the possibility of taking an animal as a helper and mate.

Genesis 3 also carries significant figurative language when mentioning the activity of the serpent. If the serpent was really just a serpent, then it was somehow not only a talking serpent, but far more knowledgeable than Adam and Eve about right and wrong (impossible). If the serpent was Satan incognito, then the punishment applied to the serpent in 14 was unjust (also impossible). I don't know what the actual historical events were, but there is no choice but to accept figurative language here, as well.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Exodus 20:8-11 (VW)

8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 and the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. In it you shall not do any work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your sojourner who is within your gates.
11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah has blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

The seven day cycle is symbolic. The symbolism is clear when we look at Exodus 23

¹⁰ “For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, ¹¹ but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.¹² “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

God as creator is clearly affirmed throughout the Bible. A 144-hour creation period is not.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

No, it doesn't - your turn.

Your argumentation is a bit lacking here, but I'll go ahead and respond :-)

Christians Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth published an article describing how different dating systems - Carbon-14 dating and varve counting in some unique lakes like Lake Suigetsu - show that the earth is far older than 10,000 years (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf). Through standard dating techniques, the Grand Canyon has some parts that are about 70 million years old. I'm not an expert on geology, so maybe @teddyv can help us in his area of expertise.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

That works both ways.  Where is the proof to substantiate the claim that the rates were the same in the past, as they are now?

No, it really doesn't work both ways. There is zero reason to assume something is true when there is a complete lack of evidence to support it. Where is the proof that I am not a talking, typing magical unicorn? The fact that you cannot prove such a thing does not mean the the probably that I am/am not a talking, typing magical unicorn is 50/50.

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

I won't just take your word for it, but neither can I refute it, so I'll have to leave that point on the shelf, for now.

I suppose I can't make you trust my word, so I'll give you another example. There is a particular allele present in a very high proportion of Tibetans that has been implicated in their physiological suitability to high altitude. This particular allele of the EPAS1 gene is present in 87% of Tibetans, compared to only 9% of the Han Chinese population. This allele is also notably absent from other populations at high altitudes like those in the Andes mountains. I think we can both agree that this particular mutation did not "break" anything, but instead, allows the Tibetan population to live much more comfortably in their high-altitude, low-oxygen environment.

[teddyv]

I'm no expert on radiometric dating. My area is mineral exploration and I've only been on one project where one of the consulting geologists requested Re-Os dating on the mineralization of the copper deposit we were working on. The nearby intrusives and metamorphosed intrusives had been dated before by K-Ar and U-Pb. I don't recall the numbers anymore but the date returned on the mineralization was consistent with the established dates of the other lithologies of the area.

[David1701]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That isn't sufficient reason to claim there could not be exceptions to this general pattern.

You would, essentially, be claiming that the creation account in Genesis is an exception, because you want it to be.  Everywhere else, it is acknowledged that when "day " is accompanied by a number, or morning/evening, it represents a literal day.  Also, how can you possibly fit millions of years into "there was evening and morning - day one, etc."?  It makes no sense whatever.

The order of creation is also very different from the claimed order of evolution.

Then there is the fact that creatures produce according to their kinds (N.B. "kinds", not species or varieties) and do not change into other kinds.

Quote

 

One portion that I mentioned earlier in the conversation is the description of the event of Adam naming the animals in Genesis 2.

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

The passage, if read literally, suggests that God brought all animals to Adam to try to identify an appropriate helper. Only when no appropriate helper was found, God decided to create Eve. This is clearly figurative, unless one believes Adam had the possibility of taking an animal as a helper and mate.

 

I don't see this as a serious objection.

The animals were brought to Adam to be named, which is what he did.  Among them there was not a found an appropriate helper for him, which is exactly what you would expect, since an appropriate helper would need to be human.

 

Quote

Genesis 3 also carries significant figurative language when mentioning the activity of the serpent. If the serpent was really just a serpent, then it was somehow not only a talking serpent, but far more knowledgeable than Adam and Eve about right and wrong (impossible). If the serpent was Satan incognito, then the punishment applied to the serpent in 14 was unjust (also impossible). I don't know what the actual historical events were, but there is no choice but to accept figurative language here, as well.

The most likely scenario is that the serpent was possessed by Satan.  As for Satan (speaking through the serpent) knowing more about right and wrong than Adam and Eve, well, they had not yet eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; whereas, Satan had already rebelled against God.

Your claim of "figurative language" here, seems to be little more than unbelief.

Quote

 

The seven day cycle is symbolic. The symbolism is clear when we look at Exodus 23

10 “For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, 11 but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.12 “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

 

Again, I don't see how you can claim that this shows that the six days of creation were merely symbolic.  It does nothing of the kind.  This is a command that was supposed to be obeyed literally, reminding people of the six days of creation, followed by God's day of rest.

Quote

God as creator is clearly affirmed throughout the Bible. A 144-hour creation period is not.

This is simply untrue, as I showed in my last post.  The days of creation are always treated as literal days, with a morning and an evening.

Quote

Your argumentation is a bit lacking here, but I'll go ahead and respond :-)

You have missed the point.  I posted with the same level of argumentation as you had (i.e. none), to show how useless "just so" claims are.

Here is what you posted, "The evidence is in the geological record. God’s very earth speaks of a much older time frame.".  This is a mere assertion, without any evidence to back it up.

Quote

Christians Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth published an article describing how different dating systems - Carbon-14 dating and varve counting in some unique lakes like Lake Suigetsu - show that the earth is far older than 10,000 years (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf). Through standard dating techniques, the Grand Canyon has some parts that are about 70 million years old. I'm not an expert on geology, so maybe @teddyv can help us in his area of expertise.

The same assumptions still apply to those dating techniques.  Assumptions that cannot be proved and that can wildly alter the results.

Quote

No, it really doesn't work both ways. There is zero reason to assume something is true when there is a complete lack of evidence to support it. Where is the proof that I am not a talking, typing magical unicorn? The fact that you cannot prove such a thing does not mean the the probably that I am/am not a talking, typing magical unicorn is 50/50.

There is a great deal of evidence that radiometric dating techniques are unreliable.  Many samples, in which the age of a rock is known (e.g. samples of new rock from Mt. St. Helens, when it erupted in the 1980s), have been dated at millions of years of old.

The point about rates of radioactive decay, is that there is much evidence that the Earth is a great deal younger than a few billion years old (e.g. the distance of the moon from the Earth  or the level of sedimentary deposits in the oceans).  These evidences, in themselves, suggest that it's quite possible that the rates of radioactive decay were much faster in the past, which would partially account for the huge disparity between the results of different dating techniques.

Quote

I suppose I can't make you trust my word, so I'll give you another example. There is a particular allele present in a very high proportion of Tibetans that has been implicated in their physiological suitability to high altitude. This particular allele of the EPAS1 gene is present in 87% of Tibetans, compared to only 9% of the Han Chinese population. This allele is also notably absent from other populations at high altitudes like those in the Andes mountains. I think we can both agree that this particular mutation did not "break" anything, but instead, allows the Tibetan population to live much more comfortably in their high-altitude, low-oxygen environment.

How am I (or you) supposed to know that this is not merely a latent ability that has been "switched on" in the genetic code of the Tibetan population, then proliferated through the better health and survival of those possessing it?

Edited June 3, 2020 by David1701

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Your claim of "figurative language" here, seems to be little more than unbelief.

You are right - I do not believe a literal interpretation is the best treatment of Genesis 1-3. You asked for evidence of figurative language and I provided those very clear examples to you.

We could go around and around, each defending our points of view, but I don't think that is a good use of my time and likely not yours, either. I do believe it is important to address something you mentioned in your first post (and why I felt the need to engage): 

Quote

Molecules to man evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity.  If anyone claims to be a Christian, then he should believe the testimony about creation that God has given us, not rely upon atheistic suppositions that change with the wind.

I believe that you and I would agree very strongly on the important themes from Genesis 1-3, even though we clearly disagree on some relatively insignificant details. Take a look at my list of themes and let me know if there is anything you disagree with, or if you think there is critical doctrine that I have omitted.

1.  God is the Creator of all things.

2.  Humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation.

3.  God specially-created humanity (through a literal Adam and Eve) with the ability to commune with Him.

4.  God ordained the unity of Adam and Eve together.

5.  Adam and Eve chose to rely on their own wisdom and/or intuition to make a choice in defiance of God's instructions.

6.  This rebellious sin broke the connection of humanity to God.

7.  God promised a solution for this broken relationship in a prophetic glimpse of the coming Jesus Christ.

Clearly, the Bible teaches much more on the work of Jesus Christ to offer the repair of that relationship in individual lives, but that is not part of Genesis 1-3.

I dare hope that you will find it possible that someone that is a Christ follower can also accept that God created living things through the process of evolution.