A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Starise]

11 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The truth:

"The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." (Genesis 2:7) The idea that humans are 'created from dust' is repeated multiple times in Scripture, and many Christians see this verse as fairly literal, suggesting that Adam was created in a manner not unlike someone forming a statue from clay. (The likening of God to a potter is also Scriptural.)

The case gets even more explicit when we get to Eve. "The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22)

It needs to be noted, however, that humans are special.... For example, "God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' And it was so." God Spoke, and it happened; not in millions of years, but immediately. The image of God's Word having immediate and omnipotent power is found throughout Scripture....

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." (Exodus 20:11) Scripture is clear that Creation happened in "six days". Genealogies and other texts make it clear that the Genesis narrative starts circa 4,000 BC. Scripture consistently refers to the Flood as a real, historical event... as do hundreds of other accounts from cultures all across the globe. Peter even goes so far as to call out those who deny the Flood. "They deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." (2 Peter 3:5-6)  source  *

Man cannot be created by God and subsequently evolve from a primate.

The creation of grasses and trees bearing fruit was immediate on day three.

The creation of the sun, moon and stars was immediate on day four.

The creation of fish and birds was immediate on day five.

The creation of all the beasts of the field was immediate on day six.

The creation of man was a separate creation, also on day six.

No sane person can believe two things in contradiction.  Either creation is true or evolution is true.  Either biologists are wrong or the Bible is false.  There is NOTHING in biology that would would be different if creation was true.  There is NOTHING about our creation as detailed in the Bible that would be true if evolution was correct.  You can believe the word of God and be a biologist, but you CAN'T believe in evolution without disregarding the plain teaching of the bible.

You are either deluding yourself or attempting to delude others by denying this indisputable reality.  You are promoting a logical absurdity.  You might also notice that I cite multiple references, while you repeat the same discredited ones.

* Peter lived with Jesus for three years.  Augustine never met Him.

I agree, we can't mix the two. No matter what they claim, science has not conclusively decided any of this. In fact if one looks at all of the data the argument leans AWAY from us evolving from apes. They will say we didn't come from apes we ARE apes. We have lungs, they have lungs, we have a similar makeup of organs, but probably more dissimilar than similar when looking at this closely. No missing links. Neanderthal man was an adapted human. Even they admit this.

They couldn't win their arguments using skeletons which were found to be hoaxes, and they couldn't find any genuine missing links in the fossil record, so they have resorted to DNA explanations and different kinds of animals in the same general classifications as examples of great movements to new types of animals. That argument doesn't hold up either. We share 50% DNA with a banana. Got questions has an excellent write up on the way we read and look at DNA and the way DNA is clustered, but according to them it's way off and creationists are buffoons. 

So they won't consider anything but their own views on this and disregard anything else, even with solid scientific investigation behind it.

The Lord said in His word we were made in God's image. We were directly created as a totally new type of being. Would you doubt God's word based on the inaccuracies and misconceptions rampant in the evolution debate? 

[FJK]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

They couldn't win their arguments using skeletons which were found to be hoaxes, and they couldn't find any genuine missing links in the fossil record, so they have resorted to DNA explanations and different kinds of animals in the same general classifications as examples of great movements to new types of animals. That argument doesn't hold up either.

Humans share 99.9% of their DNA with other humans.

Cats share approximately 90% of their DNA with humans.

Humans share around 85% of their DNA with mice.

Humans share a significant amount (98%) of their DNA with pigs.

Humans share more than half (60%) of their DNA with chickens.

Humans share 50% of their DNA with trees.

Humans share 70% of their DNA with slugs.

Humans share 44% of their DNA with honey bees.

Humans share approximately 60% of their DNA with bananas.

Humans share about 84% of their DNA with dogs.

(Snipped from copilot assisted research into the subject)

My conclusion is that all life had a common Creator.

Edited January 30, 2024 by FJK

[Starise]

8 minutes ago, FJK said:

Humans share 99.9% of their DNA with other humans.

Cats share approximately 90% of their DNA with humans.

Humans share around 85% of their DNA with mice.

Humans share a significant amount (98%) of their DNA with pigs.

Humans share more than half (60%) of their DNA with chickens.

Humans share 50% of their DNA with trees.

Humans share 70% of their DNA with slugs.

Humans share 44% of their DNA with honey bees.

Humans share approximately 60% of their DNA with bananas.

Humans share about 84% of their DNA with dogs.

(Snipped from copilot assisted research into the subject)

My conclusion is that all life had a common Creator.

Thanks @FJK Very illuminating. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Man cannot be created by God and subsequently evolve from a primate.

This is the at the very heart of your delusion.   You are telling God how He can do creation and how He can't. 

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No sane person can believe two things in contradiction.  Either creation is true or evolution is true. 

That's wrong, and it's a very good thing that you are wrong.  Because evolution is directly observed in living populations.    It's a fact.   As you learned, even YE creationist organizations now admit that new species, new genera, and sometimes new families evolve from others.     Except they don't want to use the "e-word."  The problem is, you are trying to dictate to God how He can do creation.

We get it.  Your claim is that God is not allowed to create unless He does it your way.   You claim that He is not allowed to use figurative language in the Bible.  

If you would just let God be God and do it His way, you'd cease to be troubled by this.   Submit your will to His, and it's no longer a stumbling block for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I agree, we can't mix the two. No matter what they claim, science has not conclusively decided any of this. In fact if one looks at all of the data the argument leans AWAY from us evolving from apes.

Show us that.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

They will say we didn't come from apes we ARE apes.

Evolutionary theory didn't show that.  Genetics shows that.   Humans and Chimpanzees are more similar genetically to each other than either of us are to any other ape.  

1 hour ago, Starise said:

We have lungs, they have lungs, we have a similar makeup of organs, but probably more dissimilar than similar when looking at this closely.

Turns out, that we are anatomically more like chimps than we are like any other primate.   "Looks like" is not as good a guide as genetics, but it again confirms our common ancestry.   Would you like some details?

1 hour ago, Starise said:

No missing links.

There are many, many transitional hominids between apes and humans.  Would you like to learn about some of them, and how we know they are transitional?   Even knowledgeable YE creationits admit that they exist.   Would you like me to show you that?

1 hour ago, Starise said:

so they have resorted to DNA explanations and different kinds of animals in the same general classifications as examples of great movements to new types of animals. That argument doesn't hold up either. We share 50% DNA with a banana.

I see someone has already debunked that hoax; turns out plants show about the same amount of similarity to animals as evolutionary theory and fossils would have it.   If you include only DNA that actually functions as genes, the relationships are even more precisely aligned with taxonomy.  Would you like to see that?

1 hour ago, Starise said:

The Lord said in His word we were made in God's image.

God doesn't have nostrils and earlobes and other body parts.   Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body at all.   The image is in our minds and souls, not our bodies, which God does not have.

If you can believe God's word on it.   I believe Him.

 

 

[Starise]

10 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Show us that.

Sure, do you have a bible?

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolutionary theory didn't show that.  Genetics shows that.   Humans and Chimpanzees are more similar genetically to each other than either of us are to any other ape.  

Yes, hence the DNA squabble repeated over and over. This in no way confirms we came from them.I would not use the word genetically here since I don't see it as a  genetic connection so much as a DNA share which is also inconsequential when we look at how much we share with everything else. 

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Turns out, that we are anatomically more like chimps than we are like any other primate.   "Looks like" is not as good a guide as genetics, but it again confirms our common ancestry.   Would you like some details?

God said we were created in His image DIRECTLY from the elements in the ground.You either believe that or you believe evolution. God is the more sure thing here wouldn't you agree?

18 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

There are many, many transitional hominids between apes and humans.  Would you like to learn about some of them, and how we know they are transitional?   Even knowledgeable YE creationits admit that they exist.   Would you like me to show you that?

The only thing you could possibly show me is a fabrication. I don't care who admits what. I only care about what the bible says. You either believe it's the word of God or you don't.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I see someone has already debunked that hoax; turns out plants show about the same amount of similarity to animals as evolutionary theory and fossils would have it.   If you include only DNA that actually functions as genes, the relationships are even more precisely aligned with taxonomy.  Would you like to see that?

Woukld you like to see where the bible tells us that God created man from His own image?

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

God doesn't have nostrils and earlobes and other body parts.   Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body at all.   The image is in our minds and souls, not our bodies, which God does not have.

If you can believe God's word on it.   I believe Him.

"God" is a godhead with a Son who has the things men have the attributes of. Spirits can have shapes, otheriwse how does a spirit "sit" in heaven on a throne? And how does Jesus "sit" at God's right hand? Let me say that again. RIGHT HAND.

[The Barbarian]

Show us that.

33 minutes ago, Starise said:

Sure, do you have a bible?

I was hoping you could show us some evidence.   You seem to be avoiding that.

34 minutes ago, Starise said:

Yes, hence the DNA squabble repeated over and over.

There is no squabble in genetics.   We know that DNA indicates common descent.   We can check that conclusion by looking at organisms of known descent.

35 minutes ago, Starise said:

This in no way confirms we came from them.I would not use the word genetically here

If you have to avoid subjects because the evidence doesn't fit your assumptions, isn't that an important clue?

36 minutes ago, Starise said:

I don't see it as a  genetic connection so much as a DNA share

Genes are DNA.  I though you knew.

36 minutes ago, Starise said:

God said we were created in His image DIRECTLY from the elements in the ground.

No.   "Directly" is your addition to His word.

37 minutes ago, Starise said:

You either believe that or you believe evolution.

No, that's wrong, too.   If God had magically poofed everything into existence, evolution would still work exactly as it works today.

There are many, many transitional hominids between apes and humans.  Would you like to learn about some of them, and how we know they are transitional?   Even knowledgeable YE creationits admit that they exist.   Would you like me to show you that?

38 minutes ago, Starise said:

The only thing you could possibly show me is a fabrication.

"They are all lying" as a response is an important tip-off for people.   You sure you want to use that?

39 minutes ago, Starise said:

I only care about what the bible says.

Then just accept it as it is, without YE additions.

God doesn't have nostrils and earlobes and other body parts.   Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body at all.   The image is in our minds and souls, not our bodies, which God does not have.

If you can believe God's word on it.   I believe Him.

41 minutes ago, Starise said:

"God" is a godhead with a Son who has the things men have the attributes of.

No.   Jesus is wholly man and wholly God.   Man has a body.   As Jesus taught, God, being a spirit, does not.

42 minutes ago, Starise said:

Spirits can have shapes, otheriwse how does a spirit "sit" in heaven on a throne? And how does Jesus "sit" at God's right hand? Let me say that again. RIGHT HAND.

Here, you assume figurative speech means that Jesus was wrong in saying that God does not have a body.   I disagree.

 

[RdJ]

On 1/26/2024 at 1:56 AM, The Barbarian said:

His emphasis is on his new interpretation of scripture. 

It's just a fact.   YE creationism is a very modern revision of God's word.   As late as the 1930s Scopes trial, the creationism presented at the trial was OE.

In the 1800s, the Baptist theologian Spurgeon admitted millions of years of Earth history. 

The Biblical account of creation was never about just a few thousand years.   That's a very modern revision.

No, that's wrong too.  First, the YE doctrine is a revision of the creation story.    

And second, over 1500 years ago, Christian theologians like Origen and Augustine were aware that the "days" of creation were not literal days.

Nope.  

Augustine is recent. Why do Jews say we live in 5784 then?

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/creation-days-and-orthodox-jewish-tradition/

 

Anyway I agree with you that it is not a salvation issue, although it can be used to get someone saved. Dr. Lumsden was an atheist and evolution professor and he was forced to teach creationism and he did it with a lot of mockery. A YEC student asked him questions he couldn't answer and he said evolution was bankrupt and that's why he got convinced God exists and later he got saved.

I wonder if there are also opposite stories. Say a christian learned all that stuff in school and started to doubt if God even exists and then some christian said: hey but God created everything through evolution and the big bang and yay they're back on track and don't doubt His existence anymore, because if so I'm like who cares what they believe. Why on earth would I do a lot of effort to convince them it's literal days? Who cares.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Renskedejonge said:

Augustine is recent. Why do Jews say we live in 5784 then?

For the same reason we say it's 2024 AD.    Tradition.   But Jesus was not actually born in year 0.    We don't know precisely when.

1 hour ago, Renskedejonge said:

Anyway I agree with you that it is not a salvation issue, although it can be used to get someone saved. Dr. Lumsden was an atheist and evolution professor and he was forced to teach creationism and he did it with a lot of mockery. A YEC student asked him questions he couldn't answer and he said evolution was bankrupt and that's why he got convinced God exists and later he got saved.

In fact, it usually goes the other way.    A lot of real people lose their faith because they were wrongly taught that YE creationism is an essential doctrine of Christianity. 

I did a little reading of Dr. Lumsden, and he turns out to be a physician, and not very familiar with biology according to the story.   He actually thought science says DNA was formed by chance, and that evolutionary theory say that species evolved by chance. 

No wonder he abandoned science for YE creationism.   I'd give up on science if I thought that was the case, too.

Here's a case where an informed YE almost lost his faith when he realized that it could not be true:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

https://peacefulscience.org/articles/glenn-morton/

Morton was one of the lucky ones.    This is the real damage that YE creationism does to God's church.

2 hours ago, Renskedejonge said:

I wonder if there are also opposite stories. Say a christian learned all that stuff in school and started to doubt if God even exists and then some christian said: hey but God created everything through evolution and the big bang and yay they're back on track

Pretty much what saved Morton.   Once he realized that evolution and other sciences are completely compatible with scripture, all the issues he had, went away.  

[Mozart's Starling]

I gotta be blunt, the amount of cognitive dissonance and delusional thinking one has to have to think the creation account of Genesis is in ANY way compatible with evolution is astonishing. There's nothing vague or mysterious about how Genesis reads. It's clear as day and you're lying to yourself or intentionally making it unclear to say otherwise.  Plus the idea that the original people would have been come up with the idea of evolution from the Genesis account is laughable. It's painfully obvious that one who is a supposed Christian and fully buys into evolution and spreads its lie is prioritizing modern scientific conclusions above the word of God and warping it beyond recognition. It's hard to tolerate. You can't serve two masters. Be honest with yourself and pick one. Is it man's account you trust or God's?

Edited January 31, 2024 by Mozart's Starling