Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Bret and Lucien,

You are jumping into technical biological and genetic issues before we have settled the Biblical basis for your views. I have brought up many issues with your Biblical basis for being anti-evolutionists and received virtually no response on literal interpretation issues or justification on what I perceive (and perhaps others) as misunderstood Biblical literal interpretations of symbolic verses. How can we have a meaningful discussion on technical biological issues which you know very little about when we can't even have a meaningful discussion on Biblical issues which you do know something about (albeit distorted)? I intend to address the technical aspects, however, unless we reach a common understanding of what the Bible has to say, I don't see any chance for a meaningful technical discussion on this topic.

Among the many, here are two key issues that you need to address (in case you have forgotten them) before proceeding with the technical scientific issues.

Issue 1) Genesis 1 makes the following historical statements:
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree...
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind..."
The Bible does not say God created each animal according to its kind as you have indicated. A straight forward reading of these Bible verses is in opposition to your belief that God popped animals into existence. The earth and the water brought the animals forth and did it in a natural way because the earth and the waters have no God like powers to pop things into existence. God decreed that this is the way plants and animals are brought into this world and not by Him popping the plants and critters into existence as you are claiming.

Issue 2) In my view, Genesis 2 and 3 contain symbology. Lucien, you have stated that there is no symbology in Genesis because it is a historical account. Yet other historical accounts such as Job, contain a significant amount of symbolism. I have identified some of the symbolism, but Lucien, you have denied that any of it is. Your case against evolution is founded upon your belief that these verses (that I think are symbolic) can only be interpreted literally. Yet, if your view is true, some of these verses are in direct conflict with Genesis 1.

For example, plants bearing fruit are created on Day 3 before animals on Day 5 or Adam and beasts of the field on Day 6. Birds are created on Day 5 before the beasts of the field and Adam are created on Day 6. Genesis 1 points out that cattle (a beast of the field) is brought forth by the earth on 'Day 6' before Adam is made in the image of God. Yet Genesis 2 points out that after Adam is made from the dust, God made the fruit trees to grow out of the ground, then God formed the beasts of the field and birds of the air out of the ground and brought them to Adam to name. There is also the issue of whether the rain started on Day 2 according to Genesis 1 or Day 7 according to Genesis 2. If Genesis 2 is simply read and taken without symbolism, there is direct conflict in the two Bible accounts of creation. This is the case if Genesis 2 is interpreted either as a historical summary of creation or as Stu stated earlier as a supplement account after or on Day 6.

I believe that the Bible is inerrant, so I am forced to believe that Genesis 2 and 3 is allegory relating to the spiritual nature of man. You have stated that these Genesis accounts are historical, however, if you analyze correctly what was historically stated, you are forced to conclude that these accounts contain errors in the sequence of events. No one has responded to this obvious conflict! No one could and maintain a correct historical perspective on Genesis 2. The only way out of this inerrent dilema is to accept Genesis 2 from a different perspective (such as a spiritual plan putting mankind foremost). Other non-real or symbolic entities such as the Tree of Life, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the talking serpent (Satan) further support the view that Genesis 2 and 3 is a symbolic account of the plan for the creation of mankind's spiritual nature which does have an eternal life and controls the desire for the knowledge of good and evil. To state otherwise, makes one wonder if you are really in touch with reality and using all of your faculties. You really need to address this or concede that these verses contain some symbolism. It doesn't have to match my view on the symbolism, but at least is a symbolic account.

Please address at least these major issues of Biblical interpretation before me move to technical issues. Maybe, you don't want to address my questions and issues since you don't have logical answers or justification for your position. If not, that's okay, I didn't think that you would, just let me know that you don't so we can move on. If I don't hear from you on these, I and other readers will have to assume that your claims on evolution are Biblically unfounded. You will have then a very weak foundation for your hard stance against evolution in general and Darwinism specifically.

Lee

Hi Bret,


I wholeheartedly agree that a bumblebee without wings is not a shred of the creature God intended it to be, and although the loss of wings gives it a higher survival chance on windy island, it has lost its majesty and if placed back into the world with winged bumblebee's, it would soon lose out.
So the circumstances it is in dictates whether the loss is actually a benefit.


Lucien

Lucien ...

I know that I may be going off of the standard accepted beliefs here ... but let me explain!
I was careful to state the "Mutations" are always bad "in the long run" !!!
Evolutionists like to point to a few examples of a short-term benefit created by a genetic
mutation! These can all be counted on one hand!
I was actually hoping to get Lee to dust-off one these old examples and trot it out for my
brutal critique! I was surprised to see that he ignored my statement ... and your comment
regarding its need to be corrected? Maybe ... Lee was uncomfortable with the fact that
there was no way of saying that we were both wrong?

I agree with the fact that a loss of some information can often be beneficial ... but I believe
that God designed our genetic code to be that way!
I believe that a "Mutation" is defined as an Error ... or a mistake in the code! (not a loss!)
Based on my Faith in a Perfect God ... without compare ... I can't accept the premise that
ANY kind of random mistake could ever make an improvement that God somehow forgot
to anticipate! I have yet to see an example of this happening!
Is there anybody out there that would like to challenge my premise?
Of course! ... I could be wrong? But ... can God ever be wrong?


20 Bret*11

Lee,


Short answers can be a breath of fresh air compared against long-winded replies.

Bozarth's axiom is:
Atheist --> a-theos --> there is NO god.
Psalm 14:1 (among others) says: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Therefore, Bozarth's axiom is wrong.

To keep up his axiom, he will need to resort to purely naturalistic explanations of life, the universe and everything.
This is evolution.
Naturalism is ultimately an enemy of Christianity, because it neglects/ignores/hides(/condemns?) the supernatural.
When religion was 'taken out of schools', they did not take it out, they replaced it with humanism.
Humanism/naturalism/materialism all swear by evolution:
Humanist manifesto III:
...life .... It evolved...
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

Bozarth is logical, but wrong on his starting point and therefore ends up on the wrong path of life.

You are different than Bozarth.
You believe God used evolution. Technically He could have. (God can do anything, He is omnipotent)
Theologically He could NOT.
There is no point discussing whether God could have done this or that.
The question is whether He did, and if it fits with His character and revelation in His Word.
Old-earthers like yourself usually end up having to do a lot of complex explanations and brain gymnastics to convey their point, whereas the plain Biblical text is usually sufficient to take as written.
No elaborate explanations to 'laymen' are needed, because they can read the Bible for themselves.


Lucien

Lucien,

I'm not letting you off that easy. You posted Bozarth's comments like you believe them and now are not responding in any substantial way to my critique of his statements or in any tangible way on your views toward either his comments or my critique. I am glad that you agree with my logic however, if the axiom I express is 'wrong' in your opinion, you need to state what your view of the axiom is and provide some justification of why you think my view is incorrect. Your last post was a totally inept and evasive defense of your views as well as the atheist axioms that you seem to have believed. Your post is an inadequate response for this debate!

Lee

Lee said: "Evolution is another example the author uses to support his flawed logic."

Lucien answers: His logic is rock solid, but his axiom is incorrect.

Bret,

Except for the following, I agree with your first paragraph statements. I was actually addressing 5) when I stated that 'I don't think that you are stupid'.
Raca - (Roughly translated "fool" but means "You good-for-nothing moron!")) (Matthew 5:22)
I think it may have been too subtle for you to pick up on though. I have not tried to address 3) as yet. How about answering some of my questions to you as well or are you unwilling to answer them?

You seem to try and group all of the scientific community together with a common view. I can certainly attest that this is not the case. There are many different perspectives held by this community and it holds a broad span of views. People of all religions become scientists. The atheists among them are certainly plentiful, but do not speak for everyone and their views are not held as truth by many scientists. Please be careful to not stereotype an entire group of people, as you know God made us all unique.

Another statement that I disagree with is:
'Science (by definition) can NOT accept anything that can not be explained naturally!'
This is not a universally accepted definition of what science is. In fact there is not a universally accepted definition of science. This view is certainly held my many atheists, but it is not held by the many other scientists that are religious. Causation is certainly a fundamental concept held by virtually all scientists and the understanding of the cause of events is what drives virtually all scientists. For atheists the cause must be natural. For others, this cause can be divine, but these scientists will exhaust all other natural possibilities before concluding a divine supernatural cause. This is where we stand presently with the Big Bang. Atheist scientists are proposing natural causes. Religious scientists point to God. No empirical data will be ever be available to conclusively prove the actual cause.

Since you asked me why so many scientists are atheists, I will give you my opinion. I think many enter the various fields of science in their youth to make a good income, to learn more about how this universe operates and its history, and hope to discover some new truths that will benefit mankind along the way. Perhaps some young misguided students with an atheistic view might even go into it with the goal of understanding everything about the universe to make a case that God is unnecessary. Many science professors in universities and high school teachers certainly seem to push this propaganda these days. I was certainly a victim of the system for many years, until I learned independently from Hugh Ross about the fine tuning of Nature's physical constants. Few universities teach this to their students. If all schools were required to teach fine tuning of the physical constants to their students, I believe there would be a lot fewer atheists in the scientific community. So the problem with a high number of atheist scientists partially results from what is taught to students in public schools it seems to me.

I will have more to say about your inclusion of all God generated 'information' as he pops a new kind into existence out of nothing, but I wanted to ask you first the following question N2) If God makes all the kinds and their descendents in this way, what limits God from making a cyano bacteria with divine information content that can have descendents that become trees after billions of years. In other words, where are the kinds limited by the divine genetic information which forces God to pop a new kind into existence out of nothing? It seems to me that you are opening up a can of worms by stating that God puts extra genetic code and information into the first kind which results in all of the variations of the descendants of that kind but then state that this same process was not good enough to create all species and kinds from the first living organism.

Lee

Not ALL mutations are bad.
Most are bad, I readily concede.
I also agree that no mutation (that I or Richard Dawkins know of) show an increase of information.
But losing the info for wings on the bumblebee on a windy island prove to be good (no being blown over open water), but still a loss of info. The wings were gone once and for all.

A must read for anyone interested in genetics would be Sanford's book: Genetic entropy & the mystery of the genome.

Lee ...

I believe that you meant to write that you answered my 1st three questions ... not 1, 2, & 5 ???
In short ... you believe that God can (& did) create something out of nothing!
You agreed that He created the Universe (& all that is in it) from absolutely nothing at all !!!
Yes! ... science does indeed point to this event as being inescapable!
But ... the scientific community recoils at the thought of a supernatural explanation!
Science (by definition) can NOT accept anything that can not be explained naturally!
I can totally understand the need to resist plugging a capital "G" into every equation that
shows signs of difficultly in discovering its true resolution!
We may have never discovered many major breakthroughs in Science if it were not so?
But ... when this mandate is taken to its extremes ... it has caused good scientists to create
some very bad conjectures to explain those things that the true explanation is "G" (God) !!!
Once you've accepted a false premise as a Scientific Fact ... everything that is built upon
this error is just more error!


We both believe in "Micro" Evolution!
I personally prefer to call this Genetic Variation!
I do NOT believe that this acquired by multiple mutations over millions of generations!
I believe that ALL of the extra genetic information needed to produce multiple species
from a single Created Kind ... was purposely put there at their moment of creation!
This variation ultimately expresses itself through natural reproduction and (Yes!)...
Natural Selection as their environment changes and certain traits become more useful
than others! But ... this genetic flexibility has its limits! Genetic information can be eliminated
over time ... but new information is NEVER created over time!
There is only ONE creator of information ... and we know Him as "God" !!!
Because of sin ... often times this information is corrupted ... and can produce a mutation!
These mutations are ALWAYS bad ... and detrimental to the species in the long run!
I can explain bacterial mutations to you ... if you want to argue the atheistic party line with me?

Science does indeed prove that there is a God !!!
Scientists ... generally do NOT believe in God! Why is this?
Plus ... believing in God is Deism!
Believing that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour is a whole nother ballgame!


20 Bret*11

Lucien, now I understand why you fear science so much. You took the authors comments as gospel and didn't see the flaws in his logic. However, I can't understand why you would accept an atheist's untruthful statements as a foundation for your views against science. He is totally wrong about his conclusion about science being an ally of atheism, please let me explain why.

The author that you quoted, has assumed falsely that scientific discoveries consistently falsify claims made in the Bible. This is not the case. For example, the Big Bang was confirmed by cosmologists in the early 1990s and provided convincing proof for many physicists and lay people that the first statement made in the Bible is a valid one that God created the heavens and the earth. Before then people hung on to the antiquated popular belief that the universe was steady state instead of expanding from a point of origin created out of nothing as stated in the Bible. Arno Penzias who accepted the Nobel Prize in physics in 1978 for his discovery of microwave background radiation in the 1960s which eventually led to the confirmation of the Big Bang through his discovery made this statement: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” It took almost a century of scientific inquiry starting with the theories of Einstein which predicted a non-static universe to the empirical data collected by WMAP in the 1990s and analyzed by the world's greatest scientific minds to prove this conclusively. This is one of the great validations of a Biblical verse during the last century which couldn't have been done without the scientists. Now, the only thing left for the atheists to hold onto for justification of their beliefs are far out concepts with no justification like the multiverse or an infinite single universe where the physical laws vary. To me, these infinite concepts of space and dimensions are laughable and show the utter desperation of the atheistic community to finding anything that might conceptually work to avoid God.

Science is not the friend of atheists, it is their foe. How could it be any other way, God designed the universe, science discovers how it works and exposes a trail of evidence about its special design characterists that support life in general and humans specifically. Brandon Carter was the first scientist that spelled this out to the scientific community in the 1980s. Barrow and Tipler took this view further along in their book on the anthropic concept in the late 1980s. There is a great amount of evidence from science these days that the universe is designed. Many atheists discover this the hard way as they investigate the facts from science. Young niave atheists snared by propaganda from the popular secular culture and public schools slowly begin to wise up to the vast amount of information available that indicates a Design and Designer. Science has unveiled many examples of fine tuning of the physical constants over the past 50 years which refute the atheist claims that this universe and its ability to host life was just a chance event. As a result of what scientists have found, the atheist is left with only an extremely remote chance of a universe like this occurring in a near-infinitely numbered multi-universe or a near infinitely stretched universe with different physics in separated parts. These atheistic alternatives have no empirical evidence to support the concept while the designed fine-tuned universe has lots of supporting evidence. Anthony Flew was a life long atheist crusader but in recent years switched to our side based on the scientific evidence and the overwhelming logic against atheism.

Numerous examples of fine-tuning in nature are available to sway the atheist toward belief in God if only Christians would study and learn nature's lessons it has taught the scientists and pass them on to non-believers. My involvement in this blog is one attempt to try and pass some of this information along, but, alas, it seems no one here is interested or so afraid of scientists there is no trust left to believe what I am offering. Your post further promotes this misconception about science being the adversary instead of breaking down the barriers between Christianity and the facts we learn about the Natural World.

Evolution is another example the author uses to support his flawed logic. His statements allude to his belief that if evolution created everything without divine intervention, then man was not a special creation, there was no first sin and there is no need for Jesus to save anyone because there is no God. First he neglects to state that he means Darwinism instead of evolution. Only the Darwinian process of evolution supports the authors claim. Science has also exposed flaws in the Darwinian process. He assumes falsely that this world has been built on a foundation of random chance and that there is no causal external agent involved in the process to direct its outcome. He also assumes that science will eventually prove that Nature is fundamentally contingent and none supportive of design. These are big false assumptions. There are many scientists that wouldn't accept his presumption of non-causality and a contingent future. Here are some big names in science for just a few that would disagree with his assumptions: David Bohm, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, and Arno Penzias. Not all scientists believe that the universe is inherently unpredictable as some quantum physicists claim. Each points out in there books that the laws of physics are all deterministic, but quantum laws especially have hidden and non-local characteristics that prevent their measurement or that allow experiments to gather their exact characteristics without affecting the original characteristics. Consequently, deterministic information is hidden from us but not a divine omniscient being. This point of view is still being debated after almost one hundred years. The atheist has made the wrong assumption to base his views in this case. Some types of evolution such as progressive creationism that I have been promoting strongly support the Christian views and verses in the Bible.

Lee

Hi Stu


Hope we haven't lost ya along the way.

As Lee and Bret are answering each other's questions, let me ask you this:

What do you think of those quotes I put up on April 12th, by Richard Bozarth?



Lucien

Bret,

I would enjoy answering your questions as we go through this debate, but I would like to do it at a slower pace by going into each topic in some detail so as to convey some understanding to one-another along the way. Let's exhaust each question then move onto the next. Your list of questions covers a lot of information space and we need to explore each at length to eliminate misperceptions, distortions, and mis-information. Also, answering all of your questions would create an enormous size post to properly address the questions listed and one which would heavily tax all readers. I would like to break this list down into digestable pieces.

Response to Questions 1,2, & 5: There is only one case that I know of where God popped something real from nothing into existence which is backed up by statements in the Bible: Ge 1:1. 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The Big Bang exemplifies this great creation event where the entire universe came into existance from nothing and billions of years later results in the Earth. To me this is the only case of popping substantiated both in the Bible and substantiated by test data in the natural realm. All other cases of popping things into existance from nothing will have to be demonstrated or substantiated to me by quoting from Bible verses. I believe you will have a great difficulty with this since you haven't been able to show me thus far a single example of a verse like you state 'popping' or 'speaking things into existance' in the entire Bible. John was the closest, where it states that the Word was made flesh in Jesus. However, we also know that Jesus was born of Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit which again is more evidence for God using natural processes for achieving His will. Personally, I believe you have imagined that the Bible has stated this and it has become a trusted basis for your YE and anti-evolution views. However, there is no factual or Biblical substance that I know of for popping other material things (besides the universe) into existance. Please show me if you are aware of some verses and we can discuss them. This is mostly why I have sometimes made the statement that the YEs are not in touch with reality. I know you guys aren't stupid nor would I call you that directly; I wouldn't be debating these topics with you if I thought you were. I just think you have lost touch with reality at times and I would like to close this gap for you by providing a different perspective that incorporates reality and the Bible.

I have already pointed out to you Bible verses that state that in Ge 1 God 'lets' the earth and the water 'bring forth' plants and animals. Since the earth and waters do not have special powers to pop material things out of nothing into existance the word 'let' disengages God from the direct creation of plants and animals and engages the earth and waters into this creation process. You are misrepresenting the Bible when you state God spoke the animals and plants into existance or popped them into existance out of nothing. That is not what the Bible states, it is what your imagination has made you think the Bible has stated. The Bible clearly states in Genesis that God has the earth and waters bring them forth and the only way that they can do this is in a natural way according to the laws of physics and natural procreation. You and others are reading more into this statement, by inferring that God spoke animals into existence from nothing if this verse is the basis for your belief.

I brought up the mule having a common ancestor to illustrate my evolutionary point (and yours also as it turns out) that there is indeed hard limits as to which species of animals can interbreed to produce offspring. This is a result that applies to evolution as well as creation of kinds. Slow genetic drift can also produce hard limits in the genetic sequence between isolated groups over long time periods. Hard genetic limits don't favor either point of view. If you think is does try to prove your case.

Next Related Questions: N1) Do you believe that small genetic variations within a kind result from natural processes related to genetic code from each parent or something else? You indicated in a previous post that there is genetic variation within a kind from generation to generation. So, N1A) Does this variation occur by natural means through parental conception, embryonic development, and the natural birth process? If something else please explain the process.

Lee

As we are waiting for Lee's answers to Bret's questions, here are some quotes from Richard Bozarth in American Atheist's article "the meaning of evolution" from February 1978.


Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution.

It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

Atheism is science's natural ally. Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilisation. If we work for the American Atheist today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity's demise when science and evolution triumph.

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!


Interesting, isn't it?

Some questions for Lee ...


1). Can God create something out of nothing?

2). Has God ever created anything out of nothing?

3). Did God create the 1st living cell ... or did Life evolve from non-life?

4). Do you believe that the 1st living "thing" was a single cell ???

5). What is the ONLY word that God told us to never say about another?



20 Bret*11

1) Do you believe each different species was popped into existance out of thin air sometime in history in spite of this evidence to the contrary?

I believe that each different "Kind" of animal was created on the literal Day mentioned in Scripture!
Each "Kind" of animal was created with varying degrees of variability in it's DNA!
This gave each of the animal "Kinds" the ability to adapt to various living conditions!
From this ... the original Horse "Kind" adapted into various "Species"... such as the Zebra
& the Donkey ... and even an occasional Mule! (plus several sub-species of each as well)
We know this because these animals can be interbred!

2) Or are you saying that each species popped into existance naturally by birth but the natural process cannot deviate the genetic code sufficiently to produce new types of animals?

The Mule is a perfect example of this Genetic Limitation !!!
Mules can NOT reproduce !!!
Without human intervention ... Mules would be as rare as Jackalopes!

But ... just to be clear! The original pairs of "Kinds" where spoken into existence!
I'm not sure if this was actually accompanied by a "popping" sound ... or not?


20 Bret*11

Okay, I'm in. How about answering the questions you stated in your latest post for starters (#1&2)? Please don't be flippant with the answers. I will number future questions as well. I will also go back and number my unanswered questions as well in recent posts up to 8 weeks ago as well rather than restating them all.

Lee

PS I ended up with 13 unaddressed and unresolved questions that I would like to get an answer from someone.

O.K. Lee ...

Let's BOTH put personal accusations aside ... and gird our etiquette to a realm that
would make Emily Post proud!

May I also suggest that instead of guessing what Lucien, Stu, or myself believe about
something ... (creating a Straw Man)... then tearing it down ... could you PLEASE just
ask us a CLEAR question ... and then wait for us to answer it?

Listing them by number (#) might also help everyone keep track of each question!
I will be doing the same ... as I ask you direct questions ... and hope to get DIRECT answers!

Why don't you start with breaking down this Straw Man into focused questions?

It seems to me that the YEs do not believe that horses, mules, donkeys, and zebras all descended from a common ancestor by natural birth. This is in spite of the high degree of genetic match between these species and in light of the way that mules are conceived and born. This is where I have great difficulty in taking your views seriously and why I state the YE views are out of touch with reality. Do you believe each different species was popped into existance out of thin air sometime in history in spite of this evidence to the contrary? Or are you saying that each species popped into existance naturally by birth but the natural process cannot deviate the genetic code sufficiently to produce new types of animals?

I promise to answer ALL of your questions ... when they're asked & listed clearly !!!
Ask me 100 questions? ... You'll get 100 answers!
Can you promise me the same?


20 Bret*11

Bret, Is that the best response that you can muster? Seems like a diversion for the logical inconsistencies that the YEs face. Anyway, I was calling you crude not your father. You brought the crude remark your father made into this. I am sure that when he was crude, he did it in a private or family setting. Even if he didn't keep it private, you should keep this type of vulgarity to yourself. You have crossed the line with your public bursts of crudity in a Christian debate. So stop it already. Yes, this is the real world, but that kind of language has no place here!

Also, how about adressing the points I've brought up instead of the focus on personal attacks. You surely must have some defense. All I am seeing from you and Lucien is vague assertions without any substance to back them up. You still haven't addressed the inconsistencies in the Bible text from the literal (without symbology) interpretation perspective and neither has Stu. Are you in agreement with Lucien that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are made of wood and produce real eatable fruit like Lucien does? Or are you afraid to agree with me that these were symbolic trees relating to mankind's desires to live spiritually forever and taste the fruit of evil behavior that God forbid. Which is it?

Lee

Lee ...

Enough with the false indignation already!
You can't possibly be that thin-skinned or prissy?

Besides ... do you even realize that you called my father "Crude & Vulgar"?
This man risk his life serving our Country ... so you could live your pampered one!
The Navy has a way of getting your attention ... and making a profound statement that
puts you back in your place in the chain of command!
I'm quite sure that the expression that I shared with you ... was one of the tamer ones
that the Navy had to offer ... back in the day!

You love to tell Lucien & I what we believe!
But ... you're so often wrong ... I felt the need to bring it your attention!
Using that expression got your attention!
And ... (as you confessed) my accusation was spot-on!
You have done ZERO creditable research into the Science & Beliefs of the traditional
and modern Young Earth viewpoint!
This means that you are admittedly speaking from ignorance!

You keep saying that we can't tell the difference between fantasy & reality!
Putting your life on the line to fight against evil is about as REAL as it gets!
The use of colorful & even coarse language ... is the real World that we live in!
You might not like it ... but that's reality!

MAN is the one that creates the list of unspeakable "Words"!
God only told us of one word that we should never use against another!
I'm sure that a Bible expert (such as yourself) knows what this word is ... don't you?



20 Bret*11

Lucien, I thought you would bow out for a while after your last defeat on historical text that includes symbology in Job for example. By now, you should have read it to see that historical text includes symbolism. But there you go again, butting in when you weren't addressed, now making more illogical remarks and unfounded claims. Why aren't you focusing on the symbology that you missed in your attempts to study the Bible?

Anyway, here are the answers and responses to your claims.
[Lucien]- 'Evolution is too slow for us to observe,
but we assume it happened over millions of years in the past.'

Based on historical written records of breeds of dogs, the rates for genetic changes in dogs, meet and exceed the rates necessary to create millions of species over the history of the earth. If you studied genetics you would know this. The rate of evolution is not too slow to observe if you are willing to accept human historical written data and laboratory tests. The fossil record is historical data as well that shows the structural changes in species, families and phyla as well. The genetic rates of change seen today, support the natural speciation record deposited infrequently over many millions of years.

[Lucien]- 'The fossil record clearly shows distinct groups of kinds, but we keep hoping to find the millions of missing links that must have existed.....But since we don't, we come up with punctuated equilibrium that argues from silence:
Evolution too slow now to observe, but too fast in the past to leave a good fossil record.
'

It is impossible to get a complete fossil record, as most animals are eaten by other animals, and their remains digested and scattered. Occasionally a lucky accident occurs for archaeologists (not the animal) and he finds the dead animal in well preserved state thousands or millions of years later. This has usually been the result of volcanic dust, or underwater land slides that bury the inhabitants in certain areas under a deep cover of dust or silt thus preserving their structure and form. This results in 'snapshots of the evolutionary history'. However, in these lucky samples we have all types of new flora and fauna that do not currently exist on the earth. This is proof that change in form, size and function has occurred over the history of the earth. The 'distinct groups of kinds' is a result of the 'snapshots' taken in the geologic record because of the natural accidents. Because these natural accidents are not continuous but discrete rare events throughout the history of the earth within existing phyla, all the intermediates will never be recovered due to the fact that infrequent events preserve them. We at least have some evidence however, because of these natural events. This is another example of a benefit from plate tectonics, creating rare and important historical records for humanity to piece together the history of the earth. If you read a book on archeology and geology you would know this.

You don't know enough about science to even comment on it, let alone pass judgment on it, so I am ignoring your remarks on science. You haven't earned the right to judge any of their work since you know and understand so little about reality and its laws.

Lucien, I enjoy a good fantasy a well as anyone. I think it is a important aspect of wisdom however, to be able to separate it from reality. Shamefully, this seems to be a point lost by the YEs. If I ever really do need to find a talking donkey, all I have to do is post something on this blog and I'll be sure to get a response from one. How's that for some symbolism!

Lee

Evolution is too slow for us to observe,
but we assume it happened over millions of years in the past.

Speciation of dogs happens quickly, but one kind morphing into another kind is assumed to have happened over millions of years in the unobserved past.

The fossil record clearly shows distinct groups of kinds, but we keep hoping to find the millions of missing links that must have existed.

But since we don't, we come up with punctuated equilibrium that argues from silence:
Evolution too slow now to observe, but too fast in the past to leave a good fossil record.

And all this we call science.
Science what we pretend is empirical, repeatable, observable, but really is 'historical' science, which was not observed, is not repeatable and is basically a belief, a faith.

Then we show that we have in no way understood the others's viewpoint (but we complain that we ourselves are always misunderstood) by thinking (as believer in the tree of life) that YE's believe God created the grass, rather than the orchard.

Lee, the above of course is dripping with sarcasm and I suspect that you do not understand the "tree, grass and orchard" SYMBOLS. Simply because you really don't grasp some crucial Biblical/YE concepts.
What a shame.

One last comment:
Don't look for a fossilised talking ass. Apparently that was only imaginary. And Balaam just floated on a saddle through the air...

Bret, wow, your appeal to vulgar crudity was really compelling and convincing. If your father were viewing this  banter, he would likely spank your behind for the new level of crudity that you have taken the blog to. What else do you have?  Oh, yes, a vague statement that no respected analysis of this verse would support evolution.  Whose, paid YE scientists? Just because your upset because you don't have any good arguments to refute my claims and views, you don't have to resort to vulgar symbolism to support your mockery. Is swearing next on your list of verbal abuse? I hope not. If you don't have any counter arguments, just don't post anything.

Your acceptance of symbolism in the Bible for God to get His points across is a good thing. I see you want to be like Him and use some too.  Unfortunately you have gone too far in the symbolic crudity of recent posts. Please just tender polite and proper responses before you give YE Christianity another undesirable trait. 

You are right about one thing though, I have never read any books that support the YE position. I didn't want to waste my time learning about ill-founded concepts. I have read enough text on numerous YE websites to reach that point of view. Each article that I have read contains assumptions that are not substantiated by reality and its physical laws. So I have no desire to read more false claims and propaganda. 

I am glad you believe in descent with modification. This is a good starting point because it is the same thing that Darwin believed. The genetic code within a kind varies and over long time periods it drifts substantially to make new species possible within subgroups of the original population. This is the way various breeds of horses came into being. Dogs have been breed into Chihuahuas to Great Danes all by natural birth and no popping into existance at anytime. The Evolutionists are only claiming that the characteristics of 'kinds' are drifting over long time periods as advantageous variations occur within the 'kind'  that allows them to multiply and take advantage of new opportunities within the food chain and drifting environments. 

The point that I want to make is that  due to this variation within a 'kind' the characteristics do drift for some of the descendants of dogs (wolves originally) into the Chihuahuas and Great Danes we see today that have formed a symbiotic relationship with humans.  While the great- ancestors, the wolves, are still around and doing well in the wild. Some of the breeds like the two I've mentioned could not hope to procreate naturally. So, these two breeds may have already formed new species by your definition within the brief span of mankind's domestication of the dog. 

There are definitely limits on the  ability to cross- breed 'kinds' by gene splicing since the genetic code mismatches become too great between 'kinds' at some point to support a viable zygote. However, slow variation and genetic drift within the kinds can produce a wide range of characteristics within a species or a family that are viable because there is no large mismatch in genetic code from generation to generation through the natural process. Over hundreds of millions of years, this permits a slow morphing of shape, size, and functionality after each kind into the millions of species we see today.  Over these same time periods the genetic codes of two genetically separated species continue to diverge until the difference in code are fatal to a zygote. This is the strict genetic barrier that you have stated. This inter-species barrier does not apply to the interbreeding population of a species as they are brought forth after their own kind.

It seems to me that the YEs do not believe that horses, mules, donkeys, and zebras all descended from a common ancestor by natural birth.  This is in spite of the high degree of genetic match between these species and in light of the way that mules are conceived and born.  This is where I have great difficulty in taking your views seriously and why I state the YE views are out of touch with reality. 1) Do you believe each different species was popped into existance out of thin air sometime in history in spite of this evidence to the contrary? 2) Or are you saying that each species popped into existance naturally by birth but the natural process cannot deviate the genetic code sufficiently to produce new types of animals?

Since you claim that dogs make dogs only, please explain how the new breeds (species?) have appeared and diversified in our lifetime and in light of how some can no longer interbreed due to their size differences (except through human intervention). The natural birth process has resulted in new species of cogs from dogs (C is for Chihuahua) as the genetic barrier in this case relates to size of the Great Dane.  These two subspecies will no longer be capable of producing descendants naturally. 

Counter to your claim that 'He states several times (right out the gate) that Animals do NOT change from one kind into another'.  The Bible actually states 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1:24

The only way the earth can bring this about is through the natural methods that God created: the physical laws and Nature itself. The earth certainly can't pop new species into existance out of thin air! Unfortunately again you have misinterpreted  and misrepresented the actual Biblical meaning in your last paragraphs to suit the YE dogma. 

Lee

Lee ...

Please don't take this the wrong way ... because I really do enjoy the banter (back & forth)!
But my dad was a WWII Navy Veteran ... and he had a great way of letting me know when
I was making claims about something that he knew were obviously based on my conjecture
and NOT on any kind of informed researched information!
He would say "Son ... quit speaking out of your ass"!

When you said "The expression 'each after its own kind' is misunderstood by YEs to mean
exactly the same as the parents." I was reminded of my dad's expression!

Be honest Lee!
Have you EVER read any Books at all ... that were written by advocates of the YE position?
You often claim to know my views on many things based upon what you call the YE's view!
But because you're usually WAY OFF the mark ... I have to conclude that you've never
even taken the time to read a single Book that expresses the Young Earth viewpoints?

I challenge you to find one single thing anywhere that claims YE's believe that the term
'each after its own kind' means to produce genetic clones of their parents! (sooya)

It means EXACTLY what it says!
Dogs will give birth to Dogs! (not Cogs!)
Cats will give birth to Cats! (not Dats!)
Cows from Cows ... & Pigs from Pigs (NO Pows or Cigs!)

And what do we see EVERYWHERE on Earth?
EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING ON EARTH REPRODUCES AFTER IT'S OWN KIND !!!

If God wanted to use Evolution to fill the Earth with diverse kinds of creatures ...
wouldn't this have been easily achieved by relaxing the strict genetic barriers that
make cross-breeding between "kinds" impossible?

It's as if God went out of His way to clearly anticipate the False teachings of Evolution!
That's why He states several times (right out of the gate) that Animals do NOT change from
one kind into another ... no matter how much false time you try to squeeze into the equation!


20 Bret*11

Bret, 
From my viewpoint,  the natural process of all mammals in procreation is the same: live birth through the birth canal. Monkeys, subhumans, humans all have the same process. You may call it similar due to species type based on size or looks but the process is the same nevertheless.  

On the other hand, each individual born is unique and could not be the same as the parent due to the genetic code as well as three dimensional genetic expression control information patterned on the zygote at the time of conception. Maybe this is the dithering you are refering to.  The expression 'each after its own kind' is misunderstood by YEs to mean exactly the same as the parents. The true meaning of the phrase is the same as the natural process which allows a divergence of genetic and spatially encoded developmental control information in each individual born after the preceding generation: 'each after its own kind'. The expression is very close to literally correct with the proper perspective and not symbolic in my view. In fact, when I first read this verse, I thought this phrase is strong support for evolution and it's methodology. 

All humans are different, all apes are different and this fact can be confirmed from the genetic code by test. I am sure you are aware that this is why crime investigations reliably use genetic evidence to ensure the suspects are tried and punished or held blameless. 

Lee

Lee ...

I must admit that it does depend on your overall view point of God's Creation ... as to how
that verse conveys its apparent meaning!
From my perspective ... it makes perfect sense ... and is completely logical !!!
From your perspective ... it does make sense ... but the logic seems to dither a little!

You said "She popped out of her subhuman mother (more ape than human) as a baby, the same
way she gave birth to Cain and gave credit to God for making it happen."

So ... Zira and Cornelius giving birth to Eve (a HUMAN born to a pair of Apes!) ...
is the same as two humans giving birth to another human?
I think that the term "similar" fits better than calling this situation the "same" !!!

And ... Doesn't this violate God's dictate that the animals are to bring forth after their own kind?
Or ... are ALL the verses that refer to bringing forth after their own kind just more symbology?


20 Bret*11