Earthage 101

A creationist forum to discuss how old the Earth is...All about how God may have done it. No argument whether God did it. We all believe he did.

You are not connected. Please login or register

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

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Go down  Message [Page 8 of 9]

Stu ...

Watching the "Jersey Shore" is a waste of time!
Discussing God's Word is NEVER a waste of time!

My point was that ... if you're persuaded into believing that people will be more likely
to open up to the Holy Spirit if the Church is willing to blur its beliefs with those of
Secular Scientists as to not be viewed as anti-intellectual ... you're following in the
exact same footsteps that gave us the "Roman" Catholic Church!

If you weren't so quick to accept the unproven assumptions that trick you into believing
that Science has "proven" the existence of "Deep Time"... you wouldn't have to fight so
hard to keep Evolution out of the Church!

Why do you think that the "Intelligent Design" movement has become so ineffective?
I believe ... it's because trying to sell 1/2 the "Truth" never has the same impact
as offering-up the whole package !!!

People will wait in line for hours to get a good Sizzling Steak!
The line gets a lot shorter when you're just offering up the Sizzle! Razz

20 Bret*11

View user profile

177Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Reply to Lucien on Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:11 am

Thanks Lucien for introducing me to "white hole cosmology." I am unaware of it. It sounds like a concept similar to what drew me to explore Schroeder's cosmology. But I don't know, so please explain it to me.

What I'm currently thinking is the possibility that time dilation (Einstein's relativity theories) is what gives the appearance of age to the universe from our reference point.

Bret -- I agree -- "Day 1" in Hebrew as a cardinal rather than an ordinal is a gem to discover! It still requires interpretation, but it opens up new vistas for trying to understand.


View user profile

178Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Reply to Bret on Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:28 am

Bret and Lucien -- I agree that we're not going to appease, argue or teach anybody into Christianity. It requires an encounter with the Holy Spirit and a humbling of oneself. So then, what are we all doing debating these topics? Are we just wasting time? confused

After two years of going around YE/OE with you guys I have sensed that my goal is really to keep theistic evolution out of the church and help the next generation have credibility in the Bible.

When Christianity Today in its June issue put a hominid on its front cover and then went on to invite theistic evolutionists to the table (at the Church), it broke the last straw of tolerance in me. I've been debating this for years with my friend Lee and a handful of other theistic evolutionist opponents, but its been relatively harmless up until now.

Now TE has gone mainstream -- Christian colleges, evangelical church, CT, ASA, BioLogos, et. al. routinely incorporate evolution into the Bible. This is not an issue of interpretation like Old Earth, Young Earth, Gap Theory --- this undermines the entire theology of evangelical Christianity and biblical inerrancy. (I understand that you may want to put both in the same category Very Happy but surely you see some difference in degree of impact?)

The people who need to be most informed about TE are the young people. There used to be some hope that a Christian college would inoculate them against such drivel, but that is no longer the case. It is a topic that the local Church ignores at the intellectual level -- stopping perhaps at 4th grade flannel graphs or clinging to non-scientific explanations of the facts. The challenge is how do we communicate with young people (an art all by itself) these truths that only few are interested in.

I am thinking of making Monkey Trials into a play for High Schoolers -- a mock trial -- a God in the Dock type of event. I would appreciate and respect both your opinions about that. It will not be a forum to debate YE/OE as you can tell from the 5 days of trial so far. It is to be theological training. Day 6, Jesus will present the Doctrine of Man, and Day 7 Paul will wrap it up with the detrimental ethical impact TE (and evolution in general) is having on the culture.

Keep digging!


p.s. Trial days will be less than 24 hours days Very Happy

View user profile

179Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty still here on Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:53 am

great last post.

creationists have been talking about white hole cosmology for years.
6000 years on time, but billions of years in deep space due to gravitational time dilation.

I have yet to read your mega-post of Lee proportions, but I actually should be reading book on natural disasters for a course with Dr Steve Austin.


View user profile

180Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** Is this who we're trying to appease? *** on Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:02 am

I found this Post (one of many)... following an article that was about the proposed
Christian Theme Park planned to be built in Kentucky called the "Ark Encounter"!

"I get why creationism appeals. It is really pretty simple. Biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, etc, all offer powerful proof complex explanations about our origins, but to understand these explanations one must study, read serious books, write papers, think. Learning is hard!
It is so much less complicated to hide behind a self-righteous religious stance while accepting a child’s story that is patently false, but very easy to understand, even for a 5 year old. It’s all just a cop out for choosing to remain ignorant and refusing to study."

Is this the guy that we're going to reach by accepting "secular" Scientific teachings?
I'll guarantee you that this person (and most anti-Christian bloggers like him)...
honestly know very little to nothing about what these fields of Science actually teach!
They know the Headlines! & the repeated mantras of False information that are heard
everywhere from Kindergarten through their Doctoral dissertations!

You can give these people "Deep Time", "Uniformitarianism", "Evolution", & even "Global Warming"...
but "you" will NEVER reach them!
They could care less about these things ... and honestly don't even really understand
the Science behind them ... except that they're told that the "Smart People" believe in
these things ... and that they prove that there IS NO GOD !!!

It is NOT the "truth" & "enlightenment" that they seek ... but the Subjective Morality!
Not only are they considered to be "Wise" by their peers ... but they (in their own minds)
can no longer be judged for their Immoralities!
EVERYTHING is on the table ... and they're in with the "Brights"!

"You" will NEVER reach these people intellectually!
ONLY a Spiritual encounter (a beat-down)... like Paul received will reach these people!

They are NOT looking for a Scientifically enlightened version of God !!!
They are looking for an intellectual escape from Him !!!

If you're trying to appease these people into the Kingdom ... you're wasting your time!

20 Bret*11

View user profile
Monkey Trials - Day 5. Paul and the Theology of Redemption

So far the Defense has focused on what the biblical text says about the creation of Adam and Eve. However, the primary purpose of Scripture is to relate God's plan for the redemption of mankind from creation to consummation. How does one find Jesus Christ and eternal life? The NT presents the gospel story, and God's primary prophet for telling that story is the Apostle Paul.

Defense: I call the Apostle Paul to the witness stand.

Sir, you know that we are conducting this trial because certain scoffers regard the direct and special creation of Adam as fantasy and have crept into the Bible-believing Church, just like the prophets and our Lord warned us (2 Pet 3:3). These scoffers say that Adam was not the specially created first man; that he had parents -- hominid creatures which were at one time more like chimpanzees than human beings. And likely, there were thousands of these creatures who roamed the earth, and eventually evolved into mankind. Some even say they were given the Spirit of God before Adam arrives. Others say Adam evolved from these creatures and that God selected one of them to be Adam and gave him His Spirit. Supposedly, we all evolved from these creatures -- you, me, Moses, even Jesus! I want you to help us get to the bottom of this based on what the Bible says.

Defense: You have been called the greatest theologian of the NT by most all the Church throughout the centuries. Why is that Sir?

Paul: For whatever reason the Lord had, He chose me to carry His name to the whole world (Acts 9:15). I was personally engaged by the Lord Jesus Himself on a road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19), to proclaim the gospel to Kings as well as everyday people (Acts 24-26). God set me apart before I was born to reveal His Son to the world, and to preach the gospel to everyone (Gal 1:15,16; 2:2, 7-9). He commissioned me to be both a minister and teacher of the Scriptures (Eph 3:7-10; Rms 15:16; 1 Tim 2:7).

Defense: Your Honor, I think it is fair to say that we have testifying before us an expert of the highest order regarding the content and theology of the Bible -- the New Testament, as well as its basis in the Law of Moses. Paul, as you know was considered "faultless as a Jew;" a "Pharisee of Pharisees;" a Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil 3:4-6). After his conversion he went on to author most of the letters of the NT. I have submitted these letters into evidence. They form the basis of the development of Christian theology.

Defense: Sir, I have put before you as Exhibit A your first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 45-49. I would like you to testify as to the meaning of what you wrote here, and what the Church subsequently believed you were teaching.

45Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Paul: I begin with Moses' testimony of what he wrote in Gen 2:7 -- that God directly created the first man Adam from dust and made him a living human being. He gave Adam (and subsequently all of humanity) "natural and perishable bodies." I compare those bodies to the eternal "spiritual and imperishable" bodies which believers receive at the time of their resurrection (which is assured because Christ was resurrected first).

In this text, Christ is understood to be the "last Adam." I explained that a couple sentences earlier (1Cor 15:20-22), "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. " There is the "first man" Adam, and a "last man" Jesus. There are no other "men" before Adam.

Moses said clearly that God created the very first man (Adam) directly from dust -- not from some pre-existent being. By that creation Adam received his human "perishable body." But Christ, the second Person of the Trinity and our second Adam, is a man from heaven. Christ has given us eternal life in "imperishable bodies." This fact is the basis of our identification with Christ. We must get this foundational doctrine absolutely right, otherwise there is no eternal life in Christ.

Defense: I now put before you Exhibit B from your letter to the Romans, chapter 5 verse 12. Please explain to us what you meant by this passage and how the Church subsequently interpreted it.

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.

Paul: Animals, including hominids, don't sin. Man is the only morally responsible earthly creature that God made, and as such is held responsible for his actions. The biblical theology of redemption is to understand the nature and outworking of this accountability. You know the story: Adam sinned; spiritual and natural death resulted for all mankind. God's justice demanded satisfaction and He sent Christ to die for mankind's sins, offering us the free gift of salvation. For all who choose to accept it, there is eternal life with Christ in an imperishable body.

The starting point for this chain of events is Adam's sin. Adam is the first human being, specially created in the image of God as a free moral agent. This is where the Christian theology of Fall and Redemption begins. You do not want to get this wrong or confused. There are no other moral agents (creatures) involved. Roman 5:12 is very explicit. The theology of redemption starts here! To get this doctrine wrong puts one in great jeopardy of getting on the wrong path for salvation. That's not a risk I want to see anyone take.

There were no human beings or sin before Adam. Eve became the mother of all human beings, just as the Scriptures say:

"Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim 2:13). "Eve was the mother of all the living" (Gen 3:20). "Man was not made from woman, but woman from man" (1 Cor 11:8).

There were no colonies, tribes, families of hominids (half animal, half man) that wandered the earth and evolved into humans; or hominids who were "made spiritual" by God to become human. Adam was created first and then Eve. They had sexual relations and began populating the earth (Gen 4:1).

There was no sin before Adam. This lone man brought sin into the world and it permeated all of humanity for the future generations. Not until the Man Christ is born and takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29) is there full redemption. I make it very clear that there was one man -- Adam -- who was responsible for taking all subsequent humanity into sin. And there was one Man -- Jesus Christ -- who redeemed all subsequent mankind. "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven" (1 Cor 15:47).

It is clear that there was no prior race of human beings and no sin prior to the "one man" Adam. And I make that case parallel to the case for redemption which came through the "one man" Jesus Christ. Read Romans 5:12-21 for yourself to see how often and emphatically I make this point.

Defense: Thank you, Sir. You may step down for now. I will be calling you back to continue to defend the Church against theistic evolutionist scoffers and the distortions they have introduced. In some cases they even preach a gospel contrary to what you received directly from the Holy Spirit. That is an anathema (Gal 1:6-12)!

The Bible-believing theistic evolutionist has a real personal challenge at this point. When there's a hard conflict like this one does he eventually come down on the side of the Bible, or does he line up with the entrenched scientific establishment? Science by its very nature is tentative, but the Bible is infallible. Only so much compromise can be rung out of differing interpretations. In this case, the scientific establishment must deem Paul "a man of his times" who hadn't yet been informed of scientific progress. But science has so often proven itself mistaken; the Bible never has. If he puts himself at the mercy of the claims of science then how is he going to believe the rest of Paul's writings -- or any of the biblical writers for that matter? What's at stake for the individual is getting on a path to a different gospel (Gal 1:6). What's at stake for the Church is losing its doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy (2 Tim 3:16-17). Both are terrible outcomes, so one must ask oneself, "Is it worth it?"

View user profile

182Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** I think that Lee makes more sense! *** on Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Relax everyone! ...
I think that Lee's version of Theistic Evolution makes more Scientific & Biblical sense
than Gerald Schroeder's half-baked version!
With that said ... I (personally) believe that God would be repulsed by both of them!

But ... to address Stu's interest into the possibility that there may be a grain of Gold
in Schroeder's Grand Canyon filled with Garbage? I pose the following!

I honestly think that I found one! (?)
He was indeed right about the fact that when you go back to the original Hebrew version
of Genesis ... it says "Day one" (or "one Day") instead of the common English translations
that say "the first Day" !!!
I honestly never really noticed this before!
But here's the Golden Nugget ... as I see it!
This was the initial Creation of a defined period of Time!
God did all that He did during the 1st half of the Earth's rotation ...
then there was the "Evening" (dusk) and there was the "Morning" (dawn)
and that completed God's very 1st established "Time Frame"... One DAY !!!
This is why God made sure to refer to Day-2 as "a second DAY" !!!
Because he wanted to be CLEAR about each DAY being of the same length!
If God had called Day-2 "another Day" or even "Day #2"... then a plausible argument could
be made that these were different kinds of "Days" from the 1st one!

God created a Time-Frame "a Day"... then referred back to this Time-Frame for a
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, & a 7th time!
There had yet to be ANY other Time-Frame references created until well after the Creation
of Everything was finished!
So ... either the Earth was rotating very Very VERY SLOW !!!
Or ... God was talking about a normal Day ... as we know it?

This other issue about where your perspective is from ... resolving the Time difference
between the OE's & the YE's ... is not selling me Steak ... but selling me Sizzle!
I will try to address the problems with this line of reasoning ... when I finally get around
to Posting my rebuttal/critique to Dave's Days of Creation!

Dave has a way of getting me to dig deeper into things that I could have sworn that I had
already reached the core of ... and then I manage to dredge-up even more compelling
evidence to support my arcane beliefs! Go figure?

20 Bret*11

View user profile

183Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** Gov't Entropy *** on Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:34 am

Lee ...

It would seem that our understanding of Entropy is very similar!
The rate of lost or wasted energy can vary greatly depending on the System ...
and the constituents being used therein!

There are some highly engineered Clocks (actually called "Perpetual Motion Clocks")
that exhibit extremely low levels of Entropy when in use!

Then ... we have Gov't Union Workers ... as an extreme opposite example of efficiency!

Even though these 2-systems are exhibiting polar extremes in their levels of Entropy ...
I believe that their separate "rates" of Entropy are fairly consistent!

You stated earlier:

"The entropy was extremely lower then than it is now 13.7 billion years later. Entropy and the physical laws of this universe that God made transformed this energy into matter, galaxies, stars, and planets over a long time as entropy continues to increase and the energy density decreases."

So ... the only part of my Question that I had hoped you could have been a little
clearer on is ...
Did the "rate" of Entropy increase (or change) greatly from the beginning of Creation
until now (present day!) ???

Did the Universe start out like the "Clock"... but wind up like the "Union Workers"?
(pun intended!)


View user profile

184Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Qualifier on Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:27 am

Bret -- Thanks for the push back. Please don't take my comment about Schroeder as an endorsement of his views. I disagree with him on the most fundamental points. First of all he's not a believer. Second of all he is a theistic evolutionist. But I think we can get good ideas from all kinds of sources. (I enjoy Lee's view on how God intervenes in nature by controlling information content). I heard Schroeder interviewed and he seemed to be a humble man dedicated to God's word (OT of course) as the controlling source for his information.

What I was referring to (only) is his idea regarding a reconciliation of 6*24 hour days with a 14 billion year old universe. I'd like to hear your (and others) opinion on that. It involves:
  • The Hebrew for Day 1 versus Days 2-6
  • The frame of reference of the observer and the reader
  • E=MC*C
  • Special and general relativity


p.s. Thanks for your comments this morning on soap and slippery slopes. I'll have something to say about that in future posts. But right now I'm preparing for trial Cool Glad to hear you retain your passion.

View user profile

185Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** Swing & a miss? *** on Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:19 am

Stu ...

Just so you know ... it doesn't give me any pleasure to shine a light on the things
that separate us ... as I was/am really enjoying our points of agreement ... like the
awareness that Evolution doesn't fit with God's Word ... especially when it comes to
the Creation of Adam & Eve!

I really do hate being the bearer of bad news ... but your latest endorsement of
Gerald Schroeder will be warmly received by our current friend & adversary Lee!
Here is an excerpt from HIS own website about his acceptance of the teachings of Nahmanides:

"Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a description for the speck: something very tiny, smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life, Genesis 1:21) and the Neshama (the soul of human life, Genesis 1:27) are spiritual creations.
There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else."

The more I read about this guy ... I truly believe that you've found Lee's mentor?
Correct me ... if I'm wrong?
But ... I think you might want to consider (at the very least) a qualifier to your endorsement?

20 Bret*11

View user profile

186Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** Soap on a Slope? *** on Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:46 pm

Stu ...

Believe it or not?
I actually felt a little compassion for Brother Lee!
Deservedly or not ... the poor guy has been getting gang pummeled ever since he slid down
the slippery slope into the Planet of the Apes!

In reality ... I'm aware that there's virtually no way that all of us could ever reach an effective
consensus on the Creation issue ... and work as a Team against the secular misinformation
that is being used as a Spiritual roadblock to accepting the Truth that God has given us!

It's really sad when you think about it!
Collectively ... we have a Science Engineer ... a veteran Lab & Field Science technician ...
an International (multilingual) Chemical Gas Scientist ... a Science degreed Theologian ...
and an amateur Theologian that owns his own PR firm and knows how to package, promote,
and sell anything!
If we could work together as a Team for God ... we could make a HUGE impact on the war
against Scientific Atheism ... and anti-Christian misinformation !!!

Lucien & I see the accommodation of "Deep Time" into the unchanging Sacred Scriptures
that God has revealed to us ... as the Soap on the Slope into confusion & contradiction !!!

The two of us are the only ones (out of the five that I mentioned) that are singing the same tune!
The other three (the OE's) represent 3 of the 4 steps towards Scientism!
Dave just wants to stretch the first few Days!
Stu wants to stretch all seven!
Lee wants to add (God driven) Evolution!
The Bio Logos folks want to swap that out for Darwinian Evolution!
Guess what's at the bottom of this Slope?
*** DEISM !!! ***
No Savior? ... No Salvation !!!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

187Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Replies on Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:40 pm

Lucien (Aug 7) -- I have read your previous posts and agree that it is not necessary to hold to an old earth interpretation of the Bible. Similarly I do not think it is necessary to hold to a young earth position either. Unlike evolution (theistic or otherwise), which I think the Bible clearly rejects, the age of the earth remains an open question.

Lee (Aug 7) -- You know thermodynamics well, and you have theorized how God could have used fixed physical laws and information fine-tuning to perform miracles of evolution. But it doesn't follow that is what the Bible teaches. So far, all you have done is depreciate the biblical texts to allegory rather than history (where the biblical text clearly testifies against your theories), and present your own personal interpretation of key texts to overturn what the evangelical Church has believed for millennia. I'm afraid that does not win an argument.

Your temper tantrums and accusations are not going to change the fact that the Bible does not teach we evolved from "monkeys." And my client, the evangelical Church, is not about to let you bully it into believing that we did.

However, since my play "Monkey Trials" has caused you such grief, I will respect your privacy and relieve you of the responsibility of being the plaintiff's attorney. Going forward, Thevol will substitute in and pick up the plaintiff's case from here. Thevol is currently coming up to speed on the defense testimony presented from the Bible.

Bret -- (Aug 8) Is your post a declaration of guilt by association? Are your making "special creation" just another point in a litmus test for judging all OEers-- "(Lee) has only taken slightly more liberty than Hugh Ross and others that hold to an Old Earth interpretation of God's Word!". I thought special creation was a hill all of us (except for Lee) were prepared to die on. I know it is for me. That's how I "stop Evolution from creeping into the picture." I am surprised by your apparent lack of passion so far in rigorously defending that position.

All -- I have just come across a fascinating view recently popularized by Gerald Schroeder who holds to a 24 hour creation day and a 14 billion year old universe. Dr. Schroeder is an Orthodox Jew and a serious student of the Torah and it's ancient commentaries. He is also a MIT Ph.D physicist. His theory attempts to reconcile YE/OE positions regarding "yom" and the "apparent age" of the universe and is worth looking at --- especially the Hebrew text regarding day 1 versus days 2-6.

View user profile

188Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Q&A 1 on Entropy on Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:19 am

Thanks Bret for taking interest on this.  I also appreciate your remarks in your previous post.  I will try to answer your questions as simply as I can.  Please get back with me if my answers to your questions are unsatisfactory or insufficient.  Understanding entropy in detail is difficult and is the subject in college courses on thermodynamics, communication,  and information theory.

[Bret]- 'I understand that Entropy is a very difficult animal to cage!

Yes, even though the concept is simple of information that is ordered transitioning to information that is disordered, it can get quite difficult to follow when the natural laws are applied to a particular system or domain.  I appreciate your interest in trying to understand and capture the beast.

[Bret]- 'Are you saying that "The second law of thermodynamics" has changed from the beginning of Creation ... to our present day?'

I don't believe it has except when God decides to add information (order) to the system.  One example is miraculous healing, another possible example would be the creation of life, another would be the resurrection of Jesus, another would be surviving the fiery furnace. There are many more Biblical examples, but the point is that God can control His laws to reverse the effects of entropy and reorder matter to regain the pristine order or information that it needs to live. All the physical laws are time reversible and thereby support reversing entropy.  

[Bret]- 'You mentioned how it was weaker in the beginning ... and has increased since?'

Entropy does not occur at constant rate for every system. The rate of change of information depends strongly of the phase of the matter: gas, liquid, or solid and what the matter and energy consists of.  The entropy of various systems will change at dramatically different rates depending on the motion of the boundary, the energy flow across the boundary, and the composition of matter and information inside boundary. All this is affected by the physical laws and their related interactions with each other.  

[Bret]- 'You talked about variability with some of the Fixed Laws ... is this one of them?'

Entropy is one that I believe God can control precisely by using the control variables in the other fixed laws to reverse or stop entropy.  


View user profile

189Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** Question for Lee? *** on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am

Lee ...

I honestly enjoyed the warmer tone of your latest Post!
You invited questions (at least from Lucien) at the end!
I'm hoping that you might help me out by answering mine?

I understand that Entropy is a very difficult animal to cage!
There are many variables that dictate how it works!
(Open System or Closed, The Temperature {or Energy} differences between sources)
But ... what I need to know from you is ...

Are you saying that "The second law of thermodynamics" has changed from the
beginning of Creation ... to our present day?
You mentioned how it was weaker in the beginning ... and has increased since?
You talked about variability with some of the Fixed Laws ... is this one of them?

Thanks (in advance) for the clarification!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

190Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Life and Death From Entropy-Round 2 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:57 am

All Others, 
Now that Lucien and others with similar views understand that entropy is related to death, disease, and suffering and since Lucien refuses to believe that the effect of entropy (life and death) in this world can be good, I need to continue my challenge of his view that entropy and its consequence of death, disease and suffering started at the Fall and get him to understand that it started at the beginning of this universe. My apology for taking more of your time in enduring this extra post to those of you that have understood what I have stated so far and realize that entropy was part of this world from the instant of creation.

Lucien, thanks for your thoughtful remarks and challenges to my views on entropy.  I see that this is important for you and perhaps others with similar views and want to help you see a way through this issue and understand that God is still good by including entropy from the beginning.  

I am sure that you believe that life, the sun, light, and the earth  are all good things.  Each of these would never have come into existence without entropy operating in our early universe (Days 1-5).  God brought all of these things into being from an extremely  ordered high energy state at the beginning of creation in the Big Bang.  The entropy was extremely lower then than it is now 13.7 billion years later.  Entropy and the physical laws of this universe that God made transformed this energy into matter, galaxies, stars, and planets over a long time as entropy continues to increase and the energy density decreases.  One of these stars was the sun and one of the planets was the earth.  God declared this as good and I agree with him.  I think you do as well.  These are a direct result of increasing entropy and we wouldn't be living on this planet today without a grand design evolving through entropy.  Surely you must believe that entropy must be a good thing since it produced the heavens, sun light and the earth according to God's design.  

In the above description, I don't mean to imply that any of creation was done without God's involvement,  or that it occured by chance.  God controlled these events through His fixed laws making adjustments if necessary in pre-earth events like collisions to make the earth per His plan.  

The energy transformation from the condensed high radiative energy  state of the early universe to the much larger and older lower energy density universe that contains matter was a direct consequence of entropy.  Stars formed from the diffused hydrogen and helium atoms made in the first few hundred thousand years, they provided light by fusion and radiation, and then some exploded in supernovas.  The process increased entropy but also provided stardust (aka some of the elements in your body).  The formation of these large stars by gravity, the production of light, and the explosion (or death) of these stars were each a direct result of entropy. Death of these stars is a consequence of the fusing of lighter elements like hydrogen.    The    nuclei lighter than iron release energy to power the star when fusion occurs.  After that, a very interesting and delicately balanced process occurs that only God could have conceived that results in explosion of these stars to release the elements and isotopes back into the heavens. This dust containing virtually all elements recollects over long time periods into subsequent generations of stars and planets.  This entropic process that destroys a star in a supernova made it possible for planet's like the earth to eventually  form and provide the dust that constitute all living organisms. God used entropy to make every living thing, every planet, and every star and galaxy in the universe.  Entropy is essential to this universe's existance which must be good or He would not have created it.  

Your challenge, it seems to me, is to accept the consequence of this real process in nature as an essential part of creation that does both good and bad from your perspective. Overall it is good, since nothing of value would exist in this universe without this growth in entropy right from the instant of creation.   I hope to help you find a different perspective to see it's necessity.  Life would be non-existent without entropy. Life cannot be maintained without entropy. Death, disease, and suffering would not have occurred without life preceding it.  This is why I said that death followed life by a few minutes.

Maybe if you thought of life and death like a coin with two sides acceptance would be easier.  Both are part of the same entity: the fixed physical laws and the universe starting out in a highly ordered state spoken into existence by God.  The alternative was to not speak or breathe life into this universe.

Based on the above statements, here are my responses to your specific challenges and questions.

'Fact: God is life (John 14:6).
Do we see a problem here?'

From a physical perspective, of course God made life. He is the one who made it possible for all biological life in this universe and especially on earth to exist including all prior generations.  All that life and death that occurred before man arrived was a good thing that only God could have created.  Isn't it better to have lived and died than never to have lived at all?  I would say yes and I believe God thinks so as well.

He is also the only being that can give mankind spiritual or eternal life in Heaven. This eternal life has nothing to do with entropy, physical laws or our universe's time.  Spiritual life has everything to do though with our thoughts as human beings and whether they are good in God's judgement.  Have you considered that John might be talking more about eternal spiritual life here and not material physical life in this verse?  I believe he was talking about spiritual eternal life which has nothing to do with physical life.  God lives eternally and controls what else lives (spiritually) eternally with Him. God is not material but spritual.

[Lucien]- 'We will be raised from the dead and spent eternity living with God. Do we see a problem here?

No problem here either. If He wishes, God can repair our decayed information and give us life in a new creation and in Heaven where He dwells eternally without entropy. He also demonstates regularly that He can correct information by medical miracles that was damaged by entropy in physical bodies that are still on earth and in the past through verses describing Biblical healing events and the resurrection of Jesus. Death, decay, and disease only applies to universes that He creates with time, order, and physical laws that permit entropy. This is not Heaven, it is our universe with a set of laws that supports our Creator to develop us in His image as an eternal spiritual being.  Entropy was needed to make us. It is only the beginning of our eternal lives.  We leave physical life behind in this world when we are raised from the dead as spiritual non-material beings that are no longer affected by the entropy of this universe.

[Lucien]- 'There won't be death (Rev. 21:4), so,
FACT: The two CAN be without each other!!!'

I hope you realize that this occurs in the next creation and not this one. The next creation is where the physical laws are different and there is no entropy. The information in the reality descibed by Revelations does not decay; that is why it permits an eternal existance.  

[Lucien]- 'It is also interesting that you now state it is within hours AFTER life.'

I hope that you realize that life precedes death. Death follows life and is a consequence of information decay in the organism.

[Lucien]- 'And what happened to the molten blob that we started of with, and eventually cooled down to form this soup. Isn't cooling down an increase of entropy?
Oops. How are you going to talk yourself out of that?'

The collection of dispersed dust collecting into our molten planet by gravity was increasing entropy as the dispersed dust was in a higher potential energy state (lower entropy) before it's aggregation into a 'molten blob' (higher entropy). The potential energy from the gas and dust was converted to kinetic energy of heated matter during the aggregation.   The entropy continued to increase as the molten planet radiated heat into space as it cooled. The energy in our universe has transitioned to lower and lower energy concentrations as our universe has aged. Entropy drives the reduction in the overall energy concentrations.

Please let me know if you have more issues or questions, I will be glad to answer them.  


View user profile

191Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Some interesting points for Lee to ponder on Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:03 am

"Entropy is the driver for all this. It drives life and death. There can't be one without the other."

Fact: God is life (John 14:6).
Do we see a problem here?

We will be raised from the dead and spent eternity living with God. Do we see a problem here?

There won't be death (Rev. 21:4), so,
FACT: The two CAN be without each other!!!

"God is not a poor designer for making the universe this way. He had no choice, if He wanted life and time, there logically must be death, disease, and suffering. It is just the way it has to be in this universe."

Quite a bold statement by Lee, that God did not have a choice.
And a wrong one as well. (continue reading)

"I have stated and believed all along that death, disease and suffering began within hours after life began billions of years ago."

But you just stated that if you want life and time, there will be death.

"Entropy which includes death, disease, and pain, as well as light and life, is a result of creating a universe with order"

It is also interesting that you now state it is within hours AFTER life.
First because yet again you have contradicted yourself, and you made yourself an escape route, since the watery primordial soup would destroy any proteins that would have formed.

And what happened to the molten blob that we started of with, and eventually cooled down to form this soup. Isn't cooling down an increase of entropy?
Oops. How are you going to talk yourself out of that?

"This concept you have that death didn't start until after the fall is a totally bogus view and unsupportable logically."

Oh, of course, death is a good thing. Let's tell that to all the children whose pets have died.
Let's tell that to all baby creatures that will starve because mum and dad have died.
Sure, whatever, death is a very good thing, and so is cancer, suffering, tears, struggle, thorns.
No people, those things are bad!
I don't care how much you plead that these things must be good, because otherwise your petty unbiblical worldview will fall apart, but common sense tells us that these things are BAD.
I challenge anyone of you to try and convince people on the street these things are good. If you don't get punched on the nose, you'll certainly get a lot of blank looks from people who will think you have lost the plot.

Sorry, I really get agitated by saying these things are good, when really you don't believe that yourself...

View user profile

192Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty *** I think that Lee may have a point here? *** on Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:14 am

Did I just say that? Embarassed

Wow! ... I sure hope that Lee is sitting down when he reads this!
Of course ... Lucien & I are firmly against Lee's take on how God created everything!
But ... the more I read over Lee's proposed reinterpretations of the Traditional views
of many of the key Scriptures in the Bible ... he has only taken slightly more liberty
than Hugh Ross and others that hold to an Old Earth interpretation of God's Word!

In all fairness to Lee ... is it only the Special Creation of Adam & Eve that is
separating your views ... or is it the entire Theory of "Macro" Evolution?
Because ... I'm pretty sure that ALL of you OE's agree with him on the subjects of:

1). Day meaning millions or even billions of years?

2). The Sun, Moon, & Stars being created on (or before) Day-1 ... instead of Day-4?

3). Death, Disease, & Suffering before Adam & Eve sinned?

4). Noah's Flood was local ... and did not cover the entire Earth?

If I am wrong about this (I apologize)... but please state your Name & Corrections?

Personally ... I don't see how you can stop Evolution from creeping into the picture
once you've opened the door to accepting "Deep" Time?
Dave's view "may" be exempt ... but I'll let him explain that for himself?
My 100th Post compromise view would work ... but even I don't believe in it!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

193Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty The Potter Calling The Case 'Black Sheep' on Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:07 pm

All, I wanted to bring to your attention the latest news in my local newspaper. 
New Headlines: Lord Voldemort Returns to Trial Now Posing as Defense Attorney
By IAm Watchin 
The mock trial has resumed again below London in Hidden Chambers where it was discovered that Lord Voldemort had a second Horcrux shape shifter that was posing as the Defense Attorney Stu.  The shape shifter was exposed when it admitted over the Internet on the Earthage Blog that he had been instructing the other Horcrux (also Lord Voldemort) what to say.  Much to the surprise of the observers, Judge Solomon, who has been briefed on this discovery, stated that the trial will continue in spite of the severely tainted testimony stating that there is nothing wrong with the trial procedurally since this approach was used to write a evangelical book. 

Observers in the courtroom were outraged and shouted 'mistrial' and 'sham' until they were removed from the courtroom.  The only observers now left in the courtroom after the disorder were sheep quietly listening while nodding their heads and making a baaaaad.. sound.

Watchin Out For You

Who are you, and what have you done with the other Stu.  You're certainly not the Stu that I knew.  It seems you will do anything to try to win this case! Your approach is a sham and deceitful yet you continue the case while making false accusations and insinuations toward me. See my responses below. 

[Stu]- 'Perhaps even Lee doesn't really have the stomach to do this?

You're right! I am getting nauseous of the fraud and deceit that you are using to make your very weak case of magically popping animals and plants into existence.    The verses that you have pulled from the Bible to try and make your case don't even come close to making a case for popping man or animals into existence instantaneously.  The Biblical evidence for evolutionary creationism (my focus) is a lot stronger than your evidence for God popping fully formed animals instantaneously into existence (your focus).

[Stu]- '...but it takes on a personal meaning when he has to put his words into the mouths of God's prophets. That's why I suspect he has such a vehement reaction to the trial. '

Here is another baseless insinuation. I've already explained my reasons why this approach is wrong, why do you make up lies against me.  Yes, it is personal and against God's will when you commit fraud and state somebody said something that they did not state.  It is called bearing false witness and God called it a sin; courts call it perjury. You would go to jail and be fined for it in a real court of law and you would go to Hell for you if you weren't a Christian and forgiven. I apologized for my part of this sin when Lucien called me on it, but neither you nor him seem to recognize it as a sin because you insist on continuing.  Have you no shame in perjuring yourself and the saints?  

[Stu]- 'His case has so little merit that perhaps deep down he even knows that the Scripture doesn't support his theories.

This is a ridiculous assertion, I've provided excellent Biblical supporting verses for my claims in recent posts while you have not.  I believe 100% in what I have been stating to everyone.  When the Bible tells us that God wove each individual together in its mother's womb after each kind.  When He did this uniquely, generation after generation, right from the beginning, it makes a strong case for evolutionary creationism and a farce of Darwinism and your traditional view of popping things into existance instantaneously, He uniquely puts each of us together in our mother's womb. (Ps 139:13, Is 44:2)  I made the Biblical case for this several posts ago on July 30th (Biblical Verses Supporting Evolutionary Creation ) from God's own statements recorded in the Bible.  On the other hand, your case hasn't provided any verses that indicate animals, humans, or plants have been instantaneously created or popped into existance as you initially claimed.  

You provided a lot of verses that we both agree on but have nothing to do with evolutionary-creationism or your version of creationism.  You also pretentiously put a lot of baseless fictitious statements in saint's mouths that amounts to nothing in making your case because none of the saints ever really said these things!  It is all your imagination that they would have said these things.

Regarding name calling and insinuations, I have learned from the masters including yourself to respond in turn showing you how you've done the same thing that you have insinuated about me.  You do it to me, I will respond back in turn.  Stop the name calling, insinuations, and deceitful remarks about me and I will likewise.  Your remarks remind me of the pot calling the kettle black.  

[Lucien]- 'You continue to write on entropy, even many paragraphs now, where I have not taken the word in my mouth for a long time.

I agree with you here, you did not use the word entropy.  I used the word entropy because as a scientist I am aware that when you are discussing death, disease, and suffering, you are discussing topics that are all a result of entropy.  They won't occur without entropy.  

Death results from the effects of  disorder occurring in some of your cellular genetic code. Disease is the result of some cells being dissolved (increased disorder)  by foreign entities eating them to maintain their order.  This order can only be maintained by one organism eating and digesting other organisms and is entropy driven. Suffering is the reminder that this disordering process is happening.  

Entropy is the driver for all this.  It drives life and death. There can't be one without the other.  Entropy is rapid and continuous, and affects all life processes.  There was light, creation of life, death, respiration, digestion, eating, pain, and suffering before the fall in the first few 'days' and after it.  It all goes together with physical processes and causation.  God is not a poor designer for making the universe this way.  He had no choice, if He wanted life and time, there logically must be death, disease, and suffering. It is just the way it has to be in this universe.

[Lucien]- 'I agree with you that entropy did not start to exist AT the fall. That's where your straw man comes in. You think I did, but I did not.'

I have stated and believed all along that death, disease and suffering began within hours after life began billions of years ago.  Entropy which includes death, disease, and pain, as well as light and  life, is a result of creating a universe with order and in it time allowing development of creatures such as ourselves.  God sees it as good and you would be better served by seeing it as good also and essential to everyone's and everything's  existence.  This concept you have that death didn't start until after the fall is a totally bogus view and unsupportable logically.

Thanks for the feedback on the sun's creation timeline.  I also wanted to let you know that my interpretation of fixed laws does not  means that God cannot control evolution using them, on the contrary He has extremely precise controls imbedded in the fixed laws that allows Him to uniquely control all mutations and the survival of every plant and animal.  I've written several posts on this subject if you care to read them.  My claim is that there is no need to switch to a new set of laws, the existing set works extremely well for God to slowly create the biology and organisms on this planet.  I hope this addresses one of your misperceptions of my views related to use of fixed laws.


Last edited by InfinitLee on Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:50 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Clarification)

View user profile

194Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Theology on Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:27 am

Hi Stu,

you did answer the 2nd half of the more "speculative" (i.e. non-scriptural) portion of your post at the end.
God is omnipotent and could thus fabricate anything in the right time, if He fancied doing so.
So the ultimate answer lies in the theology and His character, something that I have been trying to get across for a long time.
Look at some of my most recent posts and you will see where I come from, not only against (theistic) evolution, but also about the non-necessary millions of years, that DO NOT improve over the traditional view held for most of the church days, until Lyell came along and people revered scientists more than God's Word.
(incidentally, it was the theologians who conceded first, but the scientist took longer to buy into the vast ages)


View user profile

195Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty The Monkey Trials - Day 4. The Birth of Adam on Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:28 am

The Monkey Trials - Day 4. The Birth of Adam

Defense: The Defense recalls Luke to the witness stand.

Sir, last time I called you as an expert witness regarding the historicity of the genealogical accounts in the Bible. This time, however, I am calling you in your profession as a physician to be an expert witness regarding medical facts recorded in the Scriptures.

According to Col 4:14 you are a physician, and as such you would have special knowledge of what we today call "the birds and the bees." Now you've been watching from heaven these last 2000 years and have seen the amazing scientific progress we've made. And you've also had the unique privilege of looking back in time as well -- talking with Moses about creation events thousands of years before.

Tell me Sir, what has changed in baby-making from the beginning of time?

Luke: Nothing really has changed. Speaking medically of course, "Birds do it, bees do it, even little bitty fleas do it." Conception miraculously occurs when the male sperm unites with the female egg to form a zygote. This single cell starts dividing and becomes a self-directed (actually God-directed) living being as it grows within the female womb. For a human this gestation period is about 40 weeks. Then the new baby is born.

Moses recorded the first human births in Genesis -- "Adam and Eve had relations and she conceived and gave birth to Cain" (4:1). "Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch" (4:17). "Adam had relations with his wife again, and she gave birth to ... Seth" (4:25).

Defense: Well then, who gave birth to Adam?

Luke: That's a ridiculous question. Adam didn't have any parents. God created him directly.

Defense: But evolution says that Adam had sub-human parents -- hominids -- animals that were close in genetic makeup to man but not quite there yet.

Luke: Where in the Scriptures does it say that? Moses and I have already testified that Adam was a direct special creation of God. And Moses testified that God made different "kinds" (Hb. "min") that would reproduce only according their kind (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15). Paul confirmed this in the NT (1 Cor 15:38-39). Mankind was created to rule over the animals, not evolve from them (Gen 1:28).

Defense: How about Eve? Perhaps she evolved from a hominid?

Luke: That's even more ridiculous. Adam was all alone. God said it was not good that he should be alone and so God personally created a helper for him (Gen 2:18). God performed a direct medical miracle. He put Adam under sedation and took flesh from his side and fashioned Eve from it. When God brought her to Adam he thought she was a knock-out and couldn't wait to cleave to his new wife (Gen 2:21-25). You've already heard Jesus testify that God instituted marriage between a man and woman then, and cleaving was to be the way human babies were to be brought into this world from that day forward. There was to be no sex between animals that would give birth to humans. That would be an abomination. Haven't you read Leviticus?

The rest of the biblical testimony of God specially creating Eve has already been entered into evidence (Gen 3:20; 1 Cor 11:12; 1 Tim 2:13).

Defense: One last question for you that's beyond what's revealed in the Scriptures -- but you are qualified to have an opinion. It concerns the logic of evolution regarding procreation. Are you able, medically-speaking, to make sense out of the following claims of evolutionary biology?

Just assume for a moment that Adam did evolve from a sub-human. My question is, why would Eve ever evolve? There is no natural selection mechanism that would produce a mate for Adam. What does random variation and natural selection know about mating? What does it know about sexual attraction? The geometry of intercourse and the physiology of orgasm? Conception and cell division? Growth within the womb -- the formation of the spinal cord, heart and internal organs; blood, nervous, lymphatic and respiratory systems? And of utmost importance, what does evolution know about the mind and the development of the brain, let alone the soul? What possible competitive advantage and feedback mechanisms could there be in nature to select one developmental pathway over another and have it end up choosing the right one for survival and improvement?

Defense: Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's say Eve did evolve. How then did she emerge at just the right time to mate with Adam? It would be a fairy tale of immeasurable probability.

Defense: And even if the impossible occurred -- that Adam and Eve evolved -- how did they develop from hominids in one generation to be humans in an impossibly short time span? The scientific evidence indicates that there is at most a couple of hundreds thousands of years for that evolution to take place. There are no evolutionary mechanisms that would transform dumb hominids who have no sentience, no language and minimal cranium capacity, into sentient homo sapien sapiens with fully developed intellects and brain cavities 3X that of any reasonable hominid candidate.

Defense: Now, even the plaintiff and other theistic evolutionists may agree with this last argument, but they would claim that God intervened in the evolutionary process in a unique way to produce the desired outcome. This theory, however, offers no improvement over the traditional view that God specially and miraculously created Adam and Eve just as the Scriptures say.

So let me repeat the question. Scientifically speaking, are you able to make any sense out of these evolutionary scenarios?

Luke: Judge Solomon said it best in Proverbs 26:

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes

View user profile

196Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Lunch? on Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:05 pm

when are you next over in Scotland?

Stu and Dave.
I hope you are not becoming victims of prosperity gospel preaching, but I don't think so.
Hardships are still in this world, including Christians. See Also Acts 14:22.
Preachers who preach that once you become a Christian your life will be without problem, are unbiblical, unrealistic and often self-contradicting as they then call for prayers for the poor and the sick amongst their brothers and sisters.

The problem of evil is sin, and the wages of sin is death.
God declared His creation very good. This cannot contain death, as death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26).
God will restore everything to the way He intended it to be, no more death (Rev 21:4).
The very word "restore" means something along the lines of 'bringing it back to its original state'.
If death (and suffering, tears, disease) had been part of creation for millions of years, then are we to wait millions of years for restoration, or will the restoration come quickly, as a thief in the night (1 Thes. 5:2)?

I cannot (will not) believe in a God who waits millions and billions of years for the culmination of His creation, and in the process being wasteful, with scores of extinctions along the way.

It would make more sense to take the plain meaning of Scripture, that God created in six normal days (Ex. 20:11 and Ex. 31:15-17). A day is defined by one rotation of the earth around its axis, no mention of the sun anywhere. And for the daylight portion of the day, you need light.
God rested on the 7th day, which was holy (Gen. 2:2)
Don't see how a garden of Eden can be paradise if it lays on top of fossil beads remains of dead creatures), how the 7th day can be declared holy if the vast majority of God's 'creation' has died, some has become extinct and how thorns would have been the result of the original sin (Gen. 3:18) but yet thorns are found in the fossil record allegedly many millions of years ago (before mankind supposedly arrived and committed the original sin).

Logically, this is a strong case, as you can see built using verses from the Bible, including parts inSCRIBED by the finger of God.
It is holistic, as it explains the beginning (very good; Gen. 1:31), the middle (a world cursed; Rom 8:22) and the end restoration (very good again; Rev. 21:4)


View user profile

197Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Answer to Lucien, and comments for Lee and Dave on Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:53 am

Thank you Lucien for getting into the spirit of the mock trial. I have always enjoyed C. S. Lewis' use of this type of literary device (God in the Dock; Screwtape Letters) and wanted to use it with Lee as it forces the literary agent to put believable words into the mouth of the actors, even though it obviously represents an interpretation.

You and I may have different views of how Moses have might made his introductory remarks concerning theistic evolution. But at least both our views are extrapolations of what the Scripture actually says. In Lee's case, however, he has to put words into the mouth of the biblical writers that are not only an aghast to us -- but to most traditional Christians as well.

For example, Lee might have my witnesses testify something along these lines:

Luke: Well I've been dead for 2000 years so how am I expected to know about the wonders of modern science. I'm just a man of my times. We didn't know about science back then.

Luke: I didn't know that there was any genealogy between "Seth, the son of Adam" and, "Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38). Thank you Lee for filling me in. I'll have to go back and add 3:39, "We (the Trinity) started with monkey genetic code many generations earlier, but you are nothing like your early primitive relative's Coco and Bongo or your previously unnamed subhuman relatives, Ad and Eek."

Moses: I know it sounds like I said that the reason God created "kinds" this way is so they would reproduce only according their "min" (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15). But what I was really meant is that "The necessary organic materials to produce Adam naturally through evolution from sub-humans required ... a few million years to build up the monkey genetic code to human code (Ge 1:27)."

Perhaps even Lee doesn't really have the stomach to do this?

It's one thing for the scientist Lee to be "in his laboratory" superimposing his theories on the Scripture, but it takes on a personal meaning when he has to put his words into the mouths of God's prophets. That's why I suspect he has such a vehement reaction to the trial. His case has so little merit that perhaps deep down he even knows that the Scripture doesn't support his theories.

Why else does he have to resort to personal attacks rather than substantive argumentation. Oh yes, Lee is blind to the fact that he does this yet is so quick to point out even the minimum personal criticism of himself. Exhibit A -- his latest dialog concerning the use of the word "pretentious."

Lucien- I want to answer your contention that if God "designed a long periods of millions of years full of death, disease and suffering of the creatures," then "such a scheme should be branded as EVIL and most certainly not have names as 'the life', 'the good shepherd', 'bread of life' 'holy one', 'prince of peace', 'wonderful'." To be perfectly honest I have never understood this argument by YE creationists.

Classically this is "the problem of evil." Yes, it is probably the most challenging of all Christian apologetics. But I fail to see how your theodicy claiming there was no death before the Fall solves the problem. Even after Christ's atonement we are still left with a world where atrocities happen to believers and non-believers alike. We still have natural disasters with unfathomable consequences. YE theology does nothing for me in developing my own theodicy (I do have one by the way.) Even if I didn't, it wouldn't tempt me to brand as "evil" such a God who allowed it.

Dave -- I am delighted that you have returned with your sharp mind and well articulated responses. I concur with how you have answered Lucien on this matter.

View user profile
I understand the argument that those who die apart from Christ (in their sins) truly die, and their pain is a result of their sin. Why do Christians have to still feel pain? Christ has paid the price for all our sins, past present and future.

Even if you look at pain and suffering as perfection of our faith (James 1:2-4, Rom 5:2-4, Heb 12, the Book of Philippians, etc), you will find that there is a component of suffering that is faith perfecting, but it doesn't make sense to us here in time and space. Even more, some of it (suffering children, catastrophes that befall nations, etc.) seem senseless to us.

It just doesn't make sense, does it?

That is why the "why would God have creation take millions of years?" argument is flawed, because it superimposes our analysis of what is the best way to do something on God. What if He thought it would glorify Him more to create a system that is able to reflect His brilliance on all levels, including the ingenious way it is able to adapt and change according to the needs of His creation?

I have no idea. And that is the right answer. Everything else is conjecture.

So if you want to have a discussion on what most likely happened, I am fine with that. If you want to have an attitude like "you just aren't willing to accept what the Bible says about the fact that the Earth is only a few thousand years old", I will tell you the Bible says no such thing. Creation and God's laws which govern it have plenty to say about how old things are and we should pay attention to that as well. But neither side should ever begin to feel we are so right that it makes us more "Biblical".

I love you for your passion and love you enough to always tell you what I believe is the truth; that to become dogmatic on this issue is a bad idea, and bad for being a salty Christian who can lead the lost to Christ. It winds up being a test for how truly Christian someone is, which is also a bad idea...

So when are we having lunch?

View user profile

199Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty Gen. 3 on Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:42 am

Hi Dave

The answer to your question is straightforward, as per Gen. 3.
Death, pain, suffering, disease etc is a result of the original sin.
Disobeying the rules has consequences.
Dying you shall die.


View user profile

200Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 8 Empty A Question for Lucien on Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:40 am

We haven't met, but I feel like I know you from the forum! I hope you are well.

I have a question for you. You seem to have a problem with how long it would have taken for God to create the Universe if evolution is true. You even call yourself a "Biblical Creationist" (I guess as opposed to a "Koran Creationist"?).

"But seeing that I am a Biblical creationists and believe everything was very good until the fall, I do not fall in that category. The God from the Bible is GOOD, and gets it right first time, without having to waste millions of years."

Then how do you justify pain, suffering, and everything else that doesn't make sense to you? The Bible seems to make it clear that God is in charge, and He could have created everything any way he wanted. It was you that said he could have done it in a split second. Indeed.

I would suggest a more humble tone when talking about the age of things. When we all join each other in Heaven (which I believe we will), we will learn that one of us is more right than the other. But until then, being dogmatic about either is silly. We who believe an Old Earth is a better model to use are not any less "Biblical" because we have chosen to not conform to a traditional interpretation that is more tradition than derived from the lexicon.

Just saying.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 8 of 9]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum