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

Lucien ...

My reference to 4% of the Universe comes from a new book that I just got yesterday!
It's called "The 4% Universe" (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality)!
Written by Richard Panek

This book just came out about a month ago ...
and from my cursory overview (so far)... not one single Christian was allowed anywhere near
the production (or research) done in the writing of this book!
This book represents the state-of-the-art (mainstream) consensus of today's theoretical physics
being used to form our modern view of Cosmology!

It's nice to know that I have Brother Lee over on the bench ... just in case the wheels on my
brain get stuck in a patch of Dark Matter Mud?


20 Bret*11

That's easy for Joseph Smith. The Father has a body and a voicebox!!

Bret,


did you know that 42% of all statistics is made up?


All,
How come nobody ever answered me when I asked how to explain John 12:28(-30).
I feel ignored!


Lucien

Stu ...

Thanks for clarifying your position on Eve & the Serpent!
I think that our views on this are very similar!
The Scriptures are not detailed enough on this event for anyone to be too dogmatic about
EXACTLY what happened with absolute clarity!
Of course these passages have BECOME very symbolic of Sin, Deception, & disobedience to God!
But ... I don't believe that that means these events didn't happen as revealed to us!
As for the exact way that Satan spoke through the Serpent ... it doesn't change the fact that
it happened in the manner and dialog that was written!
Angels (and therefore Demons)... can appear to and communicate with Man!
If Lee wants to scientifically break this down into some kind of mental illusionary encounter ...
it doesn't actually change the fact that it happens ... and would (most likely) appear to us
as actually physically happening!
We cannot prove that our reality is nothing more than Divine thought anyways?
Science even admits that we only know about 4% of the Universe ... and we're not too sure
about exactly how or why this 4% actually exists!
Man was created in God's image ... but NOT with the mental capacity to understand His full Glory & Intelligence!
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand as much as we can possibly comprehend ...
but it does mean that we should be humble enough to know our place in the hierarchy!


20 Bret*11

Bret -- this is a great question and the kind that results in constructive dialog. Thank you.

The event is not symbolic but the personification of the serpent may be. I will answer you on three levels:

Level 1: Historical or myth? The event is historical and it is the basis for the most fundamental doctrines of our faith -- temptation by an outside agent (the serpent representing Satan); Eve's inner appetite that makes her unsatisfied by what she's already been given in paradise; and her personal choice to rebel against God. Without this event being historical (as well as many other events of Genesis 1-11) we turn the Bible into myth because we start crumbling the foundation of: God being the creator and sustainer of everything; the Trinity; Satan as the source of evil; and Jesus as our Redeemer.

Level 2: Communication and language. In my March 14 and 19th posts I gave my views of how Scripture is to be interpreted. "Scripture is to be interpreted literally, i.e., as literature, in accordance with its natural meaning and the normal rules of grammar. Literature has different forms -- historical, symbolic, personification, metaphor, etc." God uses many different figures of speech to communicate historical truths. I understand when God tells me that He will protect me. But I understand it at a deeper level when He says, "He will cover you with his feathers and under His wings you will find refuge." (Ps 91:4). Both are literal truths. So the challenge is how to sort out, "What kind of passage is this?", hence the science of biblical hermeneutics.

At this Level, I can go either way with the serpent, i.e., either see him with a miraculous voicebox or this being a symbolic representation of Satan, without either destroying the imperative of the historicity of the event. (BTW -- not until the NT do we know that the snake is identified as Satan).

Level 3: Apologetics and tactics. If we were discussing this topic on the Jon Stewart show (or similar hostile apologetic setting) he would have no interest in the origin of sin and redemption. He would immediately try to make us look like fools because we believe in talking snakes. I don't like to cast pearls before swine so I don't feel any pressure to defend a snake with a voicebox. Instead I would deflect his invectives to the real issue. Even with our dear brother Lee advancing his evolutionary paradigm we see the complications of majoring on talking snakes rather than focusing on the negative theological impact if the event was not historical.

For these reasons I choose to identify the snake as symbolic, but I am not fixed on that conclusion and certainly welcome your ideas on the topic.

Lee ...

1st ... Congrats on reaching 2C's!
Even though Lucien holds the Title for "Most Posts"...
You have (by far) posted the most "Total Words" !!!

As for the evolving definition of the term "Evolution"... I believe that you have it backwards!
Evolution was pretty much universally accepted as referring to Darwin's Theory for over a
hundred years from the time that Chuck changed the World!
After this 100 years had passed ... and there was now even LESS credible evidence to
support the Theory than before ... educators began to soften the definition of the "term"!
Today ... educators (indoctrinators)... will universally define the term "Evolution" as
*** Change over time! *** !!!
Which has (honestly) reduced the term to actually meaning NOTHING !!!
I say this ... because EVERYTHING changes over time! (except God ... ironically!)

As for trying to put a "Label" on Lee ... this is quite a daunting task!
I would agree with you about your stance somewhat falling between accepted "Labels"!
But ... it is my understanding that Progressive Creationists do NOT believe in ANY kind
of Macro-Evolution!
They also do NOT believe in the Universal Lineage of ALL living things!
They believe in clear & distinct separations between the major Created kinds!
They do NOT believe that God changed one kind into another!

Actually ... the biggest difference between a PC and a YE is the "timeframe"!
This would lead me to believe that your views would be better described as a sub-category
of Theistic Evolution! You can (and should be able to) call yourself whatever "Label" that
you prefer ... for whatever reasons that you choose!
But ... you do need to be a little bit more understanding when someone calls you something
that apparently fits pretty well ... instead of claiming ignorance on their part!



20 Bret*11

Hi Lee


Glad to see that you added this section "let the author add any other descriptors to it that he wished to more narrowly define his point" because change over time on its own is far to broad to mean anything specifically.
For example, I have changed over time.
Once I was:
-A zygote
-Blastocyst
-Embryo
-Fetus
-Baby
-Toddler
-Boy
-Adolescent
-Adult (losing hair and all)
-Etc.
All this time my genome has been the same, only grown in quantity and picked a few mutations perhaps along the way.

I disagree with you on the word creation, and I want to qualify this by not looking at the English, but rather the Hebrew. 'Bara' is only used when God is doing the creating. This creation I believe is ex nihilo, or from non existent materials, purely by the spoken Word of Elohim.
Humans cannot do this, however they can use pre-existing materials and make it into something.
Now there is maybe a grey area where we could meet, in that using pre-existing paint, a painter can make a picture of something that did not exist before. That picture comes from his/her creativity, and in that sense, we are like God, made in His image, in that we can imagine something that does not exist.
You see similar things in architecture, or fashion designers.
The coolest I think, is when humans copy (or try to) the Creator, and mimicking designs that we see in nature, and implement it into current technology.

Lucien

The word evolution means many different things to many people. It seems it has picked up many additional definitions over the years which were not part of the original meaning of change over time; the meaning that I prefer. Some people think the meaning is Darwinism. Others think the meaning is slow gradual change over time. Others think it is change at any rate caused by natural means only. I would love to return to the days when it only meant change over time and let the author add any other descriptors to it that he wished to more narrowly define his point.

Creation is another tricky word. I prefer to call it something originated from a mind and caused to become implemented in physical reality. People do this, God does this. The natural world based on my definition does not create it just evolves based on the physical laws and the information here or added by people or God.

I believe that life was created due to the large amount of information necessary to get it started. I believe that the diversity of life was created due to the large amount of information that is necessary to permit it to function properly. Where and how this information got into all of the plants and animals is a major source of controversy today in the world. The traditionalists and the YEs think it popped into place with the kinds of life form out of nothing. The progressive creationist or evolutionary creationist think that it was introduced into the natural reproductive process. Darwinists think it was added by random chance and natural selection. There is no doubt in anyone's mind today that it takes a lot of information for even a simple bacterium to exist, let alone human's like you and I.

I am uncertain where Hugh Ross is in the various factions of evolution. He is an old earther. He believes that mankind is a special creation. He believes that God performed a guiding role in developing all creatures. That much is clear from his books. I have never actually seen him state which faction he belongs to. If I had to guess it would be a concordist: That the Bible and Nature have to equate eventually when all is known and the issues between the Bible and Nature are due to misinterpretation and misunderstanding by people of what both books are telling us.

Lee

I hope you can understand that some (well, at least I) were somewhat confused.
So if I understand correctly, you have not changed your views, just the "label" that you would used to describe your position.
I do think though that the label is not very suitable for what I think you believe.
Creation to me (and I would reckon to most) seems to be appropriate for our term "popping", whereas evolution seems to be a more gradualistic development.
Punctuated equilibrium would be in between the two I guess.

Doesn't Dr Ross believe that God created progressively (i.e. supernatural events)? Or does he like you think all descendants were genetic offspring with modification through mutation from a common ancestor?


Lucien
PS, I apologise for not reading one of your messages. The reason was because you ignored or denied something that Bret had affirmed the post before, and it being one of the main topics of Bret's relatively short post, I thought this was a bit careless (for not wanting to use any other word) of you. Add to that the lengths of some of your posts (and I readily admit i have been guilty of that in the beginning too) puts me off in persisting.
Hope you understand.

Lucien,

I had to relabel my position part way through this debate after I had read a Hugh Ross book 'More than a Theory' that defined several of the positions that have been taken in the ongoing national debate. Hugh Ross is well recognized and has greatly influenced the positions taken in the broader debate on this subject around the world. Rather, than try to fight the labeling of positions that he used, I accepted his definition (although I disagree with the label used for the position taken). Originally, I viewed theistic evolution as a combination of theism and evolution with God guiding the evolution. According to contemporary labeling of positions by the various factions, the Theistic Evolution proponents believe that God set up a Darwinian system which is unguided and the life forms around today are contingent based on the Darwinian Process. This still doesn't seem very theistic to me; it seems deistic. I did not then or do now agree with the contingent aspect of this viewpoint, so I was forced to relabel my myself as a progressive creationist based on the Hugh Ross definitions after careful reflection over the following weeks. My position is somewhere between the Concordist position and the Progressive Creationist position that Hugh defines. According to Hugh, the term Evolutionary Creationist that closely defines my view and is a subset of the Theistic Evolution faction, is not widely seen as representative of Theistic Evolutionist views. Rather than stay with the Theistic Evolution label and be misperceived on my views, I felt it was better use a different label. I mentioned this transition in an earlier post (Evolution & Free Determination on Sat May 08, 2010 3:34 pm), but you may have missed this since at that time you weren't reading all of my posts. Sorry if this has confused you on my position but I have tried to stay consistent with my assigned label ever since May 8, 2010.

Lee

[b]PS I just realized that this was my 200th post. Wow! I could have written my book by now. I hope this has been worthwhile for some of you, based on the time and thought spent![/b]

[Lee]: "I have explained each misrepresentation in recent posts: 1) theistic evolution (your label) vs progressive creationism (my view)"


So do you care to explain the below?
If you treat your own posts as you to the Bible, then I suspect you can easily explain this away, since words can apparently mean anything Lee wants them to mean???



Hard Questions For WonderlandYErs on Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:26 pm

“Since evolution and geology have stood the test of time scientifically (over 150 years), we can rest assured that there is a solid foundation of truth behind them”



Reproduction Inconsistencies on Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:31 am

“Now if we can just get you to believe that the lizard is a long lost cousin of the snake, I got you where I need you to be: a theistic evolutionist. ”



My Slow Departure on Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:09 pm

“and what challenges he may surface on theistic evolution.”



Stay or Go, I'd Like to Know on Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:02 pm

“I am just killing some time while waiting for Stu's theistic evolution post/ critique.”



Evolution & Free Determination on Sun May 09, 2010 12:34 am

“theistic evolutionists like me”



And the absolute clincher!







I Believe In Theistic Evolution on Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:48 am

Stu,
I am saddened to see that you are withdrawing from the debate and feel that it is not God honoring. I am especially sad to see you take such a strong stance against my views that attempt to resolve certain issues between the Bible and the natural world that God has made. I would accept this better if I believed that you really understood what I have been trying to explain. Before you condemn my views you at least should understand them. Unfortunately, what you have rephrased about my position shows that you are fighting against views that are not held by me. I have explained each misrepresentation in recent posts: 1) theistic evolution (your label) vs progressive creationism (my view), 2) my view that God performs miracles through His existing laws when you believe He couldn't,and 3) your view that physical laws are intermixed with spiritual laws where I believe they are distinct. I am sorry but I have to call you on these points because they are important and central to the issues. If you truly understand my position, and have specific arguments against some aspects of it, please address them. But also, please just don't dismiss them out of hand because they are new to you. Most aspects of my position have come from the 'giants' as you call them. 

You state that this debate is not God honoring yet we are addressing the inconsistencies in our beliefs about God's creation, what the Bible states, what the Bible's intended meaning is, the evidence from nature, and logical analysis of views in an effort to get at the truth and a consistent Christisn view. To me, this is very God honoring as I believe God wants the truth to come out in our debate.  We started this debate to resolve the vastly different and logically inconsistent views between each of our positions. We also felt at that time that this endeavor was God honoring even if it ruffled our individual feathers along the way occassionally. We all felt that the truth was more important than our individual egos in this pursuit. At least that is my belief.   

In my pursuit of this truth, I feel I have pushed you into a logically inconsistent corner related to your traditional position. I think I have pushed you over the edge with my mudslinging comments. Perhaps this was too much for you to bear and excessive. For that I apologize.   But to declare our dialogue as not God honoring is definitely over the top and a mischaracterization.  I cannot in good faith allow your posts to misrepresent my views without responding and challenging you on it. 

Your posts continue to focus on rephrasing my views incorrectly instead of addressing your position and views.  You don't seem  to address the issues that I have surfaced in your Biblical interpretation position  that have exposed weaknesses in your traditional viewpoint i.e. that there is substantial symbology used in Genesis 2&3 and you have made an personal arbitrary stance on some verses like the talking snake being symbolic but other verses like making Adam out of dust non -symbolic. It seems to me that your reluctance to address which specific verses are symbolic and which are not, an admission that you have a very weak position that Ge 2:7 and Ge 2:22 (Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib) cannot be symbolic. You would rather, it seems, abandon the debate than admit any form of weakness in your fundamental views of what is true.  If you leave now without first itemizing your position on which verses are symbolic and then defending your position further, there can be no other conclusion that one can draw than your traditional anti-evolution position is weak from a Biblical perspective. Why would you abdicate your position so quickly and with so little defense?  I hope you will reconsider and further provide this insight on your views. With your background and Masters in Theology you should be able to strongly defend in detail the issues I've raised from a traditional perspective.  I haven't raised that many; just a few key ones in several posts. 

If you really feel that this debate is no longer God honoring after I've taken back my mudslinging comment and are intent on leaving us, in the interest of full disclosure and truth, I ask you to please identify any other verses in Ge 2&3 that you think are primarily symbolic and provide your explanation of the symbolism. That way, we at least know your position related to further debate. It would be very sad to see you depart, as we are just beginning the debate on evolution vs creationism. Who will defend your traditional view now? 

I am sure that I speak for the others, in saying that we all have enjoyed and appreciate your perspective on these issues. There is no one that could replace you. May God guide you and help you in your pursuits in either case. 

With Brotherly Love and Respect,

Lee

Brother Stu ...

I was just wondering what you believe "actually" happened in the Garden with Eve?
If this event didn't "really" happen just as God said it did ... then what took place instead?
Unlike Lee ... I am NOT trying to trap you into accepting my premise ... but would honestly
enjoy hearing your explanation as why you have chosen to believe that this event was
symbolic ... as opposed to an actual narrative of this hugely important event?

You have explained to us that you do NOT put ANY restrictions on God as far as what kind
of miracles He can perform ... so why would God choose to embellish or paraphrase the
actual event of the original sin?

Of course ... He could have ... but I don't understand what it is that makes you feel as though He did?


20 Bret*11

Dear Lee,

I love you as a brother. I am never trying to "make other people have a low opinion of you by saying unpleasant things about you" (the definition of "mud slinging"). In fact, all of us have ceaselessly commended you for your intelligence, scientific training, and commitment to Christ and the Bible. I just think you are wrong and I have been aggressively debating with you (the agreed purpose of this forum); trying unsuccessfully to have you see that the traditional theological viewpoint is not an " antiquated viewpoint that relies on suspension of the laws, popping rabbits out of thin air and miracles." It is not a viewpoint of people who "suspend reason and logic," or "disregard God's claim of fixed laws," or who "disregard reality." (your words).

I am not condemning science and scientists -- I love science. I just don't agree with you. And the reason I have been particularly aggressive in my defense of the traditional faith is that you believe you have a better insight than that of traditional theology; and you want to teach your view to other Christians in the church as well as our next generation coming up in Christian schools and colleges.

Lee -- I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do have a master's degree in engineering from an Ivy League school and a masters' in Christian apologetics, so at least I understand at more than a basic level what you are saying. I just don't agree with you and don't think others should either. If you can't convince me that you have a better grasp on this topic than the giants who have gone before you, then why should you be encouraged to shape other Christian minds without opposition?

I agree, further "resistance is futile," and I too withdraw from this fruitless debate which is no longer God honoring.

I conclude with letting the reading audience decide for themselves if "mud slinging" is going on, and if so who is doing it.

God Bless you my friend,

Stu
---------------------------------
"sling/throw mud at somebody" Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006.
If someone slings mud at another person, they try to make other people have a low opinion of them by saying unpleasant things about them.

Quotes from Lee's last post:

You continue to allow the metaphysics of a few distorted athesistic minds, speak for all humanity relating to science.

You guys are so quick to condemn scientists

You still don't understand the difference and refuse to learn even after I have explained it many times. Seems like you just love to sling mud. Oh when will you stop?!

You insinuate that this is a flaw in my approach while I believe it to be a strength of my views over your views that disregard reality, disregard God's claim of fixed laws, and suspend reason and logic to adhere to an antiquated viewpoint that relies on suspension of the laws, popping rabbits out of thin air and miracles.

QADWE 5) Slinging mud again; or are you just not comprehending what I have been stating over and over?

you haven't understood what I was saying at all on the separation of information and physical laws and are continuing to misrepresent my views.

you don't understand these concepts well enough to see that they are compatible with the Bible. Unfortunately, you just don't understand them enough at this point. Resistance is futile!

All,
You continue to allow the metaphysics of a few distorted athesistic minds, speak for all humanity relating to science. There is no doubt that these forces are a problem in our culture and need to be dealt with, however, don't forget the important contribution that scientists have made in our understanding of the universe and the evidence they have supplied in support of God's creation: the Big Bang, life's creation, life's uncomphrensible nano-machinery, and human thought. You guys are so quick to condemn scientists; your not looking at the big picture. There is a lot of wonderful scientific evidence for creation mixed in with the chaff the non-believers blow at us Christians.

Stu,
I am sure you are joking about Eugenie, Ha! Even if I wasn't married and decided to go on this hypothetical date, I am sure she would stomp out on me in the first few minutes as I explained by views as a Progressive Creationist! The NCSE want the Theistic Evolutionists because they claim it is an unguided process that God set up and that is the foundation that the house of atheism is built upon. An unguided process is counter to Biblical claims of a caring God; it is also counter to a deterministic creation and prophecy. She would find out quickly that I am not what she is looking for and run! There you go again muddling theistic evolution and progressive creationism again. You still don't understand the difference and refuse to learn even after I have explained it many times. Seems like you just love to sling mud. Oh when will you stop?!

Thanks for admitting that the talking snake was symbolic for you; sorry, I guess I missed your statement about the snake being symbolic. I don't know what you mean by saying the snake was historical though; maybe you will explain this as well for me. If it was symbolic of Satan, does this mean that the encounter in the garden took place physically or spiritually. QADWE 1) Was Satan there in physical form in the garden and talking out loud with Eve or was Satan in a spiritual form like a ghost communicating with her mentally? I would claim that this encounter did not occur historically and materially but was a hypothetical account of the first humans deciding to be disobediant for God. You seem to be aligned with my view except when call this account historical. QADWE 2) What is your view on this symbolic conversation between Satan? and Eve.

By allowing symbology into these verses in some cases and not others, you have established a criteria in your own mind as to permitting some things to be symbolic and others not. QADWE 3) What is your criteria for allowing the snake to be symbolic of Satan or disobedience? The Bible does not say that the snake was symbolic of Satan or human disobedience .

QADWE 4) Are there any other verses that are symbolic like the trees for instance?

As for trying to bridge the Bible and scientific views, yes, you are correct, I am trying to find more compatibility between the Bible and what we know about the physical world which is God's other creation. You insinuate that this is a flaw in my approach while I believe it to be a strength of my views over your views that disregard reality, disregard God's claim of fixed laws, and suspend reason and logic to adhere to an antiquated viewpoint that relies on suspension of the laws, popping rabbits out of thin air and miracles.

[Stu]- 'But if there are miracles that don't have a concordant scientific theory (like the creation of Adam out of dust) then you reject them. That's no way to believe in miracles -- that they must have scientific validation. '

You should be aware by now after all my posts that I do believe in miracles, so your attempt to discredit my views by saying that I reject them is totally without any historical basis. I have said time and time again that God uses his fixed laws to perform them and have even given you insight on how He might do it in several examples using control variable imbedded in these known laws. QADWE 5) Slinging mud again; or are you just not comprehending what I have been stating over and over?

[Stu]- 'Tell me how you are ever going to scientifically validate your salvation.'

You must be aware by now that I don't believe that my salvation has anything to do with the physical laws which is what science is engaged in discovering. Your request makes no sense to me. You have seen me state many times that my soul is informationally (spiritually) based. If you are really looking for a reply from me on this, you will need to rephrase it. It is clear to me by your request that you haven't understood what I was saying at all on the separation of information and physical laws and are continuing to misrepresent my views.

My statement to get you to see the difference between information and physical laws was rhetorical. It is something I must continue to do because you don't understand these concepts well enough to see that they are compatible with the Bible. Unfortunately, you just don't understand them enough at this point. Resistance is futile!

Lee

Hey Stu,


yeah, I had to work my way through some of their materials.

Did you know that Scott many years ago made a call for atheists to send in worship songs of evolution? In SCIENCE of all magazines. Can you imagine? A call for praise music to worship evolution!!!



Lucien

Yep Lucien -- I agree, this is not news at the popular level. But for NCSE this is ground breaking. They are top guns with the elitists, humanists and the New Atheist crowd. And Big Brother when it comes to watching every classroom and initiating legal proceedings in the U.S. (sort of the ACLU of evolution :).

They have been, up until now, of the "DO NOT let even a Divine toenail in the door" variety.

Stu

I have known this for years.
Maybe not stated by Scott, but this is nothing new.
Pupils who had doubts about evolution were advised to ask their clergy.
So no news to me.
But good of you to warn brother Lee! LOL

Lee,

The National Center of Science Education has come out with a new strategy -- make friends with theistic evolutionists in order to win the public's favor!

Our mutual "friend and leader" there, Eugenie Scott might be checking you out soon for a date

Learn all about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tZxcGJyhM&feature=related.

Lucien and Bret -- NCSE is the premier institution in the US for fighting creationism of any kind, so this is a remarkable new quest of theirs. They are sensing theistic evolution as something they can use to destroy creationism from within, and win favor from without http://ncse.com

The link above is a podcast by Dr. William Lane Craig who I think is one of our most intelligent communicators. Check him out at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Hi Stu,

that quote from Hawking is metaphysical or even (dare I say it) religious.
In my opinion it is blind faith that nothing can create anything from nothing.

I, like you, have a rational faith that somebody (God) can create something from nothing. My mind admittedly boggles when I contemplate this, but at least it is more credible than Hawking's view:

nothing vs God.

God wins!
(sadly all those who put their lives on nothing will lose)



Lucien

I agree Hawking has hardened his mind and heart in the last 25 years and is now a functional atheist. As any of us approach our homegoing we either harden like Laplace, Bertrand Russell, and Hawking; or soften like Anthony Flew; or try to play both sides like Oscar Wilde.

Hawking's case is sad because such a great mind has been reduced to rubble when he says things like:

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

How is that advancing the science he so desperately loves, or helping the young scientists coming up he wants to mentor? Spontaneous creation without a cause shows the complete lack of an explanation rather than any scientific understanding.

Hello Gang! ...


It's nice to see that the core-4 are all still (somewhat) active!

Stu ... I hope that your lack of interest in Lee's eclectic amalgamation of Science
& the Bible ... is not a complete throwing-in of the towel (so to speak)?
I would truly enjoy posing some questions in your direction ... if you can find the time?

My Post title refers to following observation!
I know that Lee has clearly stated that he does NOT agree with complete scientific
philosophies of Richard Dawkins & Steven Hawking (the "awkin's" twins)!
But ... they DO hold the Microphones ... and are the ones Hogging the Stage!
Here's Steven's latest little ditty:

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the newspaper.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

Hawking's stance on religion has hardened significantly in the nearly quarter century since the publication of his seminal work on the cosmos.

In "A Brief History of Time" he suggested that the idea of a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.

But in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" he said a deity no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the universe in the light of a series of developments in physics.



20 Bret*11

[Lee] Your responses to these issues is long overdue. I was trying mostly to get you to state whether or not you believe Ge 1, 2, & 3 contains any symbology and where it occurs if it does. You seem very reluctant to do this. For me, this is the real crux of the debate. I believe there is plenty of symbology in these chapters and I can't get your opinion on the verses I listed previously. I believe that you might fear admitting that you believe some of the verses in the above chapters are symbolic and therefore those verses undermine your claim against evolution since if some are why not the verses that Adam was made by God from dust and Eve was made by God from Adam's rib. Please be forthcoming on this point.

[Reply] In my March 19 post I posted a whole treatise on biblical interpretation and said that there is plenty of symbolism in the Bible. I said specifically, "Genesis is historic -- [it uses] symbolism and that does not destroy its literalism. God is communicating wisdom to us, not giving a scientific treatise on the cosmological constant. ... the serpent passage is to describe the tempting and disobedience of Eve. A symbolic snake works well in making the point. .[so]... I choose to see the snake symbolically."

The only reason I can see you call this discussion the "crux of the debate" is because you want to make symbolic any passages that don't fit your evolutionary paradigm and replace them with some obscure interpretation that does. Now that you've admitted that God "popping things into existence" is no longer ridiculous but a "reasonable alternative" I'm delighted to show you from the biblical text that God did it that way.

[Lee] " ... popping plants and animals into existence is not realistically compatible with natural laws."

[Reply] Red Herring. Of course popping things into existence is not natural law -- who said it was? It's a miracle! You just want to accept miracles that you like because they are compatible with the scientific theories you concur with (like the Big Bang). But if there are miracles that don't have a concordant scientific theory (like the creation of Adam out of dust) then you reject them. That's no way to believe in miracles -- that they must have scientific validation. Tell me how you are ever going to scientifically validate your salvation.

[Lee] " Your statement has muddled the laws of nature, the laws of heaven, spiritual laws, and information.... I am having great difficulty getting you to understand the difference between information and physical laws but I will continue to try if you have the patience and desire."

[Reply] No thank you. I understand enough of information theory and physics to know the difference scientifically, and enough about theology to know when they are being improperly implied to the biblical text.

Lee,


I think we all (even you) have misread/failed to answer in the past.
In the end all win, as we will get eternity to hear from the Master, and we'll have access to more info than the 66 books of the Bible.
I wonder if God has a library, or will show us the DVD...


Lucien

Lucien,

I agree with Marvin, believe it or not! This is why we are having the debate. I get frustrated at times though in trying to communicate with the YEs when they don't bother to try to read and comprehend my posts. Both sides should try and understand each other's views with the most logical and rational side winning in the end. Science is not a God here, but rational thought is important and views need to be in touch with reality (God's creation).

Lee