Hi Bill: Isn’t that the definition of “evolution?” Evolution is all about natural forces taking a life seed and after millions of years forming complexity. I of course believe that God created kinds with the ability to evolve and adapt. that is called creationism and grace where God was kind enough to give his creation the ability to adapt and survive. Evolution from common decent on the other hand circumvents how evil, death and disease was brought onto this planet via Adam and it indeed does suggest that God created via death disease and pain and then had the nerve to call it “good” . Not only this, it insinuates that God created evil via the naturalistic process in evolution. Genesis 1-3 does a fantastic job of explaining sin and how the presence of evil is not of God and from this the Gospel of Jesus, the last and better Adam, makes sense. Theistic evolution throws a wrench into the Genesis account and thus can offer a lot of confusion of the gospel.
If theistic evolutionists believes that God created, then call yourself a creationist. God transcends us. And if you are so willing to call yourself a Creationist who believes that God is indeed that great to create dna in a split second, then don’t be so quick to sneer at the possibility that God did all of this in thousands of years and not billions regardless of the way it appears!
I did indeed answer the question! Read a little more closely Mr. brooks. Read Socrates sometime too. Christian theology does not give a lot of wiggle room for stiff arming the first human beings. It does not give a lot of wiggle room for creationism via evolution either which suggests that God not only created via pain death and disease but also insinuates that He created evil. I have said this before: Theistic evolution is worse than godless naturalistic evolution because we can understand why a non believer would demand that nature was mainly responsible for complexity because God is not allowed in the equation. But attributing God to such is like taking the Bible and all of the precepts therein and twisting and contorting them inside out, backward and suggesting that this is of God who is not a God of confusion.
Interesting, please elaborate as to how you explain how and why God created the universe with the appearance of age in the billions of years, but it really is not very old, since that seems to be your position. How does that correlate with a holy God of truth, and how does that work with a God who wants all to be saved, even science types? How is that seen in relation to Psalm 19 and Romans 1 where the Bible says we all can see God’s glory in creation?
All that I know is that we based the age of the earth on dating an asteroid that came to earth. I have read also from well meaning scientists that the number of assumptions that go into dating this asteroid is astoundingly great. Secular science pays this no mind because downstream for the sin nature is to circumvent anything Bible or anything God which naturalistic evolution does a great job at which requires long ages.
Some would believe that thinking the earth to be thousands of years old about the most insane thought imaginable. Likewise, there are well meaning scientists today that provide a long list of BIG problems with the earth being billions of years old too. And we are entering into the beginnings of understanding quantum physics which I wonder if someday all of our assumptions based on the knowledge we have today be dismantled with new ideas from there all together. Read Ravi Zacharius on this sometime.
I bet that you believe that Jesus did turn water into wine…a miracle. Wine has the appearance of age. When it comes to creation, this is the miracle of miracles! Could the very miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine be one of those soft voices that suggests that we not pay too much mind to our observational skills when it comes to deep history and its age? Maybe.
Where I used to be on the fence about whether the earth was old or young (although a firmly committed creationist all along) I am siding more and more towards the earth being younger and not older…this is NOT because I hang with the yec boys and peruse the yec websights all day long. It is NOT because I am making a buck somewhere or any other allegiances. It is because my sense of things after reading the Bible, praying and seeing the fruit out from the various camps is causing me to turn towards the plain rendering of the Biblical account where the earth is suggested to be young and not old.
If I did consider buying into the idea of an old earth, Sailhammer’s view would be the most acceptable. Theistic evolution is the least.
Really? You answered the question? Well, if that is true, then you should be able to point out what sentence was the answer, right below. I took a snapshot of your entire post, so you won’t be tempted to “touch up” a sentence or phrase here or there.
So… where’s the answer to @Chris_Falter’s question: Who lived in those cities?
I’m wagering 100 Klingon Talons that you can’t find the sentence you think is in there …
[Note: the Exchange Rate for Klingon Darsek’s into Talon’s is unknown, and not collectable until the 23rd century. See link below.]
I don’t know which “well meaning scientists” you’re referring to here, but they aren’t telling the truth. I’ve seen many, many YEC claims about the assumptions involved in radiometric dating that are simply not true. For starters:
Radiometric dating does not make assumptions about the initial amount of parent and daughter isotope in the rocks. There is a technique called isochron dating that side-steps this assumption completely.
Similarly, isochron dating does not make assumptions about contamination or leakage either. These would readily be apparent because the points on the graph would not lie on a straight line.
Samples are routinely dated using multiple methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, and close agreement to within a fraction of one percent is the norm in more than 90% of cases. Claims that these methods only give the same results because they are calibrated against each other, or because they make the “same assumptions of uniformitarianism,” are untrue.
Anomalous results account for less than 10%, and possibly as few as 5%, of cases. In most cases, they were not actual radiometric results at all, but were merely attempts to determine whether or not specific methods could be applied to novel situations. There’s a vast difference between showing that one particular method does not work on metamorphic rocks, and showing that no methods work on anything.
Cherry-picking of the data can not account for this high degree of concordance, because (a) there are hundreds of thousands of results recorded in the scientific literature, and (b) radiometric dating is too expensive (thousands of dollars per sample) to allow for this kind of chicanery to remain covered up for very long.
The suggestion that nuclear decay rates could have varied significantly in the past is complete science fiction. Even the young-earth creationist RATE team admitted that accelerated nuclear decay sufficient to squeeze the observed radiometric results into 6,000 years would have released enough heat to vaporise the earth.
There is no evidence of primordial radiocarbon in ancient coals and diamonds. The RATE team did not follow the correct procedures for taking contamination into account.
Allegations of circular reasoning — such as the claim that “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils” — are untrue.
Vast swathes of the evidence for an ancient earth comes from oil exploration. Petroleum geologists have to produce results that are correct, not results that are ideologically convenient. There is no room whatsoever in oil exploration for “secular science” fudging the figures to produce artificially inflated or otherwise fictitious ages. If they tried any such thing, oil companies would waste a fortune drilling in the wrong places only to find that they couldn’t get the oil out of the ground.
Greg, I suggest you read the article Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Roger C Wiens. He explains these things in fairly comprehensive detail. Make sure that you read it carefully and that you properly understand the maths and reasoning behind it.
I think our friend @grog was suggesting via his questions that the men that Cain would encounter as he wandered all over the earth, and who would inhabit the city he founded, were his 100% brothers (same father, same mother).
The obvious issue with this line of reasoning is that the Bible does not even hint at this; it is pure, unadulterated, 100% speculation.
I acknowledge that the scenario I favor is also 100% speculation, of course. The difference between Greg’s scenario and mine is that mine is in agreement with a very large body of scientific evidence, while Greg’s scenario cannot possibly be reconciled with that scientific evidence.
Of course, Greg could always say, “I don’t have to reconcile the Bible with science. Let God be true and all men liars.” This of course has its own problems:
(1) It very well may not be God’s Word that Greg supports, but his own sincere but misinformed hermeneutics.
(2) The Scripture expects all men and women to be able to accurately investigate the creation. This is the theological foundation of biology, geology, paleontology, and the other sciences. In turn, this would mean that God’s Word contradicts much of God’s work.
If it is 100% undeniable fact that Adam and Eve are the first humans and Eve births Caine:
Someone then brings up this passage for discussion-my emphasis added:
Gen 4:14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
Gen 4:15 Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him.
Gen 4:16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
From these passages it is suggested that this proves that there were other humans besides Cain’s family members.
From this a series of questions to ask about this:
When did Caine slay his brother? Was it 100 years after his birth, or longer? Some experts suggest he was around 130 when doing the history.
Was Abel the second born or was there a brother or maybe even 8 brothers between Caine and Abel?
When folks lived as long as they do and did not practice birth control, how many generations of people must have been produced when Caine worried about retribution after he killed his brother?
What is a “city” Looking at the context of this passage, this should be considered more of a settlement of sorts made to protect Cain and his family more than a city with thousands of people. Cain was seriously concerned that the sinful act he did in the sin state he was in was going to reap retribution from a family member who was just as sinful and who would have potentially been very interested to slay he who slayed a kin in the name of justice.
If there are sub humans abounding in this area of the world enough to build an actually “city” would they have a consciences? Would they have souls? And how much interest would they have to see justice against a guy who killed his brother when it would have not personal bearing on them? Does not make sense.
My point is I don’t give an answer, I give a defense for what I already know and I know it because the Bible says so! There were no other humans abounding who did not fall in line in Adam’s family tree at this point… Period, end of story. As soon as one begins to play theology gymnastics, they are pretending to be self proclaimed prophets who describe what is not in the text in context. That is grounds for furthering apostacy and potentially heresy.
If cain feared for his life, how does a “city” protect him from such? I dare suggest that the “city” cain formed was less a populated town we call a city and more a citadel for safety for he, his immediate family and any of those who sided with him from the family. Remember he was worried for his life over the killing of Abel.
if one is so concerned to hone in on individual words in these passages in contention to bolster one’s belief in evolution, then what about respect for Noah’s ark that is written in historical narrative form. And if one wants to select a few verses to bolster their claim about cain, then respect the creationist language in early Genesis…even if one wants to consider this as poetry, then consider the truth claims within that poetry eg “Roses are red, violets are blue”
And lastly if one wants to talk theology, then go all the way and attempt to explain how theistic evolution does not obliterate the essence of sin and death and thus the truest meaning of the gospel.
Guys like Dr. Kurt Wise admits that the earth looks old but he chooses to side with the view that the earth is young. I read of book of his about 10 years ago about time…very interesting. Wise is brilliant and I would suggest very wise to boot. I have read some of what you bring to the table here yet well meaning scientists still find many problems with the earth being billions of years old. I would not be able to find my research on this quickly.
Regardless, I will never agree with the foundations of evolutionism. a Trillion years do not give naturalistic common decent evolutionism feet to stand on and we as those created in God’s image do not witness anything even resembling naturalistic evolution that creates something with design, purpose, color, function etc via nature. This circumvents all logic and all that we know and is not theologically sound by any stretch. That is why if I were convinced that the earth was really old and I was a Christian, I would lean the direction of Sailhammer and away from anything from the theistic evolutionism camp. Sailhammer allows the Biblical doctrine to remain 100% intact because he would claim that ancient history occurs only in a phase at Genesis 1:1 that could have lasted for a trillion trillion years for what he cares…then the start of human history begins at Genesis 1:2 where the “land” is a place on earth prepared for mankind to begin his journey. With this, traditional viewpoints from there on can be held in place without a whole lot of problem minus Noah which I do believe occurred as recorded by the way.
I’m no theologan, but To me themeaning of the gospel is that I have sinned, am deserving of death, and Christ died and rose on the third day to save me. Whether God used evolution to create is irrelevant to that. But it may be relevant in seeing the world in its true light.
“I take the Word of God to mean exactly what it says. Therefore, Cain had no other brothers or sisters besides those specifically mentioned in the Bible. Go ahead with your atheist-inspired heresy of other brothers and sisters, but I will stick to the Word of God, and that settles it!”
I would guess you would counter with something along the lines of “common sense dictates that there had to be other brothers and sisters.”
Do you see something of a parallel?
Your Christian brothers and sisters that accept evolution are in no way detracting from the truth of the Bible. Instead, we are following the common sense clues inherent in His creation that go beyond what is specifically contained in the Bible.
I have forwarded this 1-9 information to some very bright young earth creationist phds for a response. The ice cores seem to be grounds enough for a longer than 6000 yr earth and this info is interesting too…I feel comfortable to handle the logic and illogic of evolutionism vs creationism but this age of the earth stuff I will be very interested to learn from the phds in the fields related to dating ages of rocks.
Have you ever heard a logical explanation about finding soft tissue in a dino fossils?..I read a few things in university papers and they spoke of iron preservatives and “well soft tissue must be able to survive for 10’s of millions of years because there it is” with a period, done with comments type of response… That was not enough for me to be convinced…What do you know?
But you have them committing incest which was a really big no no. On the same order as murder. And if you want to go the “incest wasn’t forbidden until later” route, why was murder such a problem? God created man with a moral sense and that would include the prohibition against incest. Unless of course you are trying to save a literal interpretation.
Actually I refer to myself, along with many others here, as an Evolutionary Creationist. Most people don’t like the theistic evolutionist title as you have been told several times already.
God is so great he could have created the entire universe last Thursday so what’s your point?
I don’t believe I am sneering at the possibility. The problem lies in the “regardless of the way it appears!” God left very clear indications of how long it took to create the earth and life. To poof it into existence while giving it the appearance of age makes God into a deceiver. Last I heard He wasn’t the deceiver it was that other guy.
I believe you are a Christian and I believe you are my brother in Christ. But I have recognized some bad theology come out from the theistic evolution camp…I have been saying this for years: satan our enemy is attempting to destroy the essence of the gospel by destroying the essence of sin. And sin is only as bad as when we see God is GREAT and ultimate…And sin gets enflamed when eliminating Him as much as possible out of the picture…
I have family members who say they said a prayer of salvation but live as if God does not exist in their daily living. Does this make them a Christian? Not according to 1 Jn and James is doesn’t. Where creationism lessens this propensity, theistic evolutionism bolsters it because God gets placed on the back burner and believe it or not, all that it takes to make God deistic is fooling with the beginnings in the creation story.
What sentence do you think most closely approximates “Grog answering you”? I’m serious… I need to understand half the stuff he writes down, and if you, Chris (or you, @Grog) can point me to the sentence that can be reasonably interpreted to mean:
“Cain’s city was for the future kindred of Adam & Eve …”
… well, if you can … it looks like I’m going to be owing him a fortune in Klingon currency!