BioLogos Irony (YEC/OEC)


This is my first time posting. And first and foremost, I would like to thank Biologos for their maturity and loving approach, and that they understand that the most important thing in life is to know God and become reconciled to Him through our faith in His Son Jesus. All the rest of this is just fun things to ponder, but is no reason to cut people down or cause strife.

That being said, I watched a video from Francis Collins, and I thought it was interesting for him to say that many think science and religion have a firewall in between them (you have to choose to support one or the other, but you can’t support both), and he is a ‘founder’ of Biologos and the ideal that science and religion, can and do marry. Which I agree with.

What I found ironic is that he seemed to created his own firewall that OEC (old earth creation) vs. YEC (young earth creation). However, I do think they also can, and do marry.

Dr. Collins speaks of how God is beyond/outside of time and space when He created the universe. So why can’t the earth be BOTH ~6000 years old AND 4.5 million years old? Why can’t the universe be BOTH 13.7 billion years old AND ~6000 years old?

Take dendrochronology as an easy example… If a tree has x amount of rings and certain spacings that overlap with other dead, and fossilized trees, we can say the earth much be at least 12,000 years old… But lets just take one tree. If God snapped His fingers or spoke, and a tree appeared…How old is that tree? Is it 1 second old, or is it 80 years old? The correct answer is BOTH. You cut that tree down, and it would (depending on the size/relative age God wanted it to be, it would have rings that made it appear to be 80 years old. Yet we JUST saw it appear seconds ago, so it is 1 second old, and if I were to write a book of recordings, I would say this tree was created on this year, on this month, on this week, on this day, on this hour, on this minute, and this very second. But a week later a scientist bumped into this tree and took a sample, and measured it, they would say, impossible, you are crazy, we measured it, and it is 80 years old. But someone who believed your writings was divinely inspired (but wasn’t there themselves), would say, my writings say this is now a week old, so it is a week old. And they fight and insulted each other for no reason, as they are both right, and neither are wrong.

What about when Jesus fed the 5000? If there was a scientist that took one of those fish and dissected it, they could guestimate the age to be a few months/years old right? But if we were there, we know those fish are only seconds old. Who is right? The scientist or the observer/writer? BOTH

So why can’t YEC and OEC both marry much like science and religion both marry?

Your thoughts?

(Mervin Bitikofer) #2

Welcome to the forum! And may your chosen user name continue to describe all of us here. If we all started and adhered to what you write in your first paragraph, the world would be a better place. There should never be a reason to cut people down. As for ‘fun’ and ‘pondering’, that too can be held in good spirit as I think you suggest, without insisting that we agree on everything. if we agree here that there is and are truths (and therefore that implies that falsehoods and even possibly deceptions must exist too), then we should still care deeply about departing from falsehood once we become aware of it.

I think this gives us a great opportunity to reflect on how others must feel when they hear the suggestion: “why can’t evolution and Genesis 1 both be true?”. Because you’ll find that many Christian participants here are very much “both/and” about evolution and Creation. But we generally are not “both / and” on how old the earth is (aside from monkeying around with relativistic or speed-of-light ideas which I think @Casper_Hesp has addressed and debunked.)

It may be a good occasion for people here to defend the distinction of why they think the age of the earth is a straightforward binary true/false item whereas forcing a choice that either God created or evolution created is very much not such a binary item. I think YECs press this very point, and I also believe that ECs can and do very much distinguish (justifiably so in my view) these two assertions into different categories. 2+2=5 is a very binary assertion that is either true or false. And that should be pretty much our first and last question about it. We probably all agree on that. Most here will see the age of the earth in those same terms. If God made it two hours ago, then it is really two hours old. Period. Full stop. All appearances aside --though they would be just that then: appearances --and misleading ones at that.

But speaking of God’s involvement, and is God’s hand in, for example, keeping the planets in orbit or is it gravity that does that – this does not meet the criteria of being a binary choice, any more than I must choose whether I am a husband, a father, a teacher, a student, a son, … none of those things forces an exclusion of any other, and it is false to suggest that a choice must be made as to which of those things is true leaving all the others as false. The logic just does not work for that as it does seem to work for whether the earth is billions of years old (as ‘year’ is currently defined and casually used) or only thousands. That’s my initial reaction, anyway. Feel free to press on and push back!


But why would God create a tree with a false history that it is 80 years old? God could poof a mature tree into existence with no tree rings. The rings are not required for the tree to live. They are just a record of the life of the tree.

Consider the water turned to wine. The wine steward might assume it took a long time to make the wine because it was very good, but there is no record of this when all you have is wine in a water jar. The witnesses could say it was water and now it is wine, but we don’t have a false history attached to the wine.

I believe the same thing could be said about the fish used to feed the 5000. If the fish was cleaned and cooked there is probably no way to determine it’s age except to base it off of it’s size. Again, no false history needs to be present.

The question you have to ask yourself is “Does a tree created with a false history make God a deceitful god?”


No, the correct answer is one second old, but made to look much older.

Some people regularly make things look much older than they really are. That would include movie makers and Disney Imagineers. But we are OK with that because we expect it and is part of entertaining us.

Other people make fake fossils and antiques, and hawk them as genuine. We aren’t OK with that because it’s dishonest and deceptive. And most believers aren’t OK with God being deceptive, since we think of him as righteous and on the side of truth. Besides, it would be hard knowing what to believe with a capricious god running around.

(Phil) #5

Welcome to the forum! The position you proposed is actually held by some of my friends, so I understand where you are coming from. We do not like conflict, and one way to avoid it is to pretend it does not exist. I feel this is not the correct way to deal with it however in this case, as your scenario suggests:
“They fight and insult each other for no reason”

I do not think God would place conflicting information in creation that would lead to strife. We as humans certainly do, but for God to intentionally lead the ring counter astray is counter to his holiness and nature. An additional point is that the rings represent history, of wet years, of dry years, of growth, of fire, of damage etc. and to say that history did not happen, is to attribute falsehood to the one who wrote it.

In any case, it is something to ponder, thank you for posting and being a part of the community.

(George Brooks) #6


@jpm provided a nice general discussion. And if you read some of @Jonathan_Burke 's posts on God’s use of natural law, I think you would find his catalog of reasoning to be impressively comprehensive. I found it to be quite persuasive.

Essentially, Jon’s camp would assert ideas along these lines:

  1. “The way that God wants to create trees is to evolve them.”

  2. "For whatever reasons and factors are considered by God, this kind of phrase is sometimes used: “God can only make a Planet a certain way - - because God wants to make planets in that way (i.e., cosmologically consistent with natural laws).”

  3. We wouldn’t want to put too much emphasis on what God can or cannot do. The point is that when it comes to God’s nature, he would not create an old tree. If he wants an old tree - - he does it the “old school” way - - he creates an ecosystem that will grow that old tree!

  4. This is analagous to the common belief that God is “holy” and it is not within his nature to do anything non-holy. He seeks only the Holy… which might be expressed as “God is limited by his holiness.”


Or put another way, God cannot do anything against his own divine will.


Or to put it in the general case, God cannot do anything that goes against any of His divine attributes. Truth and Holiness being two. A quick Google search did find an admittedly incomplete list of 16 attributes.


You would also need dead trees already in the ground with ring patterns that overlap the living trees. You would also need tree rings to match up between trees. Why would a created forest have these features? Why would God adjust the 14C content of the dead trees in the ground so that they create the false appearance of having died thousands of years prior, as determined by the pattern of rings in the tree? What you are proposing requires God to purposefully insert a fake history where none needs to exist. In order for a tree to function it doesn’t even need rings, so why would they have rings to begin with?

Would God create Adam with fake memories of being attacked by bears, and fake scars to match the fake bear attack? Would God give Adam calcifications on his right tibia identical to a healed broken bone even though he never broke it?

This idea was previously proposed by a guy named Phillip Gosse in his book “Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot” in 1857.

In case you were wondering, “omphalos” is Latin for belly button, a reference to the question of whether God would give Adam a belly button which is a scar produced by the umbilical cord. Since Adam would never have been attached to an umbilical cord, would he have had a belly button? This is what one of Gosse’s contemporaries said of his book and ideas:

“Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this—that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam’s navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here … I cannot … believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind.”–Rev. Charles Kingsley


Exactly. Some religions have trickster deities, e.g. Coyote or Loki. Christianity considers Satan to be the father of lies. But God? Get real.


I heard Dr. Collins mention that point too. And he didn’t believe God is a deceptive God, nor do I. You seem to be under the paradigm of 100’ tree measured to be 80 years old, even though it appeared a week ago = deceit.

But I don’t believe a 100’ week old tree MEASURING to 80 years old is deceptive. That is our fault for measuring it, and not accepting the written truth (if there were such truth as this is an analogy). If His God breathed Word says, 1 week, than it is a week, no need to go any further and claim deceit when you can’t measure it as such.

You said “Does a tree created with a false history make God a deceitful god?” Yes and no. but where did you get false history from? I am talking about a real history. This history just so happened to have the time realm manipulated. Did God create a false history with the fish? Yes and no, the fish was a few seconds old, but it was also old enough to be called a fish and not a fish egg. Anything that is anything has to have a history to it, or it wouldn’t be what it is, it would be a new thing that we haven’t discovered yet, like a tree without rings. If you want to call it a false history, that is up to you. What makes it false?

But if God made a 100’ tree appear that didn’t have rings that went back 80 years, or roots that went into the earth deep and wide, then it wouldn’t be a tree now would it? The part of the tree above the ground would fall without roots at the slightest wind, or would collapse under its own weight if it was hollow (had no rings). If you want to deceive or confuse a scientist, God would create this weird outter-looking-tree object, that didn’t have historical rings or roots. What would a scientist call this object. The wood would be stronger than any steel, it wouldn’t be wood. The thing that makes a scientific tree a tree is its roots and rings ect. So for God to snap his fingers (or speak like in genesis) for a tree to appear, it would have to have rings and roots. Or are you suggesting that God could not snap His fingers and create a 100’ tree right in front of you if He wanted to? How many rings do you think that tree would have if He did?

That is why I used a fish example, God did a supernatural thing, and was not intending to deceive us, but He wanted to feed 5000 people with some fish from a basket-full. So He just made them appear. However, if someone wanted to measure or guestimate the age of a fish, they probably would have said 1 year ( I am not versed on fish ages). If He gave them an earthly measure-able few seconds old fish, they would have been eating caviar.

In one sense, it is pretty arrogant so say without a doubt the universe is 13.7 billion years old. However, you can say, it is measured to be that old. We weren’t there, so all we can do it measure, and the most assuredly you can know, is from you faith in His writings. Though like there are errors that come from measurements, there are errors in literary writing styles. So no one can say for sure the answer. Nor is it required for salvation, nor does God want us to know this specific truth, or He would have made it known through revelation to use like He did with His Gospel/rescue plan. There are way fewer people that argue the gospel, as He knew this is extremely important and that is why He repeated it 4 times and foreshadowed it multiple more times in the OT. The whole purpose of the Bible is to first say we were created fog a relationship with God, man screwed up, separated, and God develops a rescue plan, that plan being Jesus to allow us to have a relationship with God again.

That being said, I’m sure it will take my perceived IQ down (if it isn’t low enough), but when I think of how God created the universe, I think of the scene from Aladin, when the genie speaks of “phenomenal cosmic power”, and you see the planets and stars and galaxies swirling around. Since God is outside of time, it like like a time lapse for Him. He created the universe in 1 day, but he had stars and galaxies (almost like a big bang) expanding at phenomenal rates and that is how a star got thousands of light years away in 1 day. If God wanted to, could he not place a star 1000 light years away in a second? But then again, you run into the ringless rootless tree problem. Sure God can do anything, but it would make much more sense (to me) and be much easier to create a star in the big bang center, and expand it and have that tree end up where it is now, 1000 light years away, in 1 day.

@gbrooks9 point 3.
How are you so sure God would not create an old tree? Jonah 4:6 “Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head”. If a scientist could measure that plant, how old would they say it was? I think some bamboo is the fastest growing plant right? ~1 inch per hour? How fast do you think that plant grew to give shade? Does bamboo created shade? Have enough leaves/branches? Creating a time lapse isn’t lying, God controls time, time never changes, just how we measure it. A time lapse is the only way I can wrap my tiny brain around how awesome God is. But the fact is that God created this plant, very quickly to grow and give shade. God is outside of time, and knows the future, sure He could have created that tree as you say “the old school way”, He knew Jonah would want/need shade. He didn’t want to do that though.

Same as the fish, He did create an old (measured) fish.

God caused the sun to stop. At that time, we measured our days with the sun, so did time stop? Or just he way we measure it change?

Have you ever watched a time lapse of a tree growing over 5 years in 5 min? It is pretty neat to see, and that tree wouldn’t be what it is today, without that time lapse occurring. It only took me 5 min to watch though, but 5 years passed by. I imagine God is (since He is outside of time) creating a time lapse of billions of years, into 1 day.

I do agree that God cannot do anything that goes against any of His divine attributes. Nor can He make a square a circle. He could change a square into a circle, but He could not make it both things. He could make it appear to be both, but the very definition that we use, they can’t be both. Much like when I hand you my car keys and say you can go anywhere you want. Can you go to the moon with it? No. Was I lying when I said you could go anywhere? No. When I said above God can do anything, I used that term loosely. However, I don’t see why God can’t do things outside of time. He surely created fish from no where which violates our law of things not being created or destroyed.

I am not proposing that God would adjust the 14c content of a dead tree. I am suggesting that in a time lapse of this tree growing, maybe there was a tree that grew, and lighting hit it and it fell, and there was a rock in the ground and the roots grew around that rock. The tree IS human 80 years old IF you took a time lapse of things, but God 1 second old.

If you took a spring/coil, there is 1000’ of steel in this coil. If you compress it, the coil is 1’, but if you stretch it out, that coil is 1000’. To a ant crawling around the compressed coil, the coil is 1000’, but to us, it is a 1’ coil. Its relative. God could have made a universe/coil 1 day old, but it appears to us a 13.7 billion years old.

My theory as of why God did this? He did create us, and knows what is best for us. He wanted us to have a week to live by, and to rest on the 7th day. So he made the universe and then filled it in 6 days, rested on the 7th. However, he timelapsed it to appear to be 13.7 billion years old to the way we measure it. I understand the theory that genesis is more about a what happened, than a how, and story telling and word of mouth, and it wasn’t written about right away ect. That might be right, I don’t know. I just think it also has quite a bit of merit that my timelapse theory too.

I do believe the timelapse theory stopped at the garden of Eden though. The same time God stopped creating things. With few exceptions to that like that plant for Jonah ect or other miracles that God did.

So I am not sure I follow you on the fake memories of Adam with broken bones ect.? No ones knows if Adam did or didn’t have a navel. A navel is used to pass nutrients and oxygen until the human can do that for themselves…why couldn’t he have had some sort of mana like yoke sack that provided nutrients while he was being formed?

If I wanted to created an art piece, a model of the earth, why can I not create one with dead trees and fossils before human time starts? Like creating a world for hours as a video game creator/devoloper, then releasing it and letting people play. I see no deceit there, God just let things play out according to the laws of physics with stars becoming dwarfs and supernovas and trees getting rings and mountains forming as plates collided, but put on fast forward or a time lapse until I was done and ready for humans to play. There is no intent to deceive the human, I just want them to live in a world with a 100’ tree. But if that 100’ tree doesn’t have 80 year rings, then is it a tree?

A simple example to show relativity is not = deception. Earth moves at what 23000mph? in orbit? Am I lying or deceiving you when I say I am still on the earth? Technically I am moving 23000mph through space. It depends on your reference point, or what you are relative to. But God is outside of time, He has no reference point. Though he knows reference points, and He wanted the light, day 1. Relative to man’s time and the reference point we use to measure it, it is 13.7 billion years old. Relative to what God chose to use as His reference point, it was only 1 day. If God decided for the earth to move twice as fast around the sun, would we die at 50 now as opposed to 100? Only God knows that butterfly affect that would have on the universe…But our cells would still decay at the same rate which is how we measure age (among other things). But we measure a year by the sun? We also measure time with an atomic clock, and we have not discovered a way to manipulate that measurement, but if a scientist put that clock in a freezer that somehow slowed the atomic clock, would time for that scientist outside of that freezer slow down? Would his aging slow down? Aging is another measurement of time, it just happens to be quite unreliable and manipulated by many various factors. What if this scientist put this atomic clock in vehicle that went faster than the speed of light, would time slow down for the scientist who put this clock in a machine? God is the one outside of time watching/manipulating how time occurs for us in these ‘machines’. God being outside of time is such a complex thing to wrap our heads around, because we are inside time. But if God has a stopwatch going counting up (or down), the speed of the orbit (years) or the revolutions or our earth (days) or how fast our atomic stopwatch measure, could change, but His stopwatch would not change, it keeps going…or isn’t moving at all. He is outside of time.

I have other thoughts on evolution too…but I will leave that for another thread. But that has to do with a time lapse too. We didn’t observe evolution, we are just measuring what we can. However, I am made up of many cells, building blocks. If I make 1000 lego garages and 100 lego houses and 1 lego mansions, one could find these and say they evolved because there are similarities. Or one could say, one day I wanted to build something greater than a house, a mansion, so in building this mansion, if you stopped time, you might be able to see a garage, or if you keep going and then stop time, you see a house, and if you keep going until I am finished, you see a mansion. Using cells ect, the basic building blocks of life are how every living thing is created, some took more time, some had a special designation. Sure if that was a time lapse of occurrence, one could argue that humans evolved from moneys, why not? However, if the final product was intended to be a human, then it didn’t really evolve from a money or a cell, rather it was built from a cell. I think design and building is slightly different than evolving. That being said, I do believe in micro-evolution (as some call it), but I think it is more appropriate to call it adaptation. God gave us the ability to adapt to our surroundings, we can, and have observed that. But we have never observed macro-evolution, just measurements. But I could possibly be pulled into the camp of EC. I think there are too many words that need to be stretched in genesis to go there, but it is possible. What I think takes an insane amount of faith is evolution from nothing, no creator or great designer. Thought I don’t believe there is anyone on this website that believes in that.

Despite all of that wordyness above, (I am terrible at succinctly presenting something), I like Occams razor, I think Dr. Collins used that in the youtube video I watched with him founding Biologos. The simplest explanation in my mind is the time lapse theory ( As far as I know, I just made it up, but apparently others agree with me?). The only thing you have to change is time (which God is outside of), all other physics as we know it are exactly the same AND genesis literally works.

Another simple explanation could also be that 1 day isn’t literal. That would be very easy to believe. But why did God put so much emphasis on the sabbath, to keep it holy as God is holy and the literal sabbath God wanted to be 1 human day, and God said in Genesis that he rested, one literal human day. Why would he put so much emphasis on this one human day only for it not to be a literal telling of the beginnings and using 1 human day at a time? If I wanted to call something deceptive, I would maybe consider that to be deceptive.


A 100` tree with a history of living for 80 years when it was only created a week ago would certainly be considered deceitful. If you bought an antique trunk which the seller assured you was made in 1880 and even provided paperwork that stated this and you found out it was made in 2010 what would you call the seller?

Sure your real name is not Mike?

The fake history contained in the tree rings. The rings indicate changes in the growing conditions and can even indicate a forest fire. If the tree didn’t experience those growing conditions or forest fire that is a false history pure and simple. Just like the fake paperwork for the antique trunk.

Don’t get your point as it would be a tree with or without tree rings. They are not needed by the tree just by the people that are looking to find out the history of the tree.

Without a history so there is no problem.

Channelling Ken Ham now? Yes it is measured to be that old. Measured quite accurately at that. Is there a problem with that?

More responses later if I have the time.


No, it wouldn’t be a real history, it would still be a false history. I don’t even know what manipulating the time realm means. Did you make that up?

Do you think it’s OK to create fake antiques?


I think we were composing our answers at the same time!


YEC response clash!


Would you consider taking an online course on evolution? You would find it very instructive and enjoyable.


The reason you value the history of an object, so if that history was lied about, of course you would be upset. Like a 100 year old wine, it taste better with time. But what if someone found a way to age the wine faster so that it had 100 year old wine taste, and this wine was cheaper than ‘real’ 100 year old wine, would you care?

Like manufactured diamonds now a days, it is really difficult to tell them apart even under a microscope. Is that manufactured diamond a lie or a deceit? I am aware that though the manufacturer wasn’t able to speed up time, they were able to create diamonds using extreme heat and pressure which emulates that passing of time to give you a diamond.

But my theory is the opposite of your analogy. God is giving you a paper that says this antique earth is ~6000 years old (for arguments sake) but this antique has value to you of 4.5 million years old.

I don’t know who Mike is.

That is a real history, there really was a forest fire, the tree did experience those growing conditions. But to the man outside of the machine (God outside of time) it happened in 1 day, inside the machine this tree did go through 80 years of life and growth which gave it rings, and roots and scars and history, real history.

I don’t think you are following my theory. History is still occurring, we measure it, and know what occurred. I am simply saying that our measuring stick of time is different that what God uses.

Would you agree that God is outside of time? If not, than I think this debate is moot, much like a Christian trying to explain that Good is good. When they ask why kids die or bad things happen. They are arguing outside factors to bring it inside. If God is just is a truth, then we must look to understand or guestimate why bad things happen, or now know and have faith in His justice. But they don’t see God as just, and try to prove He isn’t by the things He does or the things we observe. So you will never convince them, only God can reveal to them if they are seeking the truth.

Not saying I have the truth with YEC, don’t confuse that…Just an analogy to ask if you don’t believe God is outside of time, then you won’t believe in this theory, so it is moot

.[quote=“Bill_II, post:12, topic:36495”]
Don’t get your point as it would be a tree with or without tree rings. They are not needed by the tree just by the people that are looking to find out the history of the tree.

No it wouldn’t be a 100’ tree without its rings. The rings is the tree’s history, it was a small sapling, then a ‘layer’ grew and another layer, and that gave it its thickness, and ability to be 100’ tree. It isn’t a 100’ tree without rings. So I am saying just like God can’t make a square a circle or make parallel lines intersect, He couldn’t make a tree without rings…I mean He could…but then it wouldn’t be a tree. Just like he could change a square into a circle, but it wouldn’t be definition be a square anymore. The very thing that makes this 100’ tree a tree, is the rings and the roots. If a tree got that high, without rings, that would be a new species, that isn’t how trees grow in our world.

[quote=“Bill_II, post:12, topic:36495”]
Without a history so there is no problem.
[/quote] Why do you think these fish don’t have a history? How old would this fish be if you were to cut it open and measure it? Science would measure age based of known size muscle strength (like trees, start small and grow in layers, muscles start small and tear and rebuild) Surely an scientist would have said these fish measure to be a year old right?

Not sure who that is either. I just saw a video on youtube from Dr. Collins that brought me ot biologos. I have no education in creationism and have tried to think for myself what I read, not what the church tells me. I know it is an accurate measurement, I am agreeing 100% with you there. I never said EC or OEC is wrong. I said I believe it to be right…I just also believe YEC to be right also. Much like a person on earth (relative to the sun) is moving 23000mph or is still (relative to their position on earth)…is also both right, and for two of you to say still or 23,000mph, I would not say that either of you are being decietful.

What if you walked in on two hour glasses. But instead of an hourglass, lets say it was a big 13.7 billion year glass… One was almost top empty, leading you to measure almost ~13.7 billion years elapsed, and the other appeared completely full, leading you to ‘measure’ it just started 6000 years ago. If that other one could have been going for 13.7 billion years, but it was in space the whole time, so the sand never fell, it was only when brought to earth and gravity pulled the sand through.

That again is attempting to explain relativity of time because of how we measure it. We know gravity to be constant so and hour glass is accurate, but what if gravity wasn’t an earth constant, rather a space constant? I am suggesting that the constant of time that we use today, was manipulated during the creation process. So that as we measure today, 13.7 billion years is correct…But so is ~6000 years.

No deception in mind there, God just felt like having the mountains as we know it already here when we showed up (give or take a few 100 feet for the plates which are still moving at a normal rate now). God wanted us to have mountains, so when He created the earth in 1 day He rammed some plates into each other and watch them build up. Then when the mountains formed, He slowed time down to how we know it today. We are both believing in the EC or OEC theory, no need to convince me of that. You just don’t believe in the literal 6 day creation story, where as I do.

As I said above, real forest fire, real age gaps as trees fell, rocks pushed into them, scars were created, trees fossilized, new trees came, 4 million years worth of tree history occurred (real history, not fake history) in a few days.

But yes, I made up time realm lol. I made up this entire theory. I am not as educated as you probably, and I probably have a lower IQ, so it is difficult for me to get across the concept of relativity and time and I used a word like “time realm” to represent a realm we are in, and that God is not confined to.

To be honest, I probably wouldn’t if it was evolution as random darwinism, possibly if it was evolutionary creationism. I have taken a course on creation at LU. I don’t think they believe in macro-evolution, or the big bang either. I grew up believing in YEC because the Bible and church says so. But as I grew up, I realized it isn’t so “binary” as Mervin says and began to have an open mind. I took that class because I had to to get my degree, and through military, my schooling was free there. Though I wasn’t a huge fan of the "shove it down your throat’ method them seemed to use. I did like the apologetic approach that we were blessed with a brain and logic to understand things and though God is the only one who can reveal His truth to us, He can use us and our logic to guide others to the light. But I believe that knowledge and logic needs to be accompanied by the love of God to reflect His light on them and show them that there is a better way to live, a way with Him as He designed us to live.

LU had some good points with ‘debunking’ evolution, but that biology so far beyond what I could really grasp. I have a much more physics/math/mechanics type of head. But when seeing how intricate and complex and wonderfully everything is made or engineered or designed, so incredibly brilliant, I find it hard to believe anyone believed in evolution as a thing of chance and randomness. Its like taking a computer (which can calculate 33 trillion calculations per second) and having that computer start out as 0s and 1s and trying every random combination possible, and having it create microsoft windows, something which was clearly engineered, and designed. It will never happen. To me, macro-evolution of chance and randomness takes WAY more faith than any religion out there.

The fact that if gravity was just .0001% stronger, the whole universe would crush itself, and weaker we would expand into forever and the planets and stars couldn’t form. How if the universe were any smaller or bigger than it is the same would basically would occur, how we are designed to live on such and insanely small knife edge of probability, it isn’t probable, it has to be designed. God probably couldn’t count that high of the probability for creation to have been random…probably whey He didn’t make it random, rather created/designed/engineered it.

I wouldn’t mind learning about evolutionary creation, and how I could see that to maybe be possible that God created the evolutionary process to occur, and it was designed process, not random. My only hold back to that, is again…genesis. “So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND”. That kind of leads me to me lego theory or building theory, as everything started as the same thing, sure, the building blocks, but it was created to its kind. Like a monkey is a kind, and a human is a kind, but there are all kinds of monkey types and human types, and we micro-evolve/adapt and can observe that. That would be foolish to say we can’t adapt.

Now that I figured out the quote function. Thank you for your warm welcome

Thank you too for the welcome. I just came up with this, funny to know that there are similar beliefs held by others.

(Christy Hemphill) #18

You missed the whole long discussion of this very thing last week. :slight_smile:
In case you want to check it out, because people probably won’t want to repeat themselves so soon…
Do a control f search for Sabbath on this long thread: What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?
Or this one: Examining the Assumptions of Mosaic Creationism vis-a-vis the Assumptions of Evolutionary Creationism
Or check out some of the nice responses to essentially the same question here: The Sabbath day?


Actually, the course I have in mind is on the evidence-based scientific theory of evolution and genetics. The instructor explains right up front that it doesn’t necessarily conflict with religious belief, and gives Francis Collins as an example of somebody who is religious and accepts evolution. It started August 14 but you still have time to enroll. Even if you don’t end up accepting evolution, it would still be nice to find out exactly what you don’t accept.

Introduction to Genetics and Evolution

I think that @jpm wanted to take this course.

(Christy Hemphill) #20

The science is exactly the same, though. Evolutionary creationism is a theological perspective, not a scientific theory.

Maybe it would be helpful to read up on what randomness means to scientists. I think a lot of times we as lay people think it means without purpose and it is somehow antithetical to God’s control, sovereignty, direction, and design.

Kathryn Applegate has a nice article on this issue:

Here is another by James Bradley:

And another: