There are two deaths in the Bible. Physical death and spiritual death. God told Adam that if he ate of the fruit that on that day he would surely die. How long did Adam live after eating the fruit? A lot longer than a day so God was speaking of spiritual death. This is why we need a redeemer. Not to save us from physical death but to save us from spiritual death. No where does Genesis say there was no physical death before the fall. Spiritual death began at the fall.
1 Like
Sorry, Jonathan, that didnāt come across the way I intended it. What I mean is, there is a LOT of material you could read that could answer some of the questions you have. Some of this material is from different Christian viewpoints, while others are atheistic. I honestly donāt know how much you would want to read from those. Iām trying to offer information rather than rude behavior, but Google searches on some of these questions you have heard (does mutation ever benefit organisms? why arenāt there more transitional fossils? why is there not more ocean sediment?) followed by ādebunkā or ārefuteā often turn up numerous links to scientific answers to those questions.
I (and quite a few others here) do believe that God created through evolution. But (and Iāll only speak for myself here) my belief in Godās creation is due more to my faith in the Bible than by weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Donāt get me wrong, there are certainly questions remaining, like abiogenesis, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting evolution.
Science is indeed a human endeavor, carried out by fallible humans, but so is theology. Science is not as capricious as you suggest, and theology is more variable than you admit. History has told us numerous times that theology can also be in error (ask Galileo and Copernicus or any of the millions of innocents abused by the Crusades or Inquisition). Godās Word is infallible, but our interpretation of it certainly is.
This concern can be addressed theologically. It is reasonable to say that the wages of sin is spiritual death, otherwise, why didnāt Adam and Eve die on the spot? True, Jesus Christ offers spiritual redemption through His physical death, but He clearly did not die so that our physical bodies would live forever. From a scientific standpoint, the lack of death would be a huge problem if it lasted for a significant time. Nutrient recycling depends on the death of old organisms to give ābuilding blocksā to the new. Thatās completely setting aside the issue of what would happen if bacteria also never died, but exponentially grew forever.
1 Like
Me: Youāve never even heard of nested hierarchies!
[quote=āJ.E.S, post:221, topic:36218ā]
@benkirk: I have a great deal of prime learning years left.[/quote]
What does time have to do with my point?
And you therefore have plenty of time to consider the relevant facts before making any judgment, so why are you rushing to one without the most fundamental information?
[quote]Even if I die without learning all there is to know about ānested hierarchiesā it really wonāt matterā¦
[/quote]My point is not that you donāt know all there is to know, but that you donāt know anything about them.
If you want to have an informed opinion, it matters a lot.
I (and Iām pretty sure that other scientifically minded people here would like to do this too) would really like to examine the pre-fall world to see how that sort of thing would workā¦unfortunately, we will probably never know. I would submit that the āway stuff workedā changed dramatically after the fall.
Here is a verse from I Corinthians:
"For the trumpet shall sound and the dead will be raised, imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death where is your victory?
O death where is your sting?
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Great verse (as usual, any mistakes are purely my own).
Christ physically died, and saved our souls, and also our bodies, from death.
It doesnāt require idolizing science to arrive at the conclusion that the plain reading of Genesis is not compatible with how the Natural World actually works.
I donāt idolize science when I explain how the Water Cycle makes rainā¦ and that sometimes God may harness the Water Cycle when he wants rain.
āI (and Iām pretty sure that other scientifically minded people here would like to do this too) would really like to examine the pre-fall world to see how that sort of thing would workā¦ā
That is pretty much what geology and paleontology and astronomy, and archeology and such does, and has found that there is no evidence of a big transition, but a gradual progression over time. Can you give evidence of anything otherwise?
Here is a pretty long but interesting blog about the fall you affine interesting:
As to death and afterlife etc, I enjoyed Wrightās āSurprised by Hopeā although need to reread as a little deep.
It is good to hear your thoughts. I it helps to understand where you are coming from, and as your views are representative of many, that understanding can help us relationally
One more thingā¦ now that I see this, itās occurred to me that my last post appeared to make you rather defensiveā¦
I also realize that it is hard to accurately exhibit sentiments over this system of communication, so
note that I may be misinterpreting your post. And as Iāve said earlier. I donāt get the āunenlightened YECā thing MUCHā¦
This was rather where I was going with some of the things in my āmonstrous post (
)ā as in: if the amount of salt in the ocean increases every year, and if āthe present is the key to the past (uniformitarianism),ā and the earth is billions of years oldā¦why donāt we find a lot more salt?
Iām truly just curious about these things, and I find it more rewarding to discuss and debate here, as the BioLogos position (as it has God) is actually plausible. Furthermore, I appreciate that BioLogos actually tries to encourage discussion, as opposed to sites and organizations that simply say āthere is no debateā (Iāve gotten that too), and dismiss you, continuing to teach evolution as fact while having no pretext that it may be false (BioLogos, if Iām not mistaken, would not have set up this discussion forum if it was 100% sure of itās position).
Anyhow, I think I shall start a new discussion thread (along with this one) that will delve into more specific questionsā¦I hope to see you all there.
Look forward to your posts, as I think those kinds of things need examination. The salt issue has been debunked elsewhere, by the way, and regarding uniformitarianism, no one in modern science thinks that nature is in a steady state, but only that we can understand things because the principles of nature have remained constant.
Because there is no evidence that the amount of salt in the ocean really is increasing. The long term rates of influx and egress are the same within error bars.
The āsalt in the oceanā argument is a textbook illustration of how YEC āevidencesā get it wrong. It is based on quantities that are extremely difficult if not impossible to measure with any semblance of accuracy, and at the same time it assumes that the āuniformitarianā model would have the rates of change being constant.
āUniformitarianismā is a YEC myth. No scientist blindly assumes that rates of anything have always been constant in the past. They only treat rates as having been constant if there is solid theoretical and observational evidence to support such an assumption. Even then, they conduct extensive research to establish limits to the extent to which it could have varied in the past.
By contrast, radiometric dating and other conventional techniques are based on quantities that are much easier to measure, that can be determined with much greater precision, and which are based on rates of change that have been rigorously tested and shown to be constant.
The recent posting on 100 Reasons from geology actually answers the flip side of your Question!
https://ageofrocks.org/100-reasons-the-earth-is-old/
#23) āModern oceans are too salty to have been formed only ~6,000 years ago. We know this salt was delivered slowly to the oceans mainly via rivers (i.e. as opposed to being created in situ), because the relative abundance of salts in the ocean is related to their relative solubilities and abundance in the Earthās surface.ā
Just saying: @pevaquark seems to think that the speed of light has always been constant in the pastā¦
Thatās not a blind assumption. There are some very good reasons, both theoretical and observational, to support this one. The speed of light is one of the most fundamental constants of nature, and if it changed, everything would change, right down to even the chemical properties of the elements. We also know that it has been the same through astronomical observations. For example, if it had ever been different in the past, we would see daily changes in the frequencies of millisecond pulsars in other galaxies. We donāt.
The rate of change of salt in the sea, on the other hand, is highly dependent on factors such as climate.
Basically, there are some things that can not realistically have changed in the past. There are others that can not realistically have always have been the same in the past. YECs generally do not make that distinction, or when they do, they get it the wrong way round.
1 Like
Pevaquark has no idea what heās talking about either! Har har. I do appreciate the shoutout and it turns out that those scientists actually do challenge everything and hold fast to what is good! It turns out that scientists donāt blindly assume things are constantā¦ they figure out how to measure them!!
Some good ones to note is the fine structure constant which is equal to e^2/hc (or the charge of an electron squared divided by the planck constant times the speed of light).
A nice paper examines the upper limit on if itās changed: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010801 (2013) - Limits on the Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant on Gravitational Potential from White-Dwarf Spectra. Also, a separate paper as you can see the link on the wikipedia page referenced is that this constant has changed by less than one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 each year. Thatās pretty constant! That is very good evidence that the speed of light has never changed and itās not an assumption!
The gravitational constant is similar: [1504.00662] Testing Theories of Gravitation Using 21-Year Timing of Pulsar Binary J1713+0747ā¦ it changes by less than one part in 600,000,000,000 each year. Also pretty constant.
The proton to electron mass ratioā¦ also constant. It goes on and on with real measurements, no strange philosophy here!
The weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay - also constant. How do we know? The smashingly good success of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which is based upon the mass of the neutron, proton, expansion rate and radioactive decay rate which perfectly predicts which elements would have been created in the first 20 minutes of our universe. Turns out thatās not changed either.
Also, if you change ācā- you also change the energy mas relationship E=mc^2ā¦ so to get light here from billions of light years away on say day 4 of Genesis - you would accidentally increase the energy contained in matter by a factor of a million trillion - instantly creating blackholes in every planet and star in the universe, ironically killing everything that would have existed at the time.
There is no evidence of anytime of any of these ever changing as @jammycakes stated.
3 Likes
@cwhenderson[quote=āJ.E.S, post:198, topic:36364ā]
Personally, thatās what bothers me about EC. It just THROWS OUT (or āreinterpretsā to use the euphemism) so much of the Bible. When allās said and done, Christ may never have risen from the dead, by your numbers. He has to be in the tomb for a few billion more years. I donāt think heās even been there a day yet.
With all of the reinterpreting done in EC, whatās left?
(Now, a quick disclaimer: If I have neglected to speak the truth in love, or have offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. But I do hope that you all see the points that I am trying to make.)
[/quote]
Since the dinosaurs topic is now closed (quite sad about where that one went), can we continue this discussion here?
Does it reinterpret?
Is your Biblical interpretation traditional?
Is it shared by a majority of Christians in the world today?
Has it been shared by a majority of Christians in the world over the last ~2000 years?
1 Like
I hope I havenāt said anything that led to this conclusion. I take it as fact that Christ died roughly 2,000 years ago, giving up His life for the sake of mankind. He rose again triumphant over death to offer new life to those that accept Him. My interpretation of Genesis 1-11 may not be acceptable to some Christians, but I absolutely do not āthrow outā any parts of the Bible, especially those dealing with my Savior and Lord.
Let me share a passage of the Bible that I find inspiring and influential in my life:
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, āWhich commandment is the most important of all?ā 29 Jesus answered, āThe most important is, āHear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.ā 31 The second is this: āYou shall love your neighbor as yourself.ā There is no other commandment greater than these.ā 32 And the scribe said to him, āYou are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love oneās neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.ā 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, āYou are not far from the kingdom of God.ā And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34, ESV)
Part of why I love science (and biology, in particular) so much is that it is what God commands me to do. God wants me to study and learn more of what He has done to place life on this planet. I believe that science and scripture are both true! Sometimes, our understanding of science and our understanding of scripture may seem to conflict, and a figurative interpretation of Genesis allows me to hold onto the truth of both.
4 Likes
It would be a great start if you retract your ācircular argumentā argument. You wrote this:
āNow I can better understand why . . . @gbrooks9 utilizes the circular reasoning of āsince dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans came on the scene then, if we find evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, the evidence must be fake since dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.ā Not impressed. Case is still open as far as Iām concerned!ā
I suppose you would have a point if all I ever mentioned were dinosaurs and humans. But thereās a whole systematic differentiation between your view of a circular argument ā¦ and the available facts:
- we NEVER find marine dino-period reptile fossils in the same layers as we find whale fossils !
- we NEVER large land-based mammals (giraffes, elephants, rhinoceros, etc.) in the same layers as we find land-based dinosaurs ! ā¦ and
- we NEVER find marine dinosaur fossils in more recent layers than we find large mammals of ANY kind (whales or elephants) !
- we find fossilized rocks showing patterns of rain flow ā¦ right in the middle of a supposed Flood layer!
- and never do we find late-evolution flowering plants mixed in with the grasses that characterized the earliest plant life.
This keeps my position from becoming circular ā¦ while your whole discussion with the rocks is rock drawings made on rocks known to be faked.
To refute my āmulti-branched system of circlesā you are going to need to have rocks with pictures of prehistoric plants, rocks with dinosaur teeth embedded in elephant bodies, and so much more than what you single-mindedly pursue as some kind of plausible evidence.