Specifically regarding question 2, I would say that its quite possible to know what something is without having experienced it, especially seeing as God could simply put the knowledge of what death is into their minds. Also regarding plant death, the hebrew word used for death in this instance is nephesh chayyah, referring to animal and human death, meaning that plants are regarded as a different kind of life than man and animals, thus, animals and humans ate plants before the fall. So to summarize, YECâs like myself believe that before the fall, animals and humans ate plants, which donât die in the same way we do, and after the fall, death in all meanings of the word was brought on man and animals as a result of the fall. Also Iâm curious, where is it you got the idea that the tree of life was what made Adam and Eve immortal?
Yes. Some will continue to assume that we are supposed to run in panic at words like ârandomâ and âundirectedââas if those words donât (canât!) apply as scientific descriptions of all sorts of natural processes. Of course they are ârandom and undirectedâ as far as humans are concerned! Yet the Bible itself states that even random processes like the casting of lots are within the plan of God and under his control.
If these âtraitsâ of evolutionary processes (i.e., being ârandomâ and âundirectedâ) somehow place the Theory of Evolution in opposition of the scriptures, then so do processes like radioactive decay and quantum mechanics in general! Yet, if the Bible has no fear of ârandom chanceâ being a threat to Godâs omnipotence and omniscience, Iâm not planning on any panic either.
Of course, these first year Systematic Theology concepts arenât a problem for countless Bible-affirming evolutionary biologists and their Christian colleagues who havenât been screaming âThe sky is falling!â for many years now. Yes, we freely acknowledge that some people panic at the mention of the Theory of Evolution as an alleged attack upon Biblical truthâbut many others of us just yawn and finish our breakfasts. It is very easy to fear that which we donât understand. We all do it! (Indeed, it is virtually the definition of being human.)
Yes, years ago I was an evolution-hating, evolution-denying YEC activist who assumed evolutionary processes to be an insult to God and an attack upon the scriptures. Thankfully, clearer thinking heads prevailed upon me (through the directed leading of the Holy Spirit!) and a lot of years in the Hebrew scriptures and linguistics in general as well as eventually learning a bit more about science and epistemology led to my greatly expanding my view of God. My former view of the Creator gave me plenty of reasons to think him easily threatened by evolutionary processes. Today, not so much. Now I realize that expanding our concept of God is a natural part of spiritual maturation.
I eventually appreciated the Apostle Paulâs words in ways I had never imagined:
1Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Nobody expects their view of God at age 5 to remain unchanged at age 18. Yet, at age 18 we donât necessarily understand that our concept of God at age 30 and age 60 will (hopefully) not remain stagnant.
I keep reminding myself of my past errors and immaturity because it is our human foible to tend to feel smug and condescending towards those who have yet to discover what we have discovered. Yet, how puny is our understanding compared to Godâs?
Actually scientists donât work from an unbiased perspective, Christian scientists, view things from the perspective that thereâs more than the physical world, while materialists work from the perspective that there is no such other world. Whatever field you work in, you have to make some assumptions.
Just in case Iâve been too harsh, Iâd like to explain that YECâs donât think that OECâs are non-believers, we believe youâll be saved, but we think that the bible teaches a young earth, and want to maintain biblical teaching, as wrong teaching affects how you look at the rest of scripture.
We should point out that only mutations are random, not evolution itself.
[quote=âgbrooks9, post:20, topic:4485â]
Quotation provided by @OldTimer Eddie
"[E]volution works without either plan or purpose ⌠Evolution is random and undirected." (Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1995); emphasis in original)
@gbrooks9 responded, Is that really fair to use this kind of sentence? Scientists are writing from a scientific viewpoint, which conventionally doesnât touch on Godâs standing.
Yes, it is very fair to use this kind of sentence. Reality is not subjective. Reality is objective and the problem with this quotation from this text book is that it shows a gross lack of understanding of the science of evolution.
Evolution going back to Darwin is a two stage process. 1) Variation whereby differences appear in the same species, and 2) Natural Selection whereby some differences are selected in and other are selected out.
The first Variation part of the evolutionary process is random, but the second Selection part is not. It is called Survival of the Fittest. If the second part were random, then variations which are not fit would be randomly selected in.
However there is another issue. What is the definition for fitness when we talk about survival of the fittest? We have looked and we find there is none.
Darwin took the concept for natural selection from the way agriculture selectively bred both plants and animals. There it was clear who made the decision to select in or out life forms. Since Nature cannot think and make decisions, it follows that it must be God Who decides what variations to select in and which to select out, and God does so through ecology.
Evolution is not random and undirected. Fish do not live in the desert, birds do not live in the depths of the sea, dinosaurs do not live in Antarctica. This statement is wrong any way you look at it. The is the real why Christians should not accept the truth of Darwinian evolutionary theory as random and undirected. It is not true.
Iâm confused! So one day tigers were eating grass and leaves and the day of the fall they started to kill and eat other animals? Cats are obligate carnivores, so their pre-fall lives must have been terrible.
Also I would say that evolution(specifically macro evolution) is unscientific, as you canât verify it, usually when scientists say they can see evolution in the lab theyâre referring to micro evolution, variation within a species, along with many other reasons explained in the Evolution: the Grand Experiment books.
Perhaps Genesis 3 played a role:
22 Then the Lord God said, âBehold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand rand take also of the tree of life and eat, and live foreverââ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
Yes. One can always invoke a miracle (an unmentioned one) wherever there is a problem with oneâs interpretation. Can we agree that some take advantage of this hermeneutical wild card much more casual than others?
The confusion of the methodological naturalism which is the Scientific Method with the philosophical naturalism of some types of atheism regularly arises on Young Earth Creationist websites whenever modern science is criticized. It is akin to saying that traditional geometry (where only a compass and a straight-edge is allowed for all proofs) is anti-protractor and anti-sextant.
Yet a good scientist doesnât allow oneâs philosophy/theology to interfere with the Scientific Method. I donât have to believe that âscience is all that matters because the material is all there isâ to apply the Scientific Method. Again, the confusion between methodological naturalism/materialism and philosophical naturalism/materialism is a propaganda tactic which has become common among evidence-denialists.
Nobody claims that scientists have to be âbias-freeâ to follow the evidence to useful explanations of what is observed.
Actually a good scientist has to make assumptions, as the scientific method canât be used to prove itself, philosophy, the reliability of human observation, or just about anything immaterial true.
And I donât think scientists need to be bias free, they just have to admit their biases and acknowledge that they affect how they look at the world and at evidence, for example an OEC and a YEC can both see the layers of sediment that cover our world, but while an OEC thinks they were laid down over millions of years, a YEC believes that the flood and other catastrophes formed them.
In case someone mentions the Biologos opinion in regards to the flood hereâs a refutation â19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains [af]everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen [ag]cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.â
One thing as well is that YECs do believe in microevolution just not macro-evolution in the first changes l are slight adaptations in one species, such as how there are many different breeds of dog but they are all still dogs, or how Darwinâs finches had differently sized and shaped beaks, or how bacteria can mutate and become immune to pesticides(however this is not adding but subtracting information from its DNA). But we do not believe that dinosaurs can become birds, or hyenas to whales. To get more information on our views I would read some creation.com articles, read refuting compromise and read Evolution: The grand experiment volumes 1 and 2(These deal with the fossil record)
I would say that evolution is true only to the extent of variation within a species, we see dog breeders make bigger and fluffier dogs, but they canât make a dog become something thatâs not a dog, because our genes allow for variation within a species.
The thing with mutations is that they are almost always negative in terms of effect on the animal involved, and even when they appear to have a positive effect, thereâs always a negative side effect, for example, some people donât feel the burn when they exercise, this sounds awesome, but leads to them unknowingly running their body until it falls apart.
Clearly there was a âsecond creationâ that took place after the fallâyet another group of âunmentioned miraclesâ one can invoke whenever one needs to solve some enormous problems in certain âtraditional interpretationsâ of Genesis.
Of course, I used to find grass-eating tigers and vegetarian lions (and non-blood-sucking pre-fall parasites!) âeasier to swallowâ (so to speak) when I knew nothing about the multiple stomachs, types of teeth, and other digestive structures and biochemistry necessary for a cow to digest what the average feline doesnât.
There is a childrenâs video by the âCreation Adventure Teamâ (formerly the âDiscovery Adventure Teamâ before lawyers stepped in) which can be watched on Youtube. Young Earth Creationist Buddy Davis has a great talent for catchy theme songs and thereâs a lot of cute comedy in the anti-evolution, young earth presentation. But perhaps the funniest sound bite (though unintentional) is where he says something like, âScientists canât go back in time and see how the dinosaurs lived. And when they look at dinosaur teeth, all they can conclude and say is that T.Rex had sharp teeth. That doesnât tell them what dinosaurs ate!â Yet, in the same video kids are told that that the sharp, knife-like teeth of T. Rex were great for cutting a path through the jungle, just like we would use a machete today. (And I think that that was the same video which said T.Rex could use their sharp teeth to cut open coconuts. So somehow, one can determine diet from studying teeth after all! Or at least the âcreation scientistsâ can do thatâeven though other scientists canât!)
Yes, one had best be prepared for a lot of logic-whiplash when watching âcreation scienceâ presentations.
So if physical death is okay, then why did Christ weep at Lazarusâ funeral, when he knew that he would raise him from the dead shortly later, especially since thereâs no evidence to suggest Lazarus was on the way to Hell.
Just to clarify this is in response to one of your earlier posts.
Yes. One can follow the evidence where it leads while the other ignores that evidence and claims that âIt is just a difference in biases and personal interpretation!â I know the tune well because I used to sing it whenever I spoke at âcreation scienceâ conferences and debates.
Thatâs just an insult, letâs please try to keep this civil. I believe that the flood caused the layers of sediment, after all, a worldwide flood would definitely have a devastating effect on the land. And if the evidence for millions of years is carbon dating than see here. Otherwise Iâm rather curious as to what youâre referring to?
I would like to note that you have not done anything other than insult him in that statement, it is not just saying âbiasâ or âthatâs just your interpretationâ we both have the same geography, world, canyons, etc. But canyons can be formed in more than one way, yes they can be formed over millions and billions of years but they can also be formed by sudden quick catastrophes such as the explosion of mount st. Helens. Look up mount st Helens canyon on creation.com
If Iâm acting too harsh please tell me, its hard to properly convey emotions on the internet.