You seem to have been misinformed. An enormous number of transitional fossils have been found.
Biogeography, comparative anatomy, and above all genetics. Common descent is the only explanation for the patterns we see in comparative genetics.
9 Likes
Hi guys,
I’m here to post my answers to the rest of you as I promised.
In response to my statement, “As for what God said is very good prior to the fall, did that include mega-annum of death, destruction, and disease that occurred prior to Adam and Eve?”,
Would you say that I would be punishing you by giving you ice cream and pie? God used “very good” things like pestilences to punish? Did “very good” death exist before God pronounced it (as an enemy) on Adam and Eve and the rest of us because of the fall?
Lemmie teh-ya ‘bout a builder of top dollar automobiles ($100K and up) who equips his vehicles with blown engines, shock absorbers that perform as if made of solid metal, brakes that will take you through the red light as you apply maximum pressure, and onion skin tires and say that the cars are “VERY GOOD” as he demands top dollar. Please don’t blame God for doing the same.
Hurting individuals spoke of God as a careless, crummy creator because of the shame, suffing, and death around us. The individuals were unaware of the truth of the fall and thought that these sorrows were built into creation (that is “if God had created").
But how do we know that the evolutionary mindset is not from uninspired, fallible assumptions? Ussher is not perfect but is respected among Bible scholars.
In response to my statement, “I am anxious to hear yall’s side of why the stakes are so very high for yall’s need to protect evolutionary dogma,”
The word of God only has one interpretation- the correct interpretation that comes through the spirit. Do you remember what Jesus said to Peter?
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 16:17).”
As written, God has showed Himself to all of us in nature whether professional or not (Romans 1:19-20). Our relationship with God is supernatural and is thus beyond the ability of science thats limited only to the natural. What then may scientists, regardless how sophisticated reveal to us what God only reveals supernaturally? Although we are thankful for the tool of science, it only confirms Biblical knowledge already revealed.
But weren’t we told there are two possible science-based interpretations believed true that depend on the glasses (evolution or creation) worn? May I ask by what logic would God base any dependence on the use of dead things called fossils that were catastrophically destroyed to solidify our understanding of how he created the universe that includes His giving the precious gift of life? Please? God uses these dead things only as warnings to show that judgment to a cronically rebellious world (except Noah and family) has taken place.
As for the Bible speaking the truth and about what God says to us and our relationship with Him, thank you. But isn’t there aways the danger that it may be destorted? Thanks also for saying that the very high stakes is the danger of misleadership due to eroneous usage of scriptures. But the reasons we give oppose.
Thank you! Well said! With God’s word entrusted to us, we guard against subtle temptations to twist to “make fit” and prayerfully keep ourselves sure that we share it only as obtained in Matthew 16:17. Scripture admonishes us that wisdom is knowing what the will of the Lord is (Ephesians 5:17).
/ / / /
In response to my statement, “From your statements, especially, “Snelling’s colleagues won’t rebuke him,” should I arrive to the conclusion that all YECs are dishonest and are scientifically in error?”
Do you think they are afraid of admitting the earth is old? Fear of man’s punishment is not the way the work of God is done. Their signing the statement of faith is the signing of a promise not to compromise the faith. They were not afraid of having to admit what the earth is not.
May I then ask why do people hate to admit that the earth is young? Yet science supposedly answers all things? As I know Snelling, if he worked for a boss that would fire him for believing the truth that the earth is young, he would allow himself to be fired rather than compromise. Jesus warns the believer that the world hates him and His followers and that there would be scoffers that would even think it’s God’s will to ostracize those that have it right. Believers have always been mistreated unfairly because of the faith. Righteous believers uphold the word of God regardless the cost even if it means losing their job or even their lives. Didn’t Jesus warn not to be ashamed of His word?
In response to my statement, “Please show me “scientific proof” that you are without sin.”
You know what I meant.
Your response to my statement, “The six thousand year time frame was not arrived by any man’s conclusion. The irrefutable Bible informed us of it. Did it not?”:
But what about the genealogies in the Bible that give us a close approximation of the earth’s age and Jesus asking, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4)?
I repeat what I said above that there’s only one interpretation, - the correct one, - and I again remind of Matthew 16:17. Although true that some change views from time to time and that we may change what we realize is error, we as believers yet faithfully and steadily hold to the unchanging Word that’s true and settled.
May I then ask why is the word, “day” in Genesis treated differently from the same word in later scriptures? Is it wrong to be consistent with this word? What does “evening and morning” mean? That phrase killed my effort to participate in an essay contest hosted by the “Astronomy” magazine for an attempt to explain possible reasons for the millions of years versus the six days creation scenarios. What the winner of the contest wrote made no sense to me. I was a theistic evolutionist that didn’t believe that man evolved from an amoeba but only in cosmological evolution.
Study of the Bible is like the study of math. Although the author of a math book is human and fallible like you and me, the student receives neither the author’s nor the teacher’s opinions. He only learns mathematical concepts and laws and how to solve the problems as explained in the book. In other words, he only learns and exercises intangible mathematical truths passed on to us. So do we learn intangible truths and concepts in the Bible besides history witnessed by God from day zero. Good and evil actions of people in the Bible show how these concepts play out.
With that said, suppose I tell you that my interpretation of the symbol “pi” is that it represents a constant with a value of 3.14. If I then ask you for your interpretation of “pi,” would you expect us to argue and fight over interpretations even though “pi” is long settled fact? But yet much argument occurs over long settled Biblical truth. Although true that no one knows 100% of it, is fighting over it necessary? What causes the fights over its settled knowledge?
Earl
Since, I assume you are using the Bible to fill that purpose, I might ask you why you feel God would clutter his revelation of who he is and how we relate to him with science facts? Especially as science wouldn’t even be around until thousands of years after it was written?
In other words, in my view the question you pose is nonsense, as God is not trying to solidify our understanding of HOW he created the universe. If he had wanted to do so, perhaps he could have at started with basic math, and maybe thrown in a little physics lesson rather than us having to wait until Newton to make sense of basic stuff.
1 Like
God used “towb” to indicate His creation was fully functional. The Hebrew word doesn’t mean “perfect”. You might want to look at another use of the same word in Genesis 2:18. Was God saying His creation of man was not perfect or not fully functional? I am pretty sure God’s creation of man would be considered perfect in the sense you are trying to apply here.
Actually he might be respected by YEC and SDA but other conservative Bible scholars do not agree with him.
Then explain the thousands of denominations that are each based on their own interpretation. Oh wait, you have the one and only absolutely correct interpretation and everybody that disagrees with you is incorrect. I guess we all need to run over and join your church then if it is really the only correct one.
I may have said this already but what about all the science that isn’t included in the Bible? The Bible reveals God’s redemption history. It says nothing about science. Science uses God’s creation to reveal natural history. These two books must be read together. You ignore one or the other at your peril.
1 Like
Isn’t it man that’s trying very hard to do what you correctly said that God wouldn’t do, in this case using pseudo-scientific “facts?” Of course God is not the author of this confusion.
Earl
I don’t think young earth creation research is God’s work. It’s man’s work, trying to prove a misguided view that has nothing to do with the message and purpose of the Bible. The Bible is about God’s plan of redemption, and that’s not affected by the age of the earth or whether God used evolution or not.
No, actually I do not know what you meant. I honestly interpreted what you said - that you were invoking a common misuse of scripture, saying you shouldn’t point out sin if you yourself ever sin. That’s not biblical. If you meant something different, you’re going to have to explain it to me.
I have no problem with the genealogies telling the family tree from Jesus to Adam. I believe Adam was a real person. I can’t say exactly how long ago he lived, but 6000 years or less is fine with me. I suspect the ages in the pre-flood genealogies involve some numerology that we don’t understand, so Adam may have lived much less than 6000 years ago. I’m totally ok with that.
Jesus indeed states that when humans were made, they were both male and female. I don’t recall evolutionary theory contradicting that - no asexual humans running around. Whether the humans made in chapter 1 are the same as those in chapter 2, that’s debatable. When I look at other toledots in Genesis, they’re never used to retell a story with more detail, so why should I think that first one in Genesis 2:4 is any different?
I believe it to be 6 24 hour days, so you’re arguing a strawman here. 
I don’t believe Genesis 1 is talking about a material creation, explaining scientifically how God created the earth. That’s where we differ. The Bible is not a science textbook. It’s about God’s plan of redemption for man and His desire to have a relationship with man. If you are so intent on shoving science into it, you’re missing the point.
No, it’s not like math, at all. I can’t study math and get layers and layers of learning each time I study it. Once I understand calculus, I understand it. It’s easy peasy. There is no more depth to look into it. The Bible has incredible depth. You can study it for many decades and still find something new that you didn’t notice before, connections between different parts that weren’t clear to you before.
Settled by whom? God is my authority, not any kind of denominational council, pope, or other institution devised by man. Geocentricity was settled Biblical truth for a long time… until it wasn’t.
And why are you fighting over this? I agree that the fighting isn’t necessary. You’re the one that brought a fight into my thread that had nothing to do with that fight. I was simply asking for information from geologists, and I’m sure you aren’t one. So you have chosen to pick a fight in my thread. I am a member of a very Biblically conservative local church that teaches YEC. Most of my local brethren are YEC, and I get along with them just fine. I’m thankful that they aren’t fighting me as you are trying to do. Instead, they welcome me and love me, knowing that this isn’t a salvation issue. My theological conclusions are the same as theirs - man sins and needs redemption. Jesus is our Redeemer and King. We need to obey Him. If you agree with that, I don’t know why you’re choosing to fight with me about science, which the Bible does not reveal.
5 Likes
This does not make sense to me. First, at least plants were dying; the creatures mentioned in Genesis must have been eating something.
Now consider microscopic fauna such as E. Coli. Under good conditions, E. Coli reproduce by binary fission every 20 minutes. That means the population of E.Coli increases by a factor of 272 every 24 hours if none of them die.
Assuming God created a single E. Coli bacterium on the sixth day of creation, on the morning of day 7 (the day of rest) the earth’s population of E. Coli would number 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000. Assuming standard weight and volume for the little critters, this population would occupy 4700 m3 in volume–roughly 2 Olympic swimming pools–and weigh about 5 tons.
Now imagine the morning of day 8 in Eden. God is about to instruct Adam not to eat of the tree of life. What about our population of E. Coli? They would now occupy 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 m3–as much as 22,000 earths! They would weigh 24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons–4 times as heavy as the earth!
This is just one of the countless reasons why the YEC perspective does not make sense to me.
Whoever told you that does not understand how science works.
I suspect that what I am about to say will surprise you, so I ask you to pay close attention. The only assumptions necessary to validate the theory of evolution are:
- Genetics as observed today
- Math
That’s it! No glasses required.
Just genetics and math.
The earliest Christian teachers (for example, Basil of Antioch), taught that the Scripture has 3 interpretations:
- literary
- moral
- symbolic
Your proof-text does not speak to the interpretation of Scripture because it refers to the manner in which the Holy Spirit directly revealed Jesus’ messianic nature. Therefore Matthew 16:17 says nothing about hermeneutical approaches to the Bible.
How do we know the earth is spherical, and not flat?
How do we know the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa?
Best,
Chris Falter
4 Likes
For the same reason that they hate to admit that it is flat. It isn’t, it’s as simple as that.
No they don’t.
Two possible science-based interpretations only depend on the glasses worn if both such interpretations fully obey the basic principles of mathematics and measurement, if they accurately describe the evidence that they are interpreting, and if there is insufficient data to differentiate between them. There was a legitimate debate back in the 1950s between the Big Bang theory and the Steady State theory, but the debate was settled in favour of the Big Bang in 1964 by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background by Penzias and Wilson. As for the question of young-earth versus old-earth, there has been no legitimate debate there for more than two hundred years.
8 Likes
Told by whom? The Bible says nothing about it (or science in general). Glasses didn’t even exist when Moses wrote Genesis. An uninspired man such as Ken Ham can say whatever he wants, but it doesn’t make his statement true. Be a Berean and search daily to see if what you’re told is true.
I personally, with my Christian glasses on 
, believe God created and maintains everything (“creation”) through processes He made, which we usually call “natural processes” (“evolution” being one of them). Why do you insist that we throw out God’s natural processes? If something “happens naturally”, that’s God. You don’t need to make a false dichotomy between evolution and creation. Hence why Biologos uses the term “evolutionary creation”.
8 Likes
Hi Christy, I am assuming that you agree with Greenberg in his criticism of Snelling, Austin et al. These are men who claim to be Christians but Greenberg says they are liars and are deliberately deceiving people. Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers?
I’m not a Biologosian, but I hope you don’t mind that I step in a minute–I think that you might like the book written by a former Biologos president, Darrell Falk, with Todd Wood, a brilliant YEC scientist–" The Fool and the Heretic"–about how to interact with Christian love when we disagree. I listened to it on “Audible,” and found it very good. It’s put out by the Colossian Forum https://colossianforum.org/, “transforming conflict into growth.”
Thanks. Blessings.
2 Likes
Thanks for the tip, Randy. I didn’t know it was available through Audible!
2 Likes
I don’t speak for BioLogos but I believe most YEC apologists obfuscate the facts to avoid the inconvenient truth revealed by God’s creation. There are some that admit the data says the earth is old but they don’t try to cover it up but simply accept what the Bible says (at least in their mind) instead.
2 Likes
Like Randy, I have zero claim on being “BioLogos”. Having presented the disclaimer, I would suggest that most frequent forum-dwellers do not consider people like Snelling and Austin (or Purdom, Tomkins, et al) deceivers and liars, but possibly overly-committed to a particular interpretation of the Bible (note - not overly-committed to the Bible itself). There is literally no evidence strong enough in quality or quantity to change their minds and they will go to great lengths to attempt to explain away evidence for an old earth and for evolution. When the explanations are stretched to the limit of reason and beyond, sometimes the explanations simply sound disingenuous.
3 Likes
The “views of BioLogos” are expressed in the belief statement and the common questions, which are produced by the editorial team in conjunction with scholars in the BioLogos network. I am not aware of any opinions on Snelling and Austin being expressed there.
2 Likes
Just a couple of points worth making here.
First of all, remember that Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). The Apostle Paul warned, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) So then it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that people will enter the Church, making all sorts of evangelically-correct noises, but at the same time mingling them with falsehood and lies to sow confusion and undermine the credibility of Christ’s faithful witnesses.
Second, there are certain things that are indisputably lies, no matter which way you slice it. Anyone who makes a claim that they know – or should be reasonably expected to know – to misrepresent material evidence, documented procedures or established results, is lying, period.
Andrew Snelling’s claim about these rock formations not being fractured can be seen to be untrue simply from his own photographs. He actually visited those rock formations, so he should have been expected to notice the fractures that he claims not to exist. In fact, he had students standing in front of the very fractures that he claims not to exist. In an interview with Ken Ham at the start of this year, he pointed out that in order to get to the rock formation in question, he had to climb up some scree and past a waterfall and he ended up slipping and breaking his thumb. This confirms that the places where those students were standing are not easy to get to, and that their placement there must have been conscious and deliberate. Furthermore, Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling are professional PhD geologists with many years of field experience, so they should be expected to meet much more stringent standards of factual accuracy than non-geologists. (This is what James 3:1 is all about after all.)
Was that lying? Judge for yourself. But as far as I can see, Snelling had no excuse whatsoever for not knowing that those rock formations were fractured.
2 Likes
Z[quote=“cwhenderson, post:54, topic:40884”]
sometimes the explanations simply sound disingenuous.
[/quote]
It is important to note that opinions expressed on the forum are personal, and do not represent the position of BioLogos, I admit that at times I feel Ike some go beyond vigorously defending their position and cross the line into intentional deception. I also at times feel like financial gain drives some to stretch things to protect their organization. Such is not confined to the debate at hand, but has been seen in recent years in church scandal coverups, with those involved rationalizing that they must do so to protect “the gospel.”
Intimately, we are all susceptible to falling, and must guard against it.
3 Likes
I don’t personally know enough geology to agree, but I do trust Dr. Greenberg’s expertise in geology exponentially more than I trust Snelling and Austin.
I think calling someone a liar is making a judgment about their state of mind, and I don’t feel like it is my place to do that. I can pretty much guarantee that no article posted by BioLogos would ever call a YEC geologist “a liar and a deceiver,” because the organization is committed to gracious dialogue with other Christians and calling people liars generally isn’t considered a dialogue-enhancing move.
I cut and pasted Dr. Greenberg’s response from a different forum, and in hindsight, I probably should have edited out that comment about Snelling and Austin, since attributing negative motivations is not allowed here. I apologize for that oversight. If you would like, I will remove it from the post.
1 Like
It is always good to quote scripture but we need to make sure it is not being taken out of context. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” So, what is the Father’s will? In John 6:29 Jesus said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” To do the Father’s will is to believe in Christ for our salvation.
The savage wolves, mentioned by Paul, are those who want to destroy the church, they are enemies of Christ and they deny Christ. Paul gives a strong warning in Galatians when he talks about those who preach a false gospel. There is also a warning about false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction”. There is no shortage of warnings about such people in the NT.
I don’t have any reason to believe that creationists are denying Christ or that they want to destroy the church. In fact, I would say it’s the exact opposite.
It is, of course, always good to be on the alert and to be like the Bereans – checking what is said against the truth of God’s word. But what happens when God’s word is no longer seen as true, or is believed to be only partly true? We only have to look at what happened in the middle of the 19th century when Darwinism and Higher Criticism came on the scene. Charles Spurgeon (the prince of preachers) saw the danger and he wrote about it in The Sword and the Trowel. He called it The Down Grade. Many did not heed his warning, and the church has been going downhill ever since.
You mean like Galileo and heliocentrism? Or do you believe it was a mistake to believe Galileo instead of the Bible?
2 Likes