Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Why more and more evangelicals accept evolutionI chose my blog title to acknowledge that a growing n

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00

Barbarian

Member
I chose my blog title to acknowledge that a growing number of Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. I also chose my title to argue that Evangelicals should accept evolution as compatible with faith.


I spent a good portion of last week at a BioLogos meeting. I talked with leading Evangelical pastors, scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Our main goal was to help the Evangelical family realize that the general theory of evolution is not a threat to authentic Christian faith and not a threat to biblical authority.


A full explanation of the compatibility of biblical Christianity and evolution would require at least a book. Here I want to point quickly to five reasons why some of my fellow Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. These are the same reasons I think other Evangelicals should follow their example...


http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/evangelicals_accept_evolution/
 
I have a degree in Biology, albeit only a bachelors so I know a little about genetics and I will agree with you. I'm also a devout Christian who knows the Bible and I will still agree with you, because the Bible does not talk about evolution nor the age of the earth. I will say that while evolution is the mechanism, God is the director. Genetic material looks very much like some form of computer code, as you know, and who is to say God is not the creator of that code. I firmly believe that "Intelligent Design" is carried out by our Father in a way that can make evolution the mechanism of creation. Thus, this make evolution not random, but seemingly random as God tinkers with genetic code. I;ve read the book "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and I agree with him in most cases. As far as we humans are concerned. I do believe in what the Bible says about there being an Adam and Eve. I believe they were created in God's image. But what is God's image. Is it not spirit? Our heavenly Father is a spirit being, and thus being created in His image means to me that sometime 6,000 or so years ago, a man and a woman were given a spirit by God, thus the first true humans created in His image, and it was done in a special place called the Garden of Eden.
Why do I believe this? Because Jesus himself spoke of Adam, and what Jesus says is the rule for me. How all of this comes together, I will keep trying to formulate a world view that allows for all the pieces to fir without contradiction, but I fear that the truth will only be learned once I meet my maker in the other side. He will explain all, but in the meanwhile I keep trying to get this limited mind (compared to God's) around all of this.
 
If you like what Collins has to say, you might look into joining Biologos, for scientists who are also people of faith in God.

There is no reason why what God said about Adam cannot be true, and consistent with the world He gave us. I believe there were two original people who became humans in his image.
 
I have a degree in Biology, albeit only a bachelors so I know a little about genetics and I will agree with you. I'm also a devout Christian who knows the Bible and I will still agree with you, because the Bible does not talk about evolution nor the age of the earth. I will say that while evolution is the mechanism, God is the director. Genetic material looks very much like some form of computer code, as you know, and who is to say God is not the creator of that code. I firmly believe that "Intelligent Design" is carried out by our Father in a way that can make evolution the mechanism of creation. Thus, this make evolution not random, but seemingly random as God tinkers with genetic code. I;ve read the book "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and I agree with him in most cases. As far as we humans are concerned. I do believe in what the Bible says about there being an Adam and Eve. I believe they were created in God's image. But what is God's image. Is it not spirit? Our heavenly Father is a spirit being, and thus being created in His image means to me that sometime 6,000 or so years ago, a man and a woman were given a spirit by God, thus the first true humans created in His image, and it was done in a special place called the Garden of Eden.
Why do I believe this? Because Jesus himself spoke of Adam, and what Jesus says is the rule for me. How all of this comes together, I will keep trying to formulate a world view that allows for all the pieces to fir without contradiction, but I fear that the truth will only be learned once I meet my maker in the other side. He will explain all, but in the meanwhile I keep trying to get this limited mind (compared to God's) around all of this.
Narwhalist I like what you write, being a Biological Science person, but I am puzzled why you discredit the Adam Eve Creation?

I take it you read Ex nihilo magazine or Creation magazine, Creation Science people ?

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit "ruwach" and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God "Elohim" is a Spirit "ruwach": and they that worship him must worship him in spirit "ruwach" and in truth.

When you read Hebrew, assuming the NT was originally written in Hebrew, don't you think all the words should have a single basic meaning for every context ? The Hebrew word "ruwach" the Greek word "pnuemia" means "wind", a special wind, called the Holy Spirit, doesn't it ? The poetry meaning of wind can be the "wind of man" our character , or the "wind of Elohim" the character of God.

So why not this meaning ?

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in character adminsitrated by the Holy Spirit, "ruwach" and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 The FAMILY heavenly powers of "Elohim" is "character administrated by the Holy Spirit "ruwach": and they that worship him must worship him in a character administrated by the Holy Spirit spirit "ruwach" and in truth.

I not trying to be pushy brother, your welcome to your theory of faith, as I am to my own theory of faith, and I am happy to change my theory of faith if better evidence comes along. http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-858.htm This link is my own study of ruwach, every Bible verse in OT and NT, the meaning much make sense for every context....

I like what you said about computer code and DNA...totally agree...

Take for example the DNA code to make a simple protein chain for the ATP biological rotor, lets say its just 300 amino acid chains long, and we need to make six of these but lets make it easy for the evolutionists and say we make one by random mutation building....

There are 24 combinations in the ACTG code, two stop, one go, and several combinations of code for each of the 20 amino acids, so the probability of making 300 amino acids by random chance alone is 300!/20! (the ! is factional, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 300 times and divide that by 20 x 20 twenty times) the answer is very large, say 10 to the power of 200. The number of seconds our universe has evolved is 14 billion years or about 28 to the power 10 with 28 zeros ! Now if bacteria live only 2000 seconds before dying, it is impossible to stage mutational change in the time frame. The number of particles in our universe is far less than the code required for information needed, so the information can't come from natural means.

God bless your messages here, its great to be among Christian Scientist's..Shalom
 
Take for example the DNA code to make a simple protein chain for the ATP biological rotor, lets say its just 300 amino acid chains long, and we need to make six of these but lets make it easy for the evolutionists and say we make one by random mutation building....

No. It would be impossible by random changes alone. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Amino acids and short proteins are formed abiotically, by nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry. Don't you think it's an amazing God Who can make a universe in which such remarkable things happen naturally, as He intended?

There are 24 combinations in the ACTG code, two stop, one go, and several combinations of code for each of the 20 amino acids, so the probability of making 300 amino acids by random chance alone is 300!/20! (the ! is factional, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 300 times and divide that by 20 x 20 twenty times) the answer is very large, say 10 to the power of 200. The number of seconds our universe has evolved is 14 billion years or about 28 to the power 10 with 28 zeros ! Now if bacteria live only 2000 seconds before dying, it is impossible to stage mutational change in the time frame. The number of particles in our universe is far less than the code required for information needed, so the information can't come from natural means.

God said it does. He used nature to make life, according to His word in Genesis. The failure here, is to assume that chemistry and biology are random processes. They are not.
 
No. It would be impossible by random changes alone. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Amino acids and short proteins are formed abiotically, by nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry. Don't you think it's an amazing God Who can make a universe in which such remarkable things happen naturally, as He intended?



God said it does. He used nature to make life, according to His word in Genesis. The failure here, is to assume that chemistry and biology are random processes. They are not.

Praise God Barbarian that you believe life is not random change, or helped along by evolution...that God is the Designer behind the machinery of life...

What is more remarkable is the Creation took just six literal days of 24 hours of time, yet as the light and matter rushed into space the rest of the world looks old,

Robert Gentry on plutonium ions in granite rocks has found the granite rocks of our earth were made in minutes, to fossilize radioactive decay in the bedrock. This proves the Creator spoke the granite rocks of our earth into existence as well, as forming other matter in its order. Nothing is too hard for GOD. Shalom
 
Praise God Barbarian that you believe life is not random change,

Darwin showed that it is not random at all.

or helped along by evolution...

Evolution is the way He created the diversity of life.

that God is the Designer behind the machinery of life...

The Creator. No mere designer. Design is what limited creatures do.

What is more remarkable is the Creation took just six literal days of 24 hours of time, yet as the light and matter rushed into space the rest of the world looks old,

That is not the Biblical perspective.

Robert Gentry on plutonium ions in granite rocks has found the granite rocks of our earth were made in minutes

Impossible. His fellow creationists point out that the granite is intrusive, pushing through older sedimentary rocks. Hence, it cannot be primordial rock.

Nothing is too hard for GOD.

What is most amazing is that He could create a world that would unfold by natural processes according to His will.


May his peace be also with you.
 
Basically, Gentry proposed that the Po isotopes (which decayed to generate the halos) were instantaneously formed by divine fiat during Creation Week and that the rocks bearing them were thus primordial, created rocks. However, as Snelling and others have shown, this hypothesis is inconsistent with the abundant evidence (from field relationships and petrological data) that Po radiohalo-bearing granites were formed by the crystallization and cooling of magmas. Often the host rocks into which such granites have been intruded (and which are therefore older than the granites themselves) originated as fossil-bearing sediments thought by most creationists to have formed during the global Flood.
http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/are-polonium-radiohalos-primordial/
 
Basically, Gentry proposed that the Po isotopes (which decayed to generate the halos) were instantaneously formed by divine fiat during Creation Week and that the rocks bearing them were thus primordial, created rocks. However, as Snelling and others have shown, this hypothesis is inconsistent with the abundant evidence (from field relationships and petrological data) that Po radiohalo-bearing granites were formed by the crystallization and cooling of magmas. Often the host rocks into which such granites have been intruded (and which are therefore older than the granites themselves) originated as fossil-bearing sediments thought by most creationists to have formed during the global Flood.
http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/are-polonium-radiohalos-primordial/

The link you provide contains a good summary of two theories of faith, and it is wrong to make one above or below another unless we study all there is on the subject, I confess to not knowing all there is on the matter...

So to summarize:

According to Gentry, granites are primordial rocks, formed by divine fiat during the Creation Week, and the radiohalos they contain were generated by primordial polonium created in situ.

According to Snelling, granites were formed by the crystallization and cooling of magmas, including during the global Flood, and the radiohalos they contain were generated by polonium separated by hydrothermal fluids from nearby uranium sources.

Only Snelling’s model is consistent with the variety of geological settings in which the Po halo-bearing rocks are found.

I am not an expert on U and Po decay....so will not comment further...

As for the Creation of the earth in six literal days, why is this not Biblical ? The Hebrew word yom means 24 hours, evening and morning suggest the passing of time in the way the earth rotates relative to the light of God....

God bless us with His love
SHalom
 
The link you provide contains a good summary of two theories of faith, and it is wrong to make one above or below another unless we study all there is on the subject, I confess to not knowing all there is on the matter...

These are being presented as scientific theories. Hence, they are testable and the evidence shows Gentry is wrong. Rocks cannot be both intrusive and primordial, by definition. Snelling's ideas are more subtly wrong. The issue is that these halos are found where there is uranium in the granite, and hence a natural source for the halos.

As for the Creation of the earth in six literal days, why is this not Biblical ?

Mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. Logically impossible, as a number of early Christian theologians noted.

The Hebrew word yom means 24 hours

Or "era" or "in my time", or "unspecified length of time", among others.

evening and morning suggest the passing of time in the way the earth rotates relative to the light of God....

That is not, of course what "morning" or "evening" mean. However, if one accepts a figurative, rather than literal meaning, it is no longer absurd. But we don't know exactly what those "Yom" stand for. The prevalent opinion in the early years of Christianity was that it stood for kinds of creation, not periods of time.
 
These are being presented as scientific theories. Hence, they are testable and the evidence shows Gentry is wrong. Rocks cannot be both intrusive and primordial, by definition. Snelling's ideas are more subtly wrong. The issue is that these halos are found where there is uranium in the granite, and hence a natural source for the halos.



Mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. Logically impossible, as a number of early Christian theologians noted.



Or "era" or "in my time", or "unspecified length of time", among others.



That is not, of course what "morning" or "evening" mean. However, if one accepts a figurative, rather than literal meaning, it is no longer absurd. But we don't know exactly what those "Yom" stand for. The prevalent opinion in the early years of Christianity was that it stood for kinds of creation, not periods of time.

Well of course it depends upon how your study Scripture, whether you believe in sola Scriptoria, as I do....the Hebrew word yom simply means "day" if you look up every verse with "yom" there are no other kinds of time except a day....

As for the absence of the Sun, isn't GOD a source of light, and when the earth rotated morning and evening towards and away from GOD, you have the time known as one revolution, which on earth is called yom, a day.

The explanation of time looking old is also found in Scripture:-

Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse has a oxymoron in it, a contradiction of time...how can a generation of time by created in a day of time ? There are other verses like this also in Scripture, but the answer can only be understood by Einstein theory of relativity, that time is relative depending upon which body is in motion relative to another body....there is technically no such thing as time anyway....time is simply the motion of one body in space relative to another body moving in space.....So as bodies move away from each other the distance between them increases and thus time get to look older, when in reality its the same as when it was started....that's called relativity...
 
Well of course it depends upon how your study Scripture, whether you believe in sola Scriptoria, as I do....the Hebrew word yom simply means "day" if you look up every verse with "yom" there are no other kinds of time except a day....

It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period. In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever?
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

There are five meanings for the word Yom. It can mean:
spacer.gif

Definition
1. A Period of light in the day/night cycle
2. A 24-Hour period
3. A general or vague concept of time
4. A specific point of time
5. A year
http://www.mandley.com/advdemo/mod01/adv1304.htm



As for the absence of the Sun, isn't GOD a source of light, and when the earth rotated morning and evening towards and away from GOD, you have the time known as one revolution, which on earth is called yom, a day.

You could add this to scripture if you wanted to interpret it that way. But I don't think it's a wise thing to do.

The explanation of time looking old is also found in Scripture:-

Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse has a oxymoron in it, a contradiction of time...how can a generation of time by created in a day of time ?

It probably means "generation" in the sense that we speak of energy generation. And unless you redefine "yom" to mean only "24 hour day, there's no logical absurdity therein.

There are other verses like this also in Scripture, but the answer can only be understood by Einstein theory of relativity, that time is relative depending upon which body is in motion relative to another body....there is technically no such thing as time anyway....time is simply the motion of one body in space relative to another body moving in space.....

You'll probably want to do a little reading on physics. You might try this:
9780613679541.gif


I'm not being sarcastic. I've recommended this to a number of non-scientific people, and they've been surprised at how well the author can explain difficult problems in physics. There's a nice chapter on relativity at the end. Worth reading.

So as bodies move away from each other the distance between them increases and thus time get to look older, when in reality its the same as when it was started....that's called relativity...

You might want to read the book.
 
It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period. In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever?
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

There are five meanings for the word Yom. It can mean:
spacer.gif

Definition
1. A Period of light in the day/night cycle
2. A 24-Hour period
3. A general or vague concept of time
4. A specific point of time
5. A year
http://www.mandley.com/advdemo/mod01/adv1304.htm



Barbarian you mention some scholarly links here and some advice, well written and spoken...

There are over 1200 verses using Yowm in the OT, and all of them can be translated as day or in the plural sense days....

Your example of Genesis 4:3 for example

4:3
and~ he~ will~ Exist from~ Conclusion Day~ s and~ he~ will~ make~ Come “Qayin [Acquired]” from~ Produce the~ Ground Donation to~ “YHWH [He
exists
]”
and it came to pass at the
conclusion of days, “Qayin
[Acquired]” brought from the
produce of the ground, a donation
to “YHWH [He exists]”

From the mechanical version Bible translation of Genesis by Jeff Benner, Ancient Hebrew Research Center...

And for Deutronomy 10 : 10 The Youngs Bible translation

De 10:10 (YLT) `And I--I have stood in the mount, as the former days, forty days and forty nights, and Jehovah hearkeneth unto me also at that time; Jehovah hath not willed to destroy thee.

I agree sometimes Hebrew reads awkward, but that's the language for you, should we as translators try to fix the text and make the language change into English something that is not there ? That would be wrong and unfaithful ?

1Kings 11:42 Young's translation again

1Ki 11:42 (YLT) And the days that Solomon hath reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [are] forty years,

The translators are fixing the text for you, making the Bible into polysemy which it isn't...Hebrew words have a single basic meaning like any language has, though there are a few words with multiply meanings, it's not as common as we like to think...otherwise we can make Scripture meaning whatever we like...

Is 30 :8 Youngs again

Isa 30:8 (YLT) No, go in, write it on a tablet with them, And on a book engrave it, And it is for a latter day, for a witness unto the age,

I find the Bible is consistent in the reading of its Hebrew, but you have to have a electronic Bible, since most of us do not read Hebrew...

SO in summary there is one meaning for yom

(1) day of time
(2) days of time in plural sense (in the sense we call year, season, etc)

Hebrew words have broad applications, yes, but single basic meanings.


I haven't read the book you mention, but you might want to listen to Professor Gerald Schroeder, a Jewish physics lecturer on the Genesis story and time stretching of space, He uses only peer reviews and the Bible for his discussion, and beyond bias in that regard...

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQtwIwBA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRxEeHFHc-Y&ei=Lw4aVOfzGY6A8gXNwoKQAw&usg=AFQjCNFNe5zxEZhi0nAxE47w9oozx1qucQ&bvm=bv.75097201,d.dGc

Such as these in a series

I do understand we have different theories of faith, and how we understand Scripture...
While we cannot argue one theory of faith above another, I simply present there are other alternatives to Genesis out there which in my humble opinion follow Hebrew better as I come to understand my Bible in sola Scriptoria. See my own studies of Hebrew words for example...

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1095.htm This is how I study my Bible, I do not read human sources, only after making my own conclusions, and sometimes I even disagree with Jeff Benner but only in minor points, He is the only person on Ancient Hebrew who understands polysemy is a rare occurrence in Hebrew. And I have little faith in Strong's for the same reason...sola scriptoria with the Holy Spirit will lead us all into truth, reading our Bibles is the best way to go....Shalom







You could add this to scripture if you wanted to interpret it that way. But I don't think it's a wise thing to do.



It probably means "generation" in the sense that we speak of energy generation. And unless you redefine "yom" to mean only "24 hour day, there's no logical absurdity therein.



You'll probably want to do a little reading on physics. You might try this:
9780613679541.gif


I'm not being sarcastic. I've recommended this to a number of non-scientific people, and they've been surprised at how well the author can explain difficult problems in physics. There's a nice chapter on relativity at the end. Worth reading.



You might want to read the book.
 
Basically, Gentry proposed that the Po isotopes (which decayed to generate the halos) were instantaneously formed by divine fiat during Creation Week and that the rocks bearing them were thus primordial, created rocks. However, as Snelling and others have shown, this hypothesis is inconsistent with the abundant evidence (from field relationships and petrological data) that Po radiohalo-bearing granites were formed by the crystallization and cooling of magmas. Often the host rocks into which such granites have been intruded (and which are therefore older than the granites themselves) originated as fossil-bearing sediments thought by most creationists to have formed during the global Flood.
http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/are-polonium-radiohalos-primordial/

Snelling concludes that this is further exciting evidence that the earth and its rocks are not millions and billions of years old as usually claimed, but only about 6,000 years - twinc
 
Snelling concludes that this is further exciting evidence that the earth and its rocks are not millions and billions of years old as usually claimed, but only about 6,000 years - twinc

What is does, is tosses Snelling's belief that these granites are primordial rocks and removes any possibility that the halos are what he thought they were.
 
What is does, is tosses Snelling's belief that these granites are primordial rocks and removes any possibility that the halos are what he thought they were.

why not just check it out for yourselves and you own interpretations and conclusions - see his pamphlet 359 - Radiohalos: Startling Evidence of Catastrophic Geological Processes on a Young Earth - published by CSM - also see Radiohalos in Evolution's [Achilles' heels] - twinc
 
As you see, even Snelling's fellow creationists have rejected his ideas because they are manifestly incompatible with the evidence. Nothing more to say about it.
 
I chose my blog title to acknowledge that a growing number of Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. I also chose my title to argue that Evangelicals should accept evolution as compatible with faith.


I spent a good portion of last week at a BioLogos meeting. I talked with leading Evangelical pastors, scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Our main goal was to help the Evangelical family realize that the general theory of evolution is not a threat to authentic Christian faith and not a threat to biblical authority.


A full explanation of the compatibility of biblical Christianity and evolution would require at least a book. Here I want to point quickly to five reasons why some of my fellow Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. These are the same reasons I think other Evangelicals should follow their example...


http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/evangelicals_accept_evolution/

it seems that Christianity/Bible and Evolution are diametrically opposed and opposite and it is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics to accept or teach 'Origins' Evolution - for God created everything "in its whole substance" from nothing [ex nihilo] in an instant in the beginning on each of six by 24hr days - twinc
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top