Creation vs. Evolution II

gcthomas

New member
We already discussed that quote GC. I said that creationists would agree with it, depending how you define religion. Notice in that quote Pasteur is objecting to materialism. IOW Pasteur objects to scientists who have a starting bias of 'no God'...also a form of religion (atheism).
Pasteur performed science believing there was purpose and design, evidence of our Creator "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

I'll take that as your final comment on the topic, that you cannot find any quote that shows Pasteur ever allowed science to affect his science, and that we should move on to a new discussion.

Perhaps we could get back to the previous question that you have avoided: what do you hope top achieve by claiming that scientists can be religious? Did you imagine that the personal characteristics can be used to undermine a scientific theory that has long since outgrown them? Over to you.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Thanks Jose for the quote from his first book.

Yes, from On The Origin of Species and the quote is specifically about the origin of life, which he clearly attributed to a creator. So for all normal people, the claim "Darwin tried to explain life without a creator" is as false as false can be.

Yet....

Darwin tried to explain nature without mention of God.

You are obviously incapable of writing an honest post.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Louis Pasteur said, quite clearly, that religion played no part in his science, nor should it:

"But, gentlemen, in such a subject, rather than as poetry, pretty fancy and instinctive solutions, it is time for science, the true method resumes its duties and exercise. Here, it takes no religion, no philosophy, no atheism, no materialism, no spiritualism. I might even add: as a scholar, I do not mind. "

Which part of this don't you understand, 6days? Have you got anywhere finding a quote where he says he USED his religion in his science, in contravention of his very clear policy not to so so? I'm waiting.

Well as we've seen, 6days absolutely refuses to give up any of his rote talking points, no matter how obviously wrong they are.

Such is the nature of creationism.
 

6days

New member
gcThomas said:
I'll take that as your final comment on the topic, that you cannot find any quote that shows Pasteur ever allowed science to affect his science, and that we should move on to a new discussion.
Ha...of course he did. And, he also let his science be a form of worship of the Creator.
gcThomas said:
Perhaps we could get back to the previous question that you have avoided: what do you hope top achieve by claiming that scientists can be religious?
I don't recall saying that but scientists can be Budhists, nudists, atheists or any other type of ists.*
gcThomas said:
Did you imagine that the personal characteristics can be used to undermine a scientific theory that has long since outgrown them?
Personal characteristics have nothing to do with science. However, faulty conclusions and then trying to make data fit has often hindered scientific progress.*
 

KingdomRose

New member
2 verses
the word day used twice
Both easy to understand in context...Same as the hundreds of other times 'day' is used in the OT.

Yes, "day" used twice, and neither one of them means a 24-hour day. Please comment on my post #233.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Several reasons from scripture we know that to be true. Also the The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than 24 hour days in Genesis 1. James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford said,
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

Perhaps you think your 'interpretation' blows it apart, but scripture says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

That is almost a laughable stretch of 'logic' trying to add billions of years into scripture. There are many things wrong with your suggestion that the 7th day continues.
a) You seem to believe that God blessed and sanctified and cursed the exact same day? Either that, or when did the 8th day begin?
b) Genesis is not saying that God wants us to share a literal 7th day rest from the 6 days of creation. He said He rested to typify for us a literal day of rest.
c) The narrative of the Hebrew text provides no basisfo believing the 7th day was any different length of time than the preceeding six days.
d) EVEN IF... the 7th day was a longer period than 24 hours it says nothing about the length of the other 6 days (Each with morning and evening)
e) The Hebrews text tells that God's creative activity ended with the beginning of day 7; it in no way suggests the 7th day has continued into the present.
f) God rested...past tense.
g) Hebrews is warning not to be disobedient like the Israelites in the wilderness. Because of their hard hearts they could not enter into a "rest" - Canaan. The Hebrew word used by David was 'menuwchah'... a word referring to a place, or abode of resting. Hebrews verses uses the same concept using the Greek word ' katapausis'.* Verse 9 of Hebrews 4 (You stopped too soon at v.6) promises a future day of rest. He uses a special word for Sabbath 'Sabbatismos' , which seems to suggest that when the believers work is complete, we will live with Christ in eternity...our rest. In Hebrews God uses the picture of the creations 7th day of rest to provide a picture Heaven...our future rest.

WOW!..... Now you have it!!! The word 'day' in English, and 'YOM' in Hebrew has a similar variety of meaning. It is always understood by the context! Genesis 1 days 24 hour days...determined by context. Yes, 'YOM' can be longer than, or shorter than 24 hour...understood by CONTEXT.
It is us who refers to it as 24 hours. God defined a day in Genesis 1: 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

We agree that there is no conflict between science and God's Word. But we do disagree about the secular opinions and billions of years you add to scripture.*
Mark 10:6 "However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female".
The Greek word for beginning is 'arche' ...a word denoting an absolute. It was not a subsequent beginning...It was not the beginning of humanity, but the beginning of creation. The Greek wording for 'since the creation of the world' in that verse is "apo ktiseos kosmou". The Greek word 'apo' as a preposition means 'The beginning point'. Greek 'kosmou' (kosmos) refers to the universe.

Author Wayne Jackson explains..."Unquestionably this language puts humankind at the very dawn of creation. To reject this clear truth one must contend that:
(a) Christ knew the universe was in existence billions of years prior to man, but accommodated himself to the ignorance of his generation deliberately misrepresenting the situation; or,
(b) The Lord living in pre-scientific times was uninformed about the matter (despite the fact that he was there as Creator). Either one of these allegations is a reflection upon the Son of God and his blasphemous"

ALSO...
Millions of years of suffering, death and extinctions contradict God's Word.
The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....
1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world. And, we KNOW when sin entered the world.
ALSO...
If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

What are you talking about....that God "cursed" the 7th day? His "day of rest" is the 7th day and it is still going on, as can be seen by the fact that a New Testament writer states that believers, who obey God, can even NOW enter that rest. Whatever you mean by the 8th day, I don't know.

I believe I covered the explanation of the 6 days of creation and their length in post #233. If not, I will do so again. As already mentioned, a "day" often refers to time periods of varying length, which is obvious, even in the Scripture at Genesis 2:4 which you cited. The "day" that God made earth and heaven could not be 24-hours in length, because the Scripture already said that it took at least 6 "days" to create things on Earth. Therefore, seeing that "day" can mean indeterminate lengths of time, God need not have created the earth and things on it in 6 24-hour days!

I also mentioned that "days" weren't measured in 24-hour increments until after the Babylonian captivity. Is there some reason you are ignoring these facts?

The term "day(s)" is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as, for example, "the days of Noah" and "thedays of Lot." (Luke 17:26-30; Isaiah 1:1)

Other cases where the word "day" is used in a flexible/figurative sense are: "the DAY of Jehovah" (Zephaniah 1:7), "the DAYof fury" (Zephaniah 1:15); "the DAY of judgment" (2 Peter 3:7), "the great DAY of God the Almighty" (Revelation 16:14), and others.


If there is further interest in scrutinizing this issue of the length of the "days" in Scripture, please read on:

"This flexible use of the word 'day' to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident even in the Genesis account of creation. A week of six creative days is set forth, followed by a 7th day of rest. In the Scriptural record the account of each of the 6 creative days finishes with the statement: 'And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,' a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Gen.1:5,8,13,19,23,31) The 7th day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, CONTINUED ON.

"At Hebrews 4:1-10, [it is there indicated that] God's rest day was still continuing in [the writer's] generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after the that 7th-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia(Volume I, page 613) observes:

'The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but NOT DAYS OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS EACH.' (Edited by P. Schaff, 1894)


"The entire period of the 6 time units or creative 'days' dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing 'day' at Genesis 2:4: 'This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.'" (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.I, pp.592-594)
 

6days

New member
The term "day(s)" is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as, for example, "the days of Noah" and "thedays of Lot." (Luke 17:26-30; Isaiah 1:1)
Of course!
I don't think you read anything? You just want to argue without even knowing what you are arguing against.
I would love to discuss things with you, but you should address what was really said, and not what you think someone might say.
 

KingdomRose

New member
I'm starting to wonder if you're ever going to put up a post that doesn't contain lies.

Darwin didn't consider himself an "atheist." He wrote in letters to his son that he was more of an "agnostic," because he could see design and order in the universe, but he tried not to think about it. He said:

"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose....The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

Another letter: "My judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

To a man named W. Graham (1881): "You have expressed my inward convictions, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance." The Duke of Argyll has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by Darwin in the last year of his life: "In the course of conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature---I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'"

These interesting quotes come from The Life of Charles Darwin by Francis Darwin, 1902, pp.55-65.


To conclude: Scientists have not been unanimous about the non-existence of God. In fact many great scientists have strongly believed in God (Sir Isaac Newton for one). But that fact doe not allow for the erroneous teaching of some Bible believers today who insist that the "days" of Creation are each 24 hours in length. The Bible harmonizes with Science which says that the earth is around 5 billion years old, and occurrence of life on this planet took perhaps millions of years, up to the appearance of humans. The jury is out among scientists just how long humans have been around. Of course some say that it has been millions of years, but that has not been absolutely proven, and some question the accuracy of carbon-dating in some cases. I personally believe that humans have been around for a little over 6,000 years.


:)
 

KingdomRose

New member
Trying to explain life without God makes sense, however if you look at all the evidence for creation then you draw the conclusion that God created everything. If you look at the evidence for Evolution then you see more truth. Right? Actually, no. You will see some...holes in the "evidence" for Evolution. A good book for the scientifically advanced, who are wondering who is right, is "Refuting Evolution". In that book, it examines both sides of the question. It also goes into detail about what problems the "evidence" for Evolution are. Another good book, for the less scientifically advanced, is "It Couldn't Just Happen". In that book it shows evidence for both sides and points out the problems with Evolution. I have read both and suggest that you do too. Btw I am not intending to advertise these books, it just happened. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using TOL

Good. I have a few more that are brilliant:

Intelligent Design 101, General editor H. Wayne House, 2008

The Devil's Delusion, David Berlinski, 2008

Darwin's Black Box, Michael J. Behe, 1996

Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, 1999


There are many more, but if people would read even one of these they would get the impeccable reasoning associated with observations about the harmony of Science, Mathematics, and an intelligent Designer.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Of course!
I don't think you read anything? You just want to argue without even knowing what you are arguing against.
I would love to discuss things with you, but you should address what was really said, and not what you think someone might say.

No, that is not a fair statement. I am replying to exactly what you are saying. You said that "day" means 24 hours in all instances. Shall I look back and find your statement as to such? If I mis-read, I will stand corrected.

I went back to your post #13. There you asked a poster, "Can you show an example where the word 'day' might mean either a 24-hour day, or a long undetermined period of time?" What you said in your post shows that you are not clear even in your own mind as to what "day" can mean. If you agree that BOTH are possible, why do you keep insisting that the days of Genesis are 24-hour periods?

I have provided many examples of the fact that "day" can mean undetermined periods of time, and have explained why the idea of 24-hour creative days does not hold up. Did you bother to read my posts?

Yet in spite of my examples, you disregard those things and just accuse me of not being able to read.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Darwin didn't consider himself an "atheist." He wrote in letters to his son that he was more of an "agnostic," because he could see design and order in the universe, but he tried not to think about it.

I really don't care what Darwin's religious beliefs were, any more than I care about the beliefs of guy who cooks my dinner. Good science is good science and good food is good food, no matter who does it.

The question at hand was 6days' claim that Darwin tried to explain life/nature without God. But as the passage from On the Origin of Species showed, that claim is as false as can be.

To conclude: Scientists have not been unanimous about the non-existence of God. In fact many great scientists have strongly believed in God (Sir Isaac Newton for one). But that fact doe not allow for the erroneous teaching of some Bible believers today who insist that the "days" of Creation are each 24 hours in length. The Bible harmonizes with Science which says that the earth is around 5 billion years old, and occurrence of life on this planet took perhaps millions of years, up to the appearance of humans.

FYI, I'm not a Christian so what the Bible says about things is irrelevant to me.

The jury is out among scientists just how long humans have been around. Of course some say that it has been millions of years, but that has not been absolutely proven, and some question the accuracy of carbon-dating in some cases. I personally believe that humans have been around for a little over 6,000 years.

No, the jury is not out. There may be some adjustments and disagreements within relatively small ranges, but no one outside of a tiny number of religiously-motivated people are proposing a 6,000 year old age for H. sapiens.
 

6days

New member
KingdomRose said:
I am replying to exactly what you are saying. You said that "day" means 24 hours in all instances.
Day (yom) has a variety of meanings in Hebrew and in English. I think I have said that several times. The meaning is always clear by the context in both languages.*
KingdomRose said:
I went back to your post #13. There you asked a poster, "Can you show an example where the word 'day' might mean either a 24-hour day, or a long undetermined period of time?" What you said in your post shows that you are not clear even in your own mind as to what "day" can mean. If you agree that BOTH are possible, why do you keep insisting that the days of Genesis are 24-hour periods?
Haha...apologies... my post wasn't very clear. I will post it here now then try explain.
6days: "Outside of the creation account, the word yom/day is used hundreds of times in the OT. Can you show an example where the word 'day' might mean either a 24 hour day, or a long undetermined period of time? (I will help with the answer... the meaning is always easy to understand by the context). I suppled verses from Genesis 2 where the same word is used but with different meanings."

What I'm asking or saying is that we understand the meaning of the word by context. Are there instances outside of the creation account where the meaning is not clear? For ex. Could Jonah have been inside the fish for 3 undetermined periods of time? Could he have been in the fish for 3 daylight only periods? No...we understand by context.*

KingdomRose said:
I have provided many examples of the fact that "day" can mean undetermined periods of time
Yes...I did too. Thats why I assumed you had not read my post before you started arguing.
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
The question at hand was 6days' claim that Darwin tried to explain life/nature without God...
Yes...true. And I explained that was more so as Darwin aged. Atheist web sites often explain it like this..."However, he (Darwin) felt that science should be objective in nature, and was careful to keep any reference to God or a creator out of his work"
 

gcthomas

New member
As the series says, it flunks:

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test

Two days ago there was a presentation just on bees that is to biology what THE PRIVILEGED PLANET is to astrophysics. Undeniably designed and created in a moment.

The linked article is incompetent. For example, under the heading Chance Life—A Ridiculous Improbability, is has this comment:
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. "

But this treats atoms as random building blocks, ignoring all the laws of chemistry that provide rules for atoms to self-organise. In fact, amino acids have been discovered on comets formed from simple molecules and powered by the occasional warmth of sunlight. Hardly improbable then!

The rest of the article is similarly naïve and credulous. You'll need something written by someone with a little knowledge of science to do the critique for it to be anything other than humorous.
 

COGTHW

New member
Creation vs. Evolution II

God created all things on earth. That is what the scriptures proclaimes 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' Genesis 1:1 God created man 27 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' Genesis 1:27


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

gcthomas

New member
Perhaps one of the YECs here could explain the existence near my home of high White Cliffs of chalk, fifteen hundred meters thick and substantially made from the microscopic and intact fossils of trillions of tiny creatures.
450px-Beachy_Head%2C_East_Sussex%2C_England-2Oct2011_%281%29.jpg


How could this have been formed with a Great Flood theory?
 

COGTHW

New member
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20


Acts 2:38
 
Top