Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

Not those stages I quoted. Those are all on the first day in both accounts at least until the beginning of the photon epoch, which started on the first day. And light continued to be available, though separate from the darkness in the Genesis account, prior to the Sun's introduction, which fits the Genesis account. I'm pretty confident we don't have enough info from the bible to give the kind of details scientists have proposed for the big bang timeline, but the idea of a beginning, of inflation, of photons prior to sustained matter, and of the timing for those first few stages could all be considered in-line with each other.

The timing beyond that is the main disconnect. We have 4 choices in how that plays out, assuming the other things are correct in both accounts.

1. Both accounts are false
2. BB is true, Genesis is false
3. BB is false, Genesis is true
4. Both accounts are true

These are idealistic, as it's unlikely that both will be either perfectly true or perfectly false (one could be perfectly true while the other is only partly true).

The first is unhelpful, since we are debating between 2 potential truths and we don't really have a good alternative at this point.

The second is the anti-biblical view.

The third is the anti-scientific view.

The fourth is what I consider the most likely, with the above caveat about idealism. But how can both be true? The best science we have so far that deals with time inconsistencies is relativity theory, which says (with significant experimental proof) time in one place and under one set of conditions may flow faster or slower than time in another.

Are these two accounts reconcilable? Possibly. Should we try? As Christians I don't see why not to. Atheists probably wouldn't want to, as it lends credence to the biblical account. It's not necessarily a problem for scientists to continue to refine theories until they get everything right (after another 13 billion years, perhaps ), at which point maybe we'll be understanding the biblical account better, too--as Christians we always want to be doing that.

Note that what I'm talking about is the "evolution" or "creation" of the cosmos, not of living things. That's a different subject, with different premises and different conclusions, perhaps.

Or, the BB occurred any way science said it did, any time it did.

And 5.6 billion years ago earth formed.
And 5.1 billion years ago God created primitive life to produce oxygen.

And many mass extinctions and recreations later we come to the last mass extinction 6000 years ago which left earth "without form and void".

And in 6 literal days God re-created earth's last biome.

And 4.4 thousand years ago there was a Deluge, and an Ark.

And here we are today

 

[DavisBJ]

Consider The Following Evidence For Creation

• Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics …

Dear Michael,

Once again you show your devotion to posting litanies of creationist nonsense, while I have never seen any indication that you have the slightest interest in actually learning the relevant science. I can only pity you in your preference for an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world instead of reality.

For example, I will point out (for others, since I have no expectation it will be meaningful to you) that a few years ago, a Professor of Physics named Daniel Styer actually posted a couple of posts here at TOL. This was when the subject came up of his recently publishing a peer-reviewed article directly focused on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Darwinian evolution. Scientifically, often the most definitive and unambiguous way a law can be expressed is when it can be expressed in a mathematical equation. The Second Law is a prime example of that. And it was the mathematical expression of the Second Law that Daniel Styer used to show that it is ludicrous to say the Second Law is prohibitive of evolution. Since Styer’s paper was published, I have seen a couple of refinements of the ideas he presented, and those follow-on papers simply show even more clearly that Thermodynamics and evolution are perfectly compatible.

 

[DavisBJ]

… Sorry Davis, but this is above my pay grade.

Well then, it might be a good idea not to try to fire a machine gun until you at least learn where the safety is and which end of the gun is the business end. Might hurt yourself (again).

You probably have a community college (or maybe a full-fledged university) within commuting distance. Take a class in physical geology (but realize going in that old-earth with be foundational to the whole course). Or, if time doesn’t permit, in your spare reading time peruse a good book such as “Earth – An Introduction to Physical Geology”, by Tarbuck, Lutgens, and Tasa.

If two geologists disagree, I'm not qualified to jump in and settle the argument.

It’s not just two geologists. It’s a few geologists who have a conviction that they need to defend a highly literal reading of an obscure ancient tribal creation account, versus literally thousands of equally qualified geologists. The “non-creationist” geologists are strongly in agreement in most of their old-earth conclusions, even though they individually come from a wide spectrum of cultural and religious backgrounds (including a significant number of devout Christians). The premier Universities throughout the world universally teach old-earth concepts, and the industries whose continued existence depends on their scientists being correct likewise part with creationist ideas about geology.

Of course though, I would lean towards the one who accepts God's Word as absolute truth. That being said.... the geologist I quoted isn't necessarily correct, but he is suggesting an interpretation of evidence that fits with the Bible.

At least you are becoming more open in admitting that it is not impartial science that supports “God’s word”, but that it is that creationist anomaly that you find it advantageous to label as “science” that supports your narrow interpretation of “God’s Word”.

If interested, here is an article from a Creationist who seems to agree with you that subduction is not the correct model.

Indeed, you are out of your league here. I never said subduction is not the correct model. I only said that subduction is not what is happening along the mid-oceanic ridge. Just to fill a simple gap in your knowledge, plate tectonics postulates that there are places (like the mid-oceanic ridge) where hot soft rock is upwelling. When that occurs (as it often does) at places where two plates are separating, some of that magma continuously squeezes into the developing crack and slowly solidifies. As it does, the ferrous grains entrapped in the magma solidify in an orientation that is aligned with the earth’s magnetic field at the time. And further, magma is one of the kinds of rock that lends itself well to radiological dating. We can date when it solidified.

But since there is rock (magma) continuously being added to the spreading plates at the crack where they are separating, on the other end of the plates there has to be some way to get rid of some of that end of the plate. Subduction is a well-understood process where, at places where two plates are colliding, one may be forced to literally bend and slide beneath the other, deep into the interior of the earth, where the rock forming the plate actually starts to melt and essentially gets recycled.

The Pacific Plate has long been known to be sliding under the Eurasian Plate in the region near Japan and the Kamchatka Peninsula. As often happens, subducting plates will literally snag on the plate they are being forced under, and as the main body of the plate continues to slowly move, huge stresses will build in the region of the snag. When the stress gets high enough, something finally gives, and there is a rapid movement of the plates to relieve the stress. And often an associated earthquake. For years I have gone to Japan on a pretty regular basis, and when staying at my brother-in-law’s house well north of Tokyo I have felt very distinct earthquakes. In March of 2011, the big Japanese earthquake and tsunami was caused by a major release of tension offshore when the subducting Pacific Plate broke free along a known fault. The subducting (sinking) plate had actually been pulling the overlying plate down with it, so the overlying plate was literally slightly bent downwards. When the plates broke loose, the overlying plate sprang back up into its unstressed position, but as it did, it also lifted up the many billions of cubic yards of overlying sea water right above it. As that literal miles-wide hill of sea water flowed down, when it hit the Japanese mainland it resulted in the dramatic scenes of a tsunami that we have all watched.

My brother’s house got some cracks in it, but it wasn’t until months later, after the high-priority emergencies had subsided, that engineers came through his community to assess the damage in detail. As a result, a few months later, he watched as a new house was built on the site where his house (and all of the neighborhood) had been razed. Yeah, he kinda believes subduction is a real thing.

 

[6days]

I am pretty sure few evolutionists probably even knew (or know, or care) the percent of the water budget that was believed to be below ground, nor is there any connection between people’s attitudes on the Bible and groundwater studies. Really 6days, why can’t you act like a minimally mature adult and use the term for the branch of science that actually came up with those figures? You remind me of a pimp trying to justify his work by saying he is just teaching his girls about how to run a business and provide them a secure and safe environment.

You are mistaken about something. It was scientists who calculated underground water at 1.7%. But it was evolutionists who used that (incorrect) figure to mock the Bible as in the quote I provided.*

Let me dwell for a moment on the 1.7% groundwater issue. Part of physical geology is the study of the hydrosphere – the water that we have to be concerned with daily – whether in clouds, oceans, rivers, aquifers, glaciers, rain, lakes, bathtubs, etc. All of that water (with rare exceptions) is very close to the surface of the earth. The realization that there may be a massive amount of deep subterranean water does not alter the water budget in the hydrosphere that is relevant on a daily basis. In fact, as mentioned in the original article about the deep water, the major relevance of that deep water is how it impacts our understanding of deep-earth processes – volcanic magma, P and S wave propagation, etc. For everyone not directly involved with deep-earth physics, the knowledge of that deep water is essentially purely academic. If you find fault in not including that deep water in the hydrosphere, then in turn I expect you to faithfully make sure that every mention of Christian history includes details about those of God’s children that lived in far-away lands and had effectively no part in that history.

I don't think we are understanding each other on this point.

People mocked the Bible based on only 1.7% groundwater saying it isn't enough to cause a flood. Now that we know the number might be greater than 100% groundwater, that original argument now looks silly. If not enough water proved the Bible wrong.... *then does more than enough water prove the Bible correct?*

Since you clearly have no intention of using the word “evolutionist” in the way it is used in science, maybe I likewise should refer to creationists simply as “Christian Pimps”. Using correct terminology isn’t important to you, so why should I not do likewise? Your goal is to disparage evolutionists by associating them with whatever you think will demean them. But for me, no, I really want to look at myself in a mirror with a clear conscience, and I couldn’t do that if I resorted to your tactics.

I really don't get why the word evolutionists bothers you? What word should we use to describe people who believe in common ancestry? 'Scientists' would be an incorrect term because most evolutionists are not scientists; as well, not all scientists are evolutiinistas. I'm sorry the term bothers you but it seems to be the most accurate word.

Yes as Christians we need to be able to admit that we are wrong sometimes.

I doubt that this sentiment is one you are willing to apply to the question of whether or not the Genesis creation account is literal. If you found clear evidence it was not scientifically accurate, would you admit that?

God's Word is never wrong, but my understanding of it certainly can be wrong.*

However, as Christians there are things in God's Word stated as absolute truth that we should adhere to and be unwilling to compromise on

.

And there is not even close to a consensus among Christians on many of the things in the Bible that are open to new understanding. The Genesis creation account is a big item that falls squarely in that category – some hold that it must be read as an accurate literal account, other equally faithful Christians happily pursue careers in fields (such as evolution) that are incompatible with a literal Genesis.

Certainly there are many who compromise on what the Bible says.*However, as Christians there are things in God's Word stated as absolute truth that we should adhere to and be unwilling to compromise on. God created in six days, Jesus is a descendant of David, Jesus gave His life offering us life everlasting. .etc etc.*

The *Bible … does tell us that the earth as it existed, was destroyed.

Since that must have occurred in the geologically recent past, it would be expected that there would be substantial clear evidence of this world-wide destruction. What is that evidence?

Correct, *there is substantial clear evidence. Google.... use words like 'evidence global flood'.*

Until you can show me that the Bible is credible as a scientific document,...

God's Word is a source of inerrant truth on all matters it touches on, including science. His Word tells about our history... and our future.*

Also a verse from Psalm 104 is relevant. "At your command, the water fled; at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.*Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed. Then you set a firm boundary for the seas, so they would never again cover the earth."

Not unexpectedly, you go to the Bible again and again, when I am still awaiting credible evidence that I should give the Bible any special recognition. First things first, please.

The Bible is a source of absolute truth. *You are not the first person that rejects it as a source of truth. Some of those who have tried to prove it wrong ended up 'on the Damascus road' being convinced of its authenticity. I'm praying for you Davis that you would be open to the truth. I would love for you to study the claims of Jesus with a willingness to follow the evidence, no matter where it leads.*

 

[patrick jane]

How bout that Jew that seems to know where all the diamonds are on the planet ?

 

[DavisBJ]

… we don't know what the pre-flood oceans were like. It would seem from scripture that shape, size and depth is different now.

The presence of large bodies of water leaves distinct and well-known evidences on land. In the US there is a governmental group (USGS) that specifically documents what is known about the geology of the US. Additionally, there are (and have been) numerous studies by companies and universities looking at the past history of lakes/oceans/rivers. One of the classic creationist arguments deals with the evidence for huge lakes causing the scablands in Eastern Washington State. In Utah and southern Idaho, on the mountainsides I have often seen very clear evidence for ancient Lake Bonneville, of which the Great Salt Lake is but a small remnant. But, as you say the creationists “don't know what the pre-flood oceans were like. It would seem from scripture that shape, size and depth is different”. I am thankful that ignorance of geologically recent ocean sizes and levels seems to a malady found only among you fanatical Bible literalists.

Also, we don't know what the depth was of 'fountains of the deep'.

If you are proposing the huge amount of water that the study you linked to is about, then we do know that the fissure to bring significant amounts of that water up in a fountain would have to reach through hundreds of miles of intensely hot soft rock.

His speculations on fountains of the deep are about a one time, unobserved event and there is no repeatable experiment that can be done to verify or refute his hypothesis. For the exact same reasons we can also say that common ancestry beliefs is not a theory.

As you know, to be considered a scientific theory, an idea has to pass a rigorous tests of showing that it provides a reasonable explanation for a broad array of empirical observations, it has to have shown that it can be used to make predictions which are then verified, and no competing idea is known that is a serious contender to upset it. The scientific community en masse has recognized evolution as a viable theory. You and yours may dislike that fact, but that objection is because you dislike its theological implications, and not because it is scientifically barren.

Almost every issue of Science magazine for the past few decades has had a minimum of one article elucidating specific studies dealing with evolution. That is literally thousands and thousands of studies. In contrast, I am not aware of one single peer-reviewed article ever that purports to show that huge volumes of water completely inundated the earth within the last few hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Derf]

Or, the BB occurred any way science said it did, any time it did.

And 5.6 billion years ago earth formed.
And 5.1 billion years ago God created primitive life to produce oxygen.

And many mass extinctions and recreations later we come to the last mass extinction 6000 years ago which left earth "without form and void".

And in 6 literal days God re-created earth's last biome.

And 4.4 billion years ago there was a Deluge, and an Ark.

And here we are today

I guess if any creation story works for you, then why are you do you use the bible for anything at all? I think most atheistic evolutionists would agree with most creationists that either the bible is true and useful in all areas, or it is false and useless--in all areas. They think the latter is the case, and I think the former. But to say the bible allows for 4.4 billion years of earth history after Noah's flood seems ludicrous in the extreme.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intention here and could use some clarification.

 

[iouae]

Almost every issue of Science magazine for the past few decades has had a minimum of one article elucidating specific studies dealing with evolution. That is literally thousands and thousands of studies. In contrast, I am not aware of one single peer-reviewed article ever that purports to show that huge volumes of water completely inundated the earth within the last few hundreds of thousands of years.

It is my belief that what science calls the Younger Dryas and the extinction of Clovis culture are what the Bible calls the Flood.

 

[iouae]

I guess if any creation story works for you, then why are you do you use the bible for anything at all? I think most atheistic evolutionists would agree with most creationists that either the bible is true and useful in all areas, or it is false and useless--in all areas. They think the latter is the case, and I think the former. But to say the bible allows for 4.4 billion years of earth history after Noah's flood seems ludicrous in the extreme.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intention here and could use some clarification.

Oops. Meant to say 4.4 thousand years not billion.

 

[badp]

I am of the opinion that evolution is credible, the creationism story in the Bible isn't.

Yeah, science works based on your opinion.

 

[6days]

*I am thankful that ignorance of geologically recent ocean sizes and levels seems to a malady found only among you fanatical Bible literalists.

Correction...

We are discussing the 'ignornance' of geogically *distant oceans....pre-flood, of both Biblical 'literalists and deniers.

Also, we don't know what the depth was of 'fountains of the deep'.

If you are proposing the huge amount of water that the study you linked to is about, then we do know that the fissure to bring significant amounts of that water up in a fountain would have to reach through hundreds of miles of intensely hot soft rock.

Correction

I didn't propose a certain amount of water, (but large amounts) nor did the article. And, the article clearly is not saying that all fountains of the deep were 400 miles down. (The article is suggesting that some of this ground water was close enough to the surface that it created a mist). The article is merely pointing out that secularists scoffed at the idea of large amounts of ground water as the Bible says. Science has proven those scoffed wrong. There STILL is LOTS of ground water....perhaps more still than all surface water.*

 

[Derf]

Oops. Meant to say 4.4 thousand years not billion.

Ah. that makes more sense.

But I still think Exodus 20:11 either makes the deluge a universally destructive event (which the bible makes no mention of), or the earth and heavens and all that are in them were created in the 6 days.

 

[badp]

How bout that Jew that seems to know where all the diamonds are on the planet ?

Pat Robertson's a Jew?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Huh?

At the front of my Bible it says that God said "Let US (not me) make man in OUR (not my) image". Just one of 'em?

At the front of my Bible it says that God said "Let US (You And I, His Son Jesus, Who was with Him before this world was) make man in OUR (Mine and Yours) image". Just one of 'em?[/QUOTE]

Huh? You didn't know that?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I am of the opinion that evolution is credible, the creationism story in the Bible isn't.

Dear Bluecheese,

Welcome!! Your opinion of evolution is not the only one and you should surely find some friends here indeed, who believe that way. Of course, I believe in the Creation and am dead-set in my beliefs. Just scroll through. You will find creationists/believers AND evolutionists on each page, no doubt. I hope they will take you under their wing.

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

Once again you show your devotion to posting litanies of creationist nonsense, while I have never seen any indication that you have the slightest interest in actually learning the relevant science. I can only pity you in your preference for an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world instead of reality.

For example, I will point out (for others, since I have no expectation it will be meaningful to you) that a few years ago, a Professor of Physics named Daniel Styer actually posted a couple of posts here at TOL. This was when the subject came up of his recently publishing a peer-reviewed article directly focused on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Darwinian evolution. Scientifically, often the most definitive and unambiguous way a law can be expressed is when it can be expressed in a mathematical equation. The Second Law is a prime example of that. And it was the mathematical expression of the Second Law that Daniel Styer used to show that it is ludicrous to say the Second Law is prohibitive of evolution. Since Styer’s paper was published, I have seen a couple of refinements of the ideas he presented, and those follow-on papers simply show even more clearly that Thermodynamics and evolution are perfectly compatible.

Dear DavisBJ,

When you say perfectly doesn't cause me to believe because very little is perfect. I have grown to mistrust you. You'll say all manner of things to try to be correct. That's my assessment. Thanks anyways!!


I came back to this post after the Lord made me clear of this post. So, I came to add to this paragraph/post. I have rethought this, and since you believe in me despite the mistakes I've made, then it is more than wrong of me to cut you off!! I am very sorry and ask for your forgiveness. See, Good Things do happen for a reason. May God Find You before it's too late!!

Warmest Regards,

Michael

 

[iouae]

Ah. that makes more sense.

But I still think Exodus 20:11 either makes the deluge a universally destructive event (which the bible makes no mention of), or the earth and heavens and all that are in them were created in the 6 days.

I do believe that in 6 days God made the current skies "and all that in them is" meaning modern birds, the earth with current biome including man, and the seas and whales etc.

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Hebrew for "heaven" is actually plural or "shamayim". The Bible lists 3 heavens.
1) earth's atmosphere 2) the cosmos 3) God's throne.

Can Creationists believe that by Gen 1:2 we have 1) an earth 2) with its atmosphere 3) and the cosmos?

So what is God doing for the further 7 days?
Tweaking and adding to what is already there.

Day 1 - God clears the thick atmosphere THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, so that the sun THAT WAS ALREADY THERE can shine through.

Day 2 - God lifts the cloud THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, raising it high above the sea THAT WAS ALREADY THERE creating clear sky (firmament) between.

Day 3 - God raises land THAT WAS ALREADY THERE causing it to poke out of the sea THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. God then populates the land with plants.

Day 4 - God appoints the sun, moon and stars THAT WERE ALREADY THERE to mark out days, months, years and Feast Days.

Day 5 - God populates the sky THAT WAS ALREADY THERE with birds, and God populates the seas THAT WERE ALREADY THERE, with fish.

Day 6 - God populates the land THAT WAS ALREADY THERE with land animals and man.

Day 7 - God rests, creating the Sabbath.


Now put this together with Ps 104:30.

I firmly believe Ps 104 is describing a renewing of earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago after a mass extinction.


24 O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.

26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. [ancient biome with giant animals such as dinosaurs, plesiosaurus]

27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.

28 That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.

29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. [mass extinction, fossilised]

30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit [Gen 1:2], they are created:[Gen 1] and thou renewest the face of the earth.

 

[Bluecheese]

Dear Bluecheese,

Welcome!! Your opinion of evolution is not the only one and you should surely find some friends here indeed, who believe that way. Of course, I believe in the Creation and am dead-set in my beliefs. Just scroll through. You will find creationists/believers AND evolutionists on each page, no doubt. I hope they will take you under their wing.

Best Wishes,

Michael

I don't need support for my views, I just tell it how it is from my POV.

 

[ok doser]

I am of the opinion that evolution is credible, the creationism story in the Bible isn't.

on what do you base that opinion?

 

[DavisBJ]

At the front of my Bible it says that God said "Let US (You And I, His Son Jesus, Who was with Him before this world was) make man in OUR (Mine and Yours) image".

Huh? You didn't know that?

Michael

But the man they made had a mouth and vocal cords. You said God doesn't communicate that way. The man was sexually male. You said God had no sex. Adam munched on and digested food. Not God, according to you. Adam had little floppy things on the sides of his head called ears to listen with. Such would have been excess baggage on God, according to you. So was Adam actually a failure as far as being in God's image?