toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[Angel4Truth]

Well if 'time' is the issue (which it isn't) an even "more" all powerful God could create everything in a nanosecond....

God could have done that, there is a reason for it happening in 6 days and then resting on the 7th, there are many messages in that themed all through the bible.

Isn't it wonderful how God who is so much higher and powerful than we, does things in a certain way so that we can learn things from it?

I especially love this:

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

[jeffblue101]

Um, 'creationwiki' is hardly an unbiased source itself is it?

Did you even read what I wrote and sourced to? Creation scientists have their own journals they publish in.

And why the differentiation between secular and non? Science is science and plenty of Christians go with an old earth/evolution. Do you think there's a conspiracy to suppress compelling evidence for a young earth?

hypocrisy, it's evolutionists who arbitrarily make a rule that methodological naturalism is the only way to conduct science. According to their own rules, every creation science paper that gets sent to a secular journal should be rejected a priori.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your logic doesn't follow,

There are lots of stories of little creation gods, who make a tree here and a rabbit there, because they aren't powerful enough to create a world where it all happens by a few rules from the start.

A God that powerful is more than creationists are willing to accept.

it would take more power to do it all in 6 days than millions of years.

You're assuming that it wasn't created in an instant, and all things unfolded from there. That's a real God. The designer of the YE creationists is too small to make the world we live in.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

And yet creationists think themselves wise enough to judge what God can and cannot do. Let Him be God. And then this will trouble you no longer.

 

[Angel4Truth]

There are lots of stories of little creation gods, who make a tree here and a rabbit there, because they aren't powerful enough to create a world where it all happens by a few rules from the start.

A God that powerful is more than creationists are willing to accept.

Funny, that sounds exactly like my God, He did it all. Where has anyone here who believes in creation say that God only did a little of it? Its theistic evolutionists that say that, that all He could do it get a little started and nature handled the rest, that sounds much weaker to me...

I really dont know how one can believe the bible is factual on immaculate conception (when there is irrefutable evidence on the secular level that you cant get pregnant without sperm) yet its impossible that God did what He said He did with creation....

Seems to me creationists believe God and theistic evolutionists have a double mind, they believe God some of the time and the world some of the time.

You're assuming that it wasn't created in an instant, and all things unfolded from there. That's a real God. The designer of the YE creationists is too small to make the world we live in.

No, I am sure He did what He said, just like with Christ.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And yet creationists think themselves wise enough to judge what God can and cannot do. Let Him be God. And then this will trouble you no longer.

Youve got it wrong, we believe God did what He said - it would be the evolutionists judging God with the measure of the world.

 

[Arthur Brain]

God could have done that, there is a reason for it happening in 6 days and then resting on the 7th, there are many messages in that themed all through the bible.

Isn't it wonderful how God who is so much higher and powerful than we, does things in a certain way so that we can learn things from it?

I especially love this:

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

You seem to look at scientific knowledge, progress and advancement as 'foolishness'? Science isn't an enemy to God. Those who make belief/science mutually exclusive on the subject of evolution/old earth do so erroneously from either side of the fence.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You seem to look at scientific knowledge, progress and advancement as 'foolishness'? Science isn't an enemy to God. Those who make belief/science mutually exclusive on the subject of evolution/old earth do so erroneously from either side of the fence.

You don't understand those verses do you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Did you even read what I wrote and sourced to? Creation scientists have their own journals they publish in.

Yes, and for obvious reasons such can only have proper credence when it holds up to due process and peer review away from such bias. If there is compelling evidence for a young earth then unless you're a global conspiracist there's nothing stopping such from coming to light.

hypocrisy, it's evolutionists who arbitrarily make a rule that methodological naturalism is the only way to conduct science. According to their own rules, every creation science paper that gets sent to a secular journal should be rejected a priori.

Just evolutionists or all the sciences where the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming? Are the physicists in on suppressing the "truth" as well?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You don't understand those verses do you.

Why, because I don't see the relevance in regards to the topic?

:AMR:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Youve got it wrong, we believe God did what He said - it would be the evolutionists judging God with the measure of the world.

Science isn't in the business of 'judging God' one way or the other.

 

[some other dude]

You don't understand those verses do you.

Would you really expect him to? :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Youve got it wrong, we believe God did what He said

I would like to believe that. But you seem to be opposed to what He says in Genesis. The truth is, the Bible neither endorses nor rejects evolution, although it does reject YE creationism.

You're depending on man's revision of God's word.

 

[voltaire]

Lord Kelvin dated the age of the earth at 20 to 400 million years old. He based this on a starting point of a molten earth at 7000 degrees centigrade and the amount of time it would take to reach its current temperature given today's rate of heat dissipation. He did not take radioactivity into account.

What age could be determined if you believed in a cold start to the earth? IOW, an earth formed instantaneously and miraculously? Does anyone have an estimate of the original amount of radioactive materials in the primordial earth? If this information could be obtained, a calculation could be made of how much heat in total was generated from 4.5 billion years worth of decay(assuming today's decay rate). A person could take that total amount of heat over that time and imagine it was released all at once. You could take today's rate of heat dissipation and calculate the amount of time it would take to reach the temperature of the earth today. If that amount of time is less 450 million years(10% of accepted age), then the 4.5 billion year figure is without support in my opinion. Why? A heat dissipation age close to 4.5 billions years would have to depend on a primordial earth that was molten and made by plantoid accretion. IOW, it would be based on an assumption that is no more valid than an instantaneous, miraculous creation.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why, because I don't see the relevance in regards to the topic?

:AMR:

We have a winner. Your response was obvious that you didnt get what i posted.

If you didnt see or understand the relevance, why did you try to refute what you didnt even get?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I would like to believe that. But you seem to be opposed to what He says in Genesis. The truth is, the Bible neither endorses nor rejects evolution, although it does reject YE creationism.

You're depending on man's revision of God's word.

Show me where the bible rejects young earth creationism with the bible instead of your take on it. Post scripture.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We have a winner. Your response was obvious that you didnt get what i posted.

If you didnt see or understand the relevance, why did you try to refute what you didnt even get?

I get the verses well enough thanks. Why do you suppose I asked you the question I did in turn? If you want to make science the enemy of belief or God then it only shows your ignorance in regards to science itself frankly. There's no need for an old earth to be at odds with belief. The verses you posted have no relevance in that regard or to the topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Lord Kelvin dated the age of the earth at 20 to 400 million years old. He based this on a starting point of a molten earth at 7000 degrees centigrade and the amount of time it would take to reach its current temperature given today's rate of heat dissipation. He did not take radioactivity into account.

He did later concede that it was much older than he estimated.

What age could be determined if you believed in a cold start to the earth? IOW, an earth formed instantaneously and miraculously?

You mean with an "appearance of age", including all the elements already differentiated, as though they had been sorted by gravity? If you take away the latent gravitational heat from that sorting, and the heat from impact of accretion of solid bodies to form the Earth, then it would be really, really old.

The primary heating source would then be radioactive breakdown in the core and mantle. I don't remember hearing how long that takes to get to the lithosphere, but it takes about a million years for it to get out of the sun, a fluid body, and convection works a lot faster than conduction in rock. And that means it would go a lot slower in the Earth, but the distance would be a lot less.

I should know that, but I don't. I'll see what I can find.

Does anyone have an estimate of the original amount of radioactive materials in the primordial earth? If this information could be obtained, a calculation could be made of how much heat in total was generated from 4.5 billion years worth of decay(assuming today's decay rate). A person could take that total amount of heat over that time and imagine it was released all at once. You could take today's rate of heat dissipation and calculate the amount of time it would take to reach the temperature of the earth today. If that amount of time is less 450 million years(10% of accepted age), then the 4.5 billion year figure is without support in my opinion. Why? A heat dissipation age close to 4.5 billions years would have to depend on a primordial earth that was molten and made by plantoid accretion. IOW, it would be based on an assumption that is no more valid than an instantaneous, miraculous creation.

There's considerable evidence for that in the form of crater data, meteorite data, and of course the physics of system formation (we are now discovering more about that in other systems)

Poofing is not merely an insult to God, it's contrary to the evidence we do have.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I get the verses well enough thanks. Why do you suppose I asked you the question I did in turn? If you want to make science the enemy of belief or God then it only shows your ignorance in regards to science itself frankly. There's no need for an old earth to be at odds with belief. The verses you posted have no relevance in that regard or to the topic.

Where did I say science is an enemy of God? Science is right on some things and wrong on others, i don't consider it to be infallible.

And no, you don't get the relevance of what i posted, or you wouldn't have posted what you did. There was relevance though, right now you are regurgitating what you 'believe' all of us creationists think, without regard to anything specific I've said at all.

You don't get it, because you do not believe the bible, are you a theistic evolutionist? Or just an evolutionist?

My post is relevant to those who believe in God, believe in the immaculate conception and other things in the bible, but do not believe in a 6 day creation which is a disconnect, why would one believe the other things but not that?

So unless you are a christian, you do not understand what i posted, but then again, i could see that because of your reply.

 

[The Barbarian]

Show me where the bible rejects young earth creationism with the bible instead of your take on it. Post scripture.

YE Creationism:
The God of the Bible created all life ex nihilo (out of nothing) during six, 24 hour days of abrupt Creation.
http://www.2cor13verse5.com/?tag=ex-nihilo

God:
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.