Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Is it possible for Preachers to Preach on evolution?

Posted by truthtalklive on July 3, 2008

Today on Truth Talk Live Stu interviews Rev. Michael Doud which is the author of a book called “Thank God for Evolution”. The Reverend Michael Dowd is one of the most inspiring speakers in America today. For the past five years he and his wife, Connie Barlow, an acclaimed science writer, have lived permanently on the road sharing a sacred view of evolution with religious and secular audiences of all ages, as America’s evolutionary evangelists. Make sure you tune in today as we talk about this subject. For more information please visit www.thankgodforevolution.com. As always thanks for listening!

 

About these ads

161 Responses to “Is it possible for Preachers to Preach on evolution?”

  1. Maz said

    No, because you would have to deny not only Genesis, but the scriptures that tell us that death entered the world through Adams sin. 1 Corinthians 15 v 21-22. ”For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Jesus) came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

  2. preachitmonkeyman said

    Yes, you can preach on evolution ;) Except you’d be preaching against it and preaching also on the Biblical basis for a recent creation by a Creator God.

    For a Christian to accept evolution is to allegorize the first 11 chapters of Genesis and countless other O.T. and N.T. chapters and verses. The context, nor church history supports an allegorization of the Genesis account of creation. And the Scriptures definately do NOT support macro-evolution. Nor, do they support a gap theory

  3. Brad said

    Sure. Against it.

  4. MattF said

    First of all: I’m afraid you have horribly conflated the term “evolution”. The theory of evolution attempts to describe how populations of organisms behave. It does not address how life came to be, where the Earth came from, where the Universe came from, or what it all means. It does not attempt to describe how we should construct our societies. It has nothing whatsoever to say about God.

    Maz: It’s interesting to note that the preposition that describes how death and resurrection came into the world is “by”, not “after”. People who died and went to Heaven prior to the point in time Christ died on the cross were still redeemed by Christ’s work, weren’t they? Isn’t it conceivable that when Paul wrote “by”, he meant “by” and not “after”?

    Preachitmonkeyman: It’s true that the Bible does not support the Gap Theory or macroevolution. But then, it doesn’t support atomic theory, or gravitational theory, or any number of useful scientfic theories that even evolution deniers would have no problem saying are true. (For the record, I don’t buy the Gap Theory. Nor do I allegorize the first eleven chapters of Genesis.)

  5. MattF said

    Follow-up:

    Maz: You don’t have to deny Genesis, or any other Scripture. The Bible merely tells us that God created. It doesn’t tell us how He did so.

    Let me get at this through analogy: We tell our children all the time that God created them, even though we understand rather intimately the biological processes through which they came into the world. Simply because we can describe something through natural processes does not imply that God had nothing to do with it. (In fact, expecting that God has only acted when we can’t explain it makes God out to be rather small.)

    Preachitmonkeyman: What about passages you have to allegorize if you believe that the Earth is young, like Hebrews 4:1-13 or Romans 8:18-25?

  6. CarGuy37 said

    I think there is an important question to ask, and it comes from where Evolution intersects with Theology.

    Q: Who was the first person to “sin” in the eyes of God?

    Probing deeper, from an evolutionary position who (or should I say “what”) were the “parents” of the first “person” to sin? What biological mechanism is necessary for God to Judge sin and why didn’t the first’s parents have this? Who was Adam?

    I guess from a Young Earth’s viewpoint, the answer is pretty obvious.

  7. MattF said

    CarGuy37: Let’s dig even deeper. What does it mean to have the nature of God? Is it even possible to sin without it? What does it mean that Adam is, apparently, the first creature to receive this nature?

    Can evolution be true and Adam still be a special creation of God?

    Is sin rooted in biology at all? Why might someone think so (or not)?

    (Just because the answers are obvious from a particular point of view does not imply that that point of view is correct. A Holocaust denier has an “obvious” answer why the Jews claim to have lost six million of their number to Nazis; that does not imply that the Holocaust denier has a point.)

  8. CarGuy37 said

    And Stu, I love you brother, but you were a bit disrespectful for the first half of the show. Sometimes those of us with big mouths (me included) make better arguments through listening, respect, and thoughtful inquiries rather than volume.

  9. CarGuy37 said

    “Can evolution be true and Adam still be a special creation of God?” I do concede that this could be true. However, if we humans are created in the image of God, I am not convinced that Adam’s parents were animals and he made the next evolutionary leap (through God’s assistance of course).

    “Is sin rooted in biology at all? Why might someone think so (or not)?” I think sin is absolutely rooted in biology… and physics, and chemistry, and mathematics. That is to say that Creation is necessary for existence, and therefore a priori sin. But we shouldn’t short circuit our logic to assume that biology harbors the “fountain” of sin. I would argue it’s more of a conduit, and sin is a spiritual reality.

    I did not mean to imply that simpler answers are always correct. But as Einstein said, “make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

  10. MattF said

    CarGuy37: I’m not sure I understand, but I’m intrigued by your statement that sin is rooted in various sciences, and that creation is a priori sin. If creation is sin, does that mean that God *created* sin?

    Can you fill in the gaps of your stance for me? For example, how is it that sin is in various studies of the natural world? Can you point to some examples? I’m just not sure that I understand what you mean, and I gather that it’s more than merely the fact that man is sinful and that, therefore, his endeavors are tainted.

  11. Maz said

    MattF: The Bible DOES tell us how God created……GOD tells us how He created all things….in Genesis. It is the theistic evolutionist that tries to allegorise or mythologise or interpret it as poetry or some other thing than what it actually is……the historical account of The Beginning. The first Hebrew letter indicates that there was nothing before The Beginning. Otherwise, it was not the Beginning of time and space.
    The Hebrew letter, for those who don’t know, is closed on all sides except forwards, indicating, by God, that THAT WAS THE BEGINNING. Ofcourse you could disagree with that as you probably will.
    But God does have ways of showing His truth in His Word other than just the words themselves.
    If you can’t accept Genesis…why accept any of the historical account in the OT…or the NT for that matter?

  12. Maz said

    MattF: God created MAN, not an ape or a fish or any other animal or being….Adam was a MAN. The first Adam was a MAN, and the Last Adam was a MAN. (Adam..Created IN GODS IMAGE).
    And the MAN walked in the garden God had made for him and it was ‘very good’, in fact it was perfect….so how come (according to TE’s) that there were millions of dead things in the ground beneath their feet?
    Lots of dead things, dying of sickness and disease buried in the ground……BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned and brought death upon themselves and the world?

    ”Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed UPON ALL MEN, for ALL have sinned” Romans 5 v 12…..”nevertheless death reigned FROM ADAM TO MOSES..” v 14…..this seems pretty clear to anyone reading it, unless you don’t want it to mean what it says. One man sinned…sin entered the world……death entered by sin, how much clearer can it be? Read the whole of Romans 5.
    One mans sin (Adams) brought death….one mans obedience (Jesus) brought righteousness and life for those who believe in Him. Jesus was ONE MAN, so Adam was ONE MAN. There is NOTHING in ALL the scriptures that tells us there was sin and death BEFORE THE FALL.

  13. Maz said

    CarGuy 37: God created the biology, the physics, the chemistry, the mathematics…and in case you don’t know, there is a mathematical pattern within the scriptures, which only a Supreme Creator could have put there.

  14. Maz said

    MattF: #4. Your reasoning about the word ”by” and ” after” is invalid, as the words in the Greek (word for word) 1 Cor: 15 v 21: ”Since for through man death, also through man resurretion of the dead..” No ”by” there.
    Also in Romans 5 v 12 (greek word for word) ”through one man the sin into the world entered and through the sin the death..”. No ”by” there either. So how about the word ”through”? Any ideas as to what it meant other than THROUGH…..like you would say to someone ”It’s through you I lost my job!” In other words, it was his fault! So it is Adams fault that sin entered the world and death through/by sin.

  15. CarGuy37 said

    I appears that I didn’t say what I intended to say clearly enough, because I’ve got both MattF and Maz up against me! I was just trying to ask, “could you sin if you didn’t exist?” I think most of us would agree that you couldn’t. Therefore, I’m saying Creation is a priori existence, and therefore is a prerequisite for your ability to sin. God did not create sin; merely the possibility of the existence of sin (the absence of His effectual Grace). I just wanted to clarify that I never said that “creation is sin” per #10.

    Now that I’ve clarified, hopefully we’re back on track here. I’m still looking for a specific mechanism that distinguishes Adam from his parents (with respect to the former being a man able to sin or not and the latter being an animal where God shows spiritual indifference).

    Maz: “God created the biology, the physics, the chemistry, the mathematics…and in case you don’t know, there is a mathematical pattern within the scriptures, which only a Supreme Creator could have put there.” I was trying to say that. There are only two things that can be studied: the Creator and the created.

  16. Maz said

    CarGuy37: Creation was perfect in the Beginning. Sin only entered when Adam disobeyed a direct command from God not to take of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Disobedience is sin, so sin did not exist until disobedience was committed. The same as a crime isn’t committed until you actually break the law. Adam only had one law or command to keep, but he couldnt resist, and he broke it when he took the fruit Eve had taken and offered to him, and they both ate of it.

    Adam had no parents. He was created by God from the dust of the earth…not by evolution, but a fully formed human being, which became a living soul when God breathed life into him.

  17. MattF said

    Maz: “GOD tells us how He created all things….in Genesis.”

    You have confused the fact that God tells us that He did create with God telling us the method of His creation.

    Or perhaps you can tell us, since you seem to believe that God created things instantaneously, exactly how it was that He did that?

    Maz: “If you can’t accept Genesis…why accept any of the historical account in the OT…or the NT for that matter?”

    I do accept Genesis. It’s your assertion that I don’t, which you haven’t shown at all.

    Maz: “God created MAN, not an ape or a fish or any other animal or being….Adam was a MAN. The first Adam was a MAN, and the Last Adam was a MAN. (Adam..Created IN GODS IMAGE).”

    I don’t disagree with you.

    Maz: “And the MAN walked in the garden God had made for him and it was ‘very good’, in fact it was perfect…”

    Actually, “perfect” is your word, and does not appear anywhere in Genesis. In fact, we know that Eden was not perfect before man fell, since there was something that God described as “not good”. The words we translate “very good” (meod tob, literally “abundantly good/beautiful”) are also used to describe Rebekah (Genesis 24:16), Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2), Adonijah (1 Kings 1:6), and figs (Jermiah 24:2) — fallen, imperfect humans and things after the fall. That you insist that creation was perfect prior to the fall is your interpretation, and appears nowhwere in Scripture.

    Maz: “Lots of dead things, dying of sickness and disease buried in the ground……BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned and brought death upon themselves and the world?”

    Are you under the impression that death is evil?

    Maz: ”Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed UPON ALL MEN, for ALL have sinned” Romans 5 v 12…..”nevertheless death reigned FROM ADAM TO MOSES..” v 14….

    I don’t disagree with you.

    Maz: “this seems pretty clear to anyone reading it, unless you don’t want it to mean what it says. One man sinned…sin entered the world……death entered by sin, how much clearer can it be? Read the whole of Romans 5.”

    I have read it all. I recommend that you read what it says, not what you want it to say. “By” still does not mean “after”.

    Maz: “One mans sin (Adams) brought death….one mans obedience (Jesus) brought righteousness and life for those who believe in Him. Jesus was ONE MAN, so Adam was ONE MAN. There is NOTHING in ALL the scriptures that tells us there was sin and death BEFORE THE FALL.”

    True. The Bible does, however, tell us that those who died and went to Heaven before the point in time when Christ died on the cross did so as a result of Christ’s work. Why do you insist that the parallel between Christ and Adam falls apart at this point? Aren’t you guilty of applying only those parts of the analogy that you want to accept? The Bible doesn’t tell us which parts apply and which parts don’t.

    Maz: “Your reasoning about the word ”by” and ” after” is invalid, as the words in the Greek (word for word) 1 Cor: 15 v 21: ”Since for through man death, also through man resurretion of the dead..” No ”by” there.”

    You’re clearly out of your depth.

    Given the syntactic and semantic differences between ancient Greek and modern English, one of the harder parts of speech to translate are prepositions. It’s often the case that one English prepositions will be represented by several Greek prepositions and vice versa.

    All of this is moot, however, since through does not mean after, either! Seeing “after” in this passage is your interpretation. Whether or not it happens to be correct, it is your interpretation. It does not appear in the text.

    Maz: “like you would say to someone ”It’s through you I lost my job!” In other words, it was his fault! So it is Adams fault that sin entered the world and death through/by sin.”

    I don’t disagree with you. Since “after” does not apply to Jesus, however, I note that it is your desire to read “after” into this passage alone (and in Adam’s case alone!) that leads to your insistence that death could not have existed prior to the fall.

    How is it that Adam could have understood the consequences of sin if he had never seen death?

    CarGuy37: “I appears that I didn’t say what I intended to say clearly enough, because I’ve got both MattF and Maz up against me!”

    Whoa! Calm down. I made it clear that I don’t understand your position. If I don’t understand what you’re saying, how can I be against it?

    CarGuy37: “God did not create sin; merely the possibility of the existence of sin (the absence of His effectual Grace).”

    See, I actually agree with you here.

    CarGuy37: “Now that I’ve clarified, hopefully we’re back on track here. I’m still looking for a specific mechanism that distinguishes Adam from his parents (with respect to the former being a man able to sin or not and the latter being an animal where God shows spiritual indifference).”

    As far as I know, we still haven’t eliminated the possibility that man is a special creation. And even if you insist that man is descended from other species, Genesis seems to make it clear that giving man God’s nature was a deliberate act. One might insist that without that little “extra” — whatever the heck it is — an animal is incapable of deliberate thought, will, or action against God (i.e., sin).

  18. Maz said

    MattF: ”…since you seem to believe that God created things instantaneously, exactly how it was He did that?” Are you serious?
    ”Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Heb: 11 v 3.
    ”In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God……All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.” John 1 v 1,3. In other words it was by Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, that everything was made..
    It was miraculous, seeing as He is a miraculous God. Nothing is impossible with Him.

    If you accept Genesis, why the former question?

    I would suggest that ”very good” is as good as sayng perfect, as there was no bad in it. And a perfect God would not create an imperfect world. That came AFTER sin and death entered.
    And I believe your interpretation is flawed considering what I just stated.

    Is death evil? I would consider it so, since that was the consequence of sin. I wouldn’t call it good would you?

    No ”by” still doesn’t mean ”after” because ”by” was what it said and what it meant. Who is reading into it what they want to see? :-)

    I also believe there were those in the OT who went to (actually) paradise because ”Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world”, through faith in God and His promises the OT believers in Jehovah would go to paradise, where ”father” Abraham went.

    Out of my depth? How come you argue the english word ”by” then?

    I believe ”by” is the right translation….what are you saying? ”..by one man (Adam) sin entered the world”…..and BY that one man death entered the world…BY sin. Where is the problem? If death entered BY Adams sin, then it wasn’t there BEFORE. Therefore death COULD NOT have existed BEFORE the fall.

    Adam knew about death because God had told him he would die if he ate of the fruit. It is obvious the understanding would have been made quite clear by God to Adam.

    If you believe Genesis, as you say and what it ACTUALLY says you wouldn’t have asked some of these questions to start with.

    Our seven day week is based on the seven days of creation. Six days we work and on the seventh we rest…..actually, we as Christians rest on the Sunday, since Christs death and resurrection, as the sabbath was on Saturday originally.

  19. MattF said

    Maz: “”Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Heb: 11 v 3.
    ”In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God……All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.” John 1 v 1,3. In other words it was by Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, that everything was made..
    It was miraculous, seeing as He is a miraculous God. Nothing is impossible with Him.”

    Right. I’m not talking about whether or not God (or, to be technical, Jesus) made all things, which you and I seem to agree that He did. We are discussing how they were made, which these verses do not address, either.

    This is quite far afield of the topic of evolution, but whether or not you believe the Big Bang occurred, you can say that “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”.

    Maz: “If you accept Genesis, why the former question?”

    Because it is one that Scripture does not answer, for some reason. I wanted to draw your attention to that fact, especially since evolution merely describes how populations of organisms behave, and has nothing to say about how they got here in the first place — never mind anything about God — one way or the other.

    Let’s use a different science. If I understand the weather and can predict, using nothing but principles of meteorology, that Hurricane Bob will strike our fair city, does that mean that God did not bring the storm?

    Maz: “I would suggest that ”very good” is as good as sayng perfect, as there was no bad in it.”

    It is your interpretation that there was no bad in it. In fact, there was something that God Himself described as “not good” before Adam fell. (What does “not good” mean if not “bad”? Why are you convoluting the plain meaning of the passage?) The words God did use to describe it are used to describe imperfect things that are still very beautiful or very good. Why did God not say what He meant? Why did He not say “perfect” if He meant “perfect” (Hebrew: tamim)?

    Scripture does not say that prior to the fall, things were perfect. It does not say that there was no violence, fear, pain, suffering, or death. In fact, a careful examination of Genesis 3:16 seems to indicate that there was, at the very least, pain:

    “To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

    Note the phrasing: “multiply your pain”, hinting that the pain would already have existed, but that it would now be greatly increased. (What’s zero multiplied by something?)

    Maz: “And a perfect God would not create an imperfect world.”

    That seems like slippery reasoning. One might argue that a perfect God would not create a world in which the possibility for sin existed. If your definition of “perfect” requires that there be no pain, suffering, or death, did God create Hell — where there is pain, suffering, and (spiritual) death?

    Maz: “That came AFTER sin and death entered.”

    And I’m supposed to take your word for it, then, since that does not appear in Scripture?

    Maz: “And I believe your interpretation is flawed considering what I just stated.”

    I know you consider it flawed. Your interpretation, however, requires believing in things that Scripture never states. And if I may say so, you’re elevating that interpretation to the level of Scripture, which is a dangerous thing.

    I do not see that Scripture demands evolution — merely that it permits it. Your interpretation demands that “by” or “through” really means “after”, and that “very good” really means “perfect”. It is a dangerous thing to be in a position where you can say what God’s Word really means, especially when that’s not what it says.

    Maz: “Is death evil? I would consider it so, since that was the consequence of sin. I wouldn’t call it good would you?”

    If we consider the death of animals for a moment, we know that death cannot be evil. God Himself allowed humans to kill (Genesis 4:4) and eat (Genesis 9:3) animals. Why did God not denounce this activity if death is evil? God is also implicated in the death of animals — using animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall (Genesis 3:21); He killed an awful lot of animals during the flood (Genesis 7); and He set up the animal sacrifice system as an atonement for sin (Exodus 23:18). Why is God pleased with Abel’s animal sacrifice, if it required animal death?

    God is also shown as being the provider of carnivores, which requires animal death; if death is evil, then is God an agent of evil? (Job 38:41, 38:39; Psalm 104:21, 25, 27; Luke 12:24).

    As far as human death goes, we must remember that long lifespans ended up being a curse on early mankind; they increased man’s wickedness and resulted in God’s elimination of virtually all of mankind and the radical reduction of human lifespans after the flood. Furthermore, Scripture tells us that the death of the righteous is good, not evil (Psalm 116:15; Romans 14:8; Philippians 1:21, 23; Revelation 14:13).

    We must not confuse the punishment for evil with evil itself. God is directly responsible for death. Therefore, death cannot be evil.

    Maz: “No ”by” still doesn’t mean ”after” because ”by” was what it said and what it meant.”

    My point exactly. Insisting that, in Adam’s case, death only came after Adam fell is to insist that when Scripture says by (or through), it really means “after”.

    You are the one insisting that there is meaning there that does not appear in the text.

    Maz: “I also believe there were those in the OT who went to (actually) paradise because ”Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world”, through faith in God and His promises the OT believers in Jehovah would go to paradise, where ”father” Abraham went.”

    I don’t disagree with you.

    Maz: “Out of my depth? How come you argue the english word ”by” then?”

    To try to point out that the meaning of “after” is completely absent from the text itself.

    Maz: “I believe ”by” is the right translation….what are you saying? ”..by one man (Adam) sin entered the world”…..and BY that one man death entered the world…BY sin. Where is the problem? If death entered BY Adams sin, then it wasn’t there BEFORE. Therefore death COULD NOT have existed BEFORE the fall.”

    See? That’s exactly what I mean. You are insisting that the meaning “after” is included when Scripture uses “by” or “through”, even though it clearly does not include the concept of “after” when it’s talking about Christ in the very same passage.

    Your statement “Therefore death COULD NOT have existed BEFORE the fall” is true only if we accept that when Scripture says “by” or “through”, it is including the concept of “after”.

    Maz: “Adam knew about death because God had told him he would die if he ate of the fruit. It is obvious the understanding would have been made quite clear by God to Adam.”

    Yes. But my point is this: If Adam had never seen death, how would he have known what God was talking about?

    Besides that, what did the animals eat before Adam fell? Were even plants protected from death until that moment in time?

    Maz: “If you believe Genesis, as you say and what it ACTUALLY says you wouldn’t have asked some of these questions to start with.”

    I am interested in what it actually says. You are the one insisting that “very good” really means “perfect” — even though it doesn’t say “perfect”, and “perfect” is not what it “ACTUALLY says”. You are the one insisting that “by” or “through” really means “after” — even though “after” is not what it “ACTUALLY says”.

    Maz: “Our seven day week is based on the seven days of creation. Six days we work and on the seventh we rest…..actually, we as Christians rest on the Sunday, since Christs death and resurrection, as the sabbath was on Saturday originally.”

    I don’t disagree with you. (It might be interesting for you to research what the different kinds of Sabbath were in the Old Testament.)

  20. Maz said

    MattF: It is obvious that we are reading Genesis two completely different ways. I am reading it as history, as it is written….6 days of creation, as clearly stated, with every day with morning and evening, and telling us what was made on each day. Evolution and Genesis have a entirely different sequence of events, so how can Genesis be telling us how God used evolution to create things over millions….billions of years?

    I really can’t understand how you can read that ”by Adam sin entered the world, and death by sin” as being the possibility that sin was aleady in the world? If it entered when Adam sinned how could it have entered or existed the before? I am reading it as it stands, but you are trying to add or change it to mean something else. You are trying to fit evolution into a miraculous Creation by a miraculous and Omnipotent God.

    And if God had not made clear what death meant to Adam if he sinned, then God would have left him ignorant, and that is not possible. There’s no point in God telling Adam something that he wouldn’t understand. And even so, if Adam didn’t know what death was, I am sure he would have asked….but ofcourse that isn’t in the Bible. We have to accept the fact that both Adam and Eve understood what death was.

    Let me try and explain what ”by” in relation to the verse means…..say I am in a house with my son John, I have told him not to open the door to strangers, but he does, he opens the door and the stranger enters……therefore, BY John, the stranger entered into my house, therefore he was not there BEFORE? Do you see what I mean? If the stranger entered…he was therefore OUTSIDE to start with. But ofcourse sin and death is not a physical person, it didn’t exist until the disobedience…..hence sin…was committed by Adam.

    Aren’t you ACTUALLY just arguing about words, when the meaning is quite obvious in the context?

  21. MattF said

    Maz: “I am reading it as history, as it is written…”

    As am I. Let me remind you that Genesis was written originally in Hebrew, and that translational conventions into English make some things Moses wrote much less specific than they appear in English.

    Maz: “Evolution and Genesis have a entirely different sequence of events, so how can Genesis be telling us how God used evolution to create things over millions….billions of years?”

    Actually, not necessarily. As with other things I’ve argued, it seems that the Hebrew allows evolution to have progressed in the manner described by science, but does not demand it. I can go into more detail if you’re interested.

    Maz: “I really can’t understand how you can read that ”by Adam sin entered the world, and death by sin” as being the possibility that sin was aleady in the world?”

    In precisely the same way that I understand that “… God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:15) in precisely the same passage not to be chronological. Why should “by” have to include the concept of “after” in one case, but not the other?

    Maz: “If it entered when Adam sinned how could it have entered or existed the before?”

    In parallel, if grace came by Christ, how could it have existed before Christ?

    Maz: “I am reading it as it stands, but you are trying to add or change it to mean something else.”

    I disagree. You are trying to make “by” include “after” in a specific instance, even though it can be shown that it most definitely does not include the concept of after in a parallel argument in precisely the same passage! You are twisting “by” into two different meanings in the same passage to fit the definition you require!

    Maz: “You are trying to fit evolution into a miraculous Creation by a miraculous and Omnipotent God.”

    I submit that there is room in Scripture for evolution to have been the method through which God created life’s diversity. I do not demand it. I certainly do not try to make one word mean two different things in the same passage of Scripture!

    Maz: “We have to accept the fact that both Adam and Eve understood what death was.”

    Ultimately, that’s true.

    Maz: “Let me try and explain what ”by” in relation to the verse means…”

    You are giving a (functional) definition which applies to your interpretation of the verse. This definition does not apply to the same word as it is used in parallel fashion elsewhere in this same passage.

    I do see what you mean, but I am not interested in how you are using the word “by”. I am interested in how this Scripture is using the word “by”, as shown through how it is used elsewhere in this same passage. Do you see the difference?

    Maz: “Aren’t you ACTUALLY just arguing about words, when the meaning is quite obvious in the context?”

    I think the meaning is obvious from the context, which is precisely why I am arguing that you cannot say that “by” means one thing in one place and that it means something different when used in parallel fashion in precisely the same passage.

  22. Jeff42 said

    MattF,

    What’s your take on Romans 5:12? The verse seems to be quite clear that there was no sin in the world before Adam, and thus no death. The sequence presented there is that sin precedes death. Sin comes into the world through Adam bringing the penalty for sin into play – death. There was no human death before Adam’s sin.

  23. Maz said

    MattF: I know very well what language Genesis was written in, but by no stretch of the imagination (which theistis evolutionists seem to possess) can the English equivalent be anything to do with an evolutionary theory.

    I am not going t try and expplain ”by” and ”after” again, it is pointless, as you have been so blinded by science that you cannot see what God has had written down in His Word.
    And I don’t think it’s about how ”I” am using the words, it is about ”your” inerpretation coloured by evolution.

    So tell me, what image was Adam created in?

  24. Maz said

    MattF: And do you believe that Jesus, the Last Adam, has gained back what the first Adam lost, that is eternal life? He overcame death and the curse on the cross. Do you believe that?

  25. MattF said

    Jeff42: “The verse seems to be quite clear that there was no sin in the world before Adam, and thus no death. The sequence presented there is that sin precedes death. Sin comes into the world through Adam bringing the penalty for sin into play – death. There was no human death before Adam’s sin.”

    Does this mean, then, that there was no grace before Christ?

    I agree that Adam was the agent through whom sin and death were brought into the world. Based on this passage, I also would argue that Christ was the agent through whom justification is brought to men. However, since Christ was the agent through whom justification was brought to men before Christ even lived on Earth, based on this passage, I would argue that chronological sequence is not a necessary part of this agency — even though there clearly appears to be some sort of causal relationship.

    Maz: “by no stretch of the imagination (which theistis evolutionists seem to possess) can the English equivalent be anything to do with an evolutionary theory.”

    True. That’s why I wouldn’t even try to argue about what is written in that passage in English. I’d try to go back to the source and see what’s there.

    Maz: “I am not going t try and expplain ”by” and ”after” again, it is pointless, as you have been so blinded by science that you cannot see what God has had written down in His Word.
    And I don’t think it’s about how ”I” am using the words, it is about ”your” inerpretation coloured by evolution.”

    I think it interesting that you have insisted on the importance of context, or how we should be using the words as is made plain from the context — but when it comes down to it, I’m the only one attempting to see how the context uses the word about which we disagree. (Specifically, it is the context that seems to deny a strict chronology — not me.) You’re attempting to provide functional definitions and just-so stories that have nothing whatsoever to do with the context. It seems to me that you like to sound responsible to what Scripture means when it talks about something, but I have yet to see evidence of that.

    I would also like to say that I was a young-Earth creationist for more than twenty years. I became disillusioned with the movement when I found out through my own studies that they were trying to make Scripture say things it does not. It’s worth noting that I left them before I came to accept evolution.

    I do not insist that the Bible teaches evolution. That would be foolhardy. I do insist that it seems to leave room for it, however, as long as you’re willing to stick with using the words as Scripture itself uses them and not attempt to use your own definitions and stories that are consistent with the results you’d like to see.

    Maz: “So tell me, what image was Adam created in?”

    He was created in God’s image — though I freely admit that I don’t know exactly what parts of Adam were reflections of God, I can state that much with certainty because that’s what Scripture says.

    Maz: “And do you believe that Jesus, the Last Adam, has gained back what the first Adam lost, that is eternal life? He overcame death and the curse on the cross. Do you believe that?”

    Yes. I also believe that, strangely enough, this was God’s plan before the Earth was even created.

  26. Maz said

    MattF: It astounds me that you can say there is no chronology in Genesis. Am I reading the same Bible as you? (English ofcourse, unless the KJV translation somehow has misled me to believe that God did indeed create the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and (by your interpretation) that the Hebrew doesn’t say that atall.
    I’m at a loss to understand your reasoning about Genesis and what it ACTUALLY says.
    It starts with day 1, then 2nd day, then 3rd, then 4th, then 5th, then 6th…….and so on. Not chronological? I’m truly puzzled at your very strange interpretation of scripture.

    Strange too, because I still believed in evolution when I first came to Christ, my then Pastor and his wife believed in the ”Gap theory” and thus taught us that’s how you fit evolution and millions of years into Genesis. Ofcourse, I read and studied the Bible and found out what IT was saying without trying to arrange it’s verses to fit evolution into it and make it agree with so-called scientific theory.

    ”I do not insist that the Bible teaches evolution. That would be foolhardy. I do insist that it leaves room for it.” In other words you believe in evolution and won’t come out and say the Bible teaches it but that it…leaves room for it? What does that mean? Does it teach that God used evolution or not?

  27. Maz said

    MattF: How do you believe John 1 v 17? ”For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” When did it come?

  28. MattF said

    Maz: “It astounds me that you can say there is no chronology in Genesis.”

    I am not saying that at all. I am saying that “by” does not imply chronological order in Romans 5, as evidenced in (for example) Romans 5:15, where it cannot include that concept. I recognize that “by” frequently includes the concept of “after” in conversation, but the context of Romans 5 makes it clear that “after” is not necessarily a given in the use of “by” in that passage.

    Maz: “(English ofcourse, unless the KJV translation somehow has misled me to believe that God did indeed create the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and (by your interpretation) that the Hebrew doesn’t say that atall.”

    I didn’t say that the Bible “doesn’t say that atall [sic]“. I said that it is not as specific in Hebrew as in English, and when I said that, I was not specifically referring to Genesis’ chronology. Please try to understand what you are criticizing before you critique it.

    Genesis very definitely follows a chronology. But I wasn’t talking about Genesis when chronology came up; I was talking about Romans, and about a very different description.

    Maz: “Strange too, because I still believed in evolution when I first came to Christ, my then Pastor and his wife believed in the ”Gap theory” and thus taught us that’s how you fit evolution and millions of years into Genesis. Ofcourse, I read and studied the Bible and found out what IT was saying without trying to arrange it’s verses to fit evolution into it and make it agree with so-called scientific theory.”

    Good, I suppose. I also don’t really lend much credence to the Gap Theory, as I mentioned fairly early on.

    I’ve also said that I’m not trying to fit evolution into the Bible. Evolution no more appears in the Bible than atomic theory, gravitational theory, conservational laws, or any other tenet held up by science as a result of experimentation and deduction. (I mentioned this early on, too.) That does not mean that the Bible disallows evolution, however.

    I don’t know exactly whom you’re fighting here, but it’s rather amusing to watch you erect all these straw men and think that you’re accomplishing something by knocking them down.

    Maz: “In other words you believe in evolution and won’t come out and say the Bible teaches it but that it…leaves room for it? What does that mean? Does it teach that God used evolution or not?”

    No. It does not teach that God used evolution. But it also does not teach, for example, that God created things instantaneously. (It also does not teach that the stars and planets move according to laws we can describe mathematically. Does that mean that God does not move the stars and planets?)

    Maz: “How do you believe John 1 v 17? ”For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” When did it come?”

    Which “it”?

  29. Jeff42 said

    MattF,

    Sure I believe that there was grace before the incarnation, but Christ isn’t even mentioned in Romans 5:12. There is a definite sequence in Romans 5:12 – Adam, sin, death, death spreads to all men… The verse is clear that sin came in through Adam, and then, consequent to that, death enters the scene. Surely you are willing to admit that this is the sequence that is presented clearly in Romans, wouldn’t you?

    There are legitimate comparisons to be made between Adam and Christ – first Adam, last Adam; federal headship, etc., but to try to say that since Christ earned a salvation that applied to those who lived before his incarnation, this suggests that death existed before Adam, seems to me to be theological gymnastics springing from a prior bias against the clear truth of Romans 5 – that death did not enter the scene until after Adam’s sin.

    What John is saying in 1:17 is that while grace and truth certainly existed in Moses” day, they were fully revealed with the coming of Christ.

  30. Anonymous said

    MattF, Maz has almost no if any real understanding of the evolutionary or natural sciences. She either cannot or willfully refuses to understand. All she [wants to?] know about the topic comes from people like Ken Ham. Are you familiar with him?
    Did you read the debate on evolution on the “Was Darwin Right or Wronge?” site listed under Apologetics? If not, then check it out for a better understanding of the futility of trying to make Maz think outside her little box. She’s completely hopeless.

  31. Maz said

    MattF: If you don’t think that the Bible disallows evolution then you are reading the Bible from a scientifically theoretical standpoint and not from what the Bible clearly tells us. I don’t know how much clearer God could have put it…..and I don’t think I can put it any clearer for you either….as you seem blinded by science.

    And if you were to go onto the ”Darwin” site, you will see that I do have an understanding of what the theory of evolution is ‘trying’ to tell us, but as I’v said many times on that site, there is no evidence to prove evolution. The fossil record is scanty at best and the transitional forms are missing….as in ‘ missing links’…..they aren’t there. (Ofcourse I know about the few fossils that they put forward to try and help their extremely weak case).
    I can understand an athiestic evolutionist believing in it when they don’t believe the Bible, but for someone who has the Bible for their Truth and then to believe what the scientists are saying……with absolutely no answer to how life came to be here in the first place (and Genesis does) I find this atrociously ignorant.

    I am fighting evolution, and here, theistic evolution (one and the same really)…..the lie, that God did not create the world and all things in it by the power of His Word (Jesus) in 6 days.

    If you came out and said the Bible appears to teach evolution…maybe I could somehow believe why you think it does….but to say that you believe evolution could have been the means and yet to say there be nothing in the Bible that teaches it, is very dangerous. You are putting science before the Word of God.

    When did GRACE come?

    Your reason that evolution is not in the Bible yet does not disallow it is some kind of warped reasoning to me. It is as if you WANT to believe in evolution even though the Bible doesn’t teach it. In fact what the Bible does teach is quite the opposite!
    So how do you preach the Bible…and Genesis, with this ‘evolution’ message, when it isn’t in there?

    Is Romans 5 v 12 a straw man? Read it, and then read it again…..let the Holy Spirit show you the truth, not your evolutionistic mindset.

  32. Maz said

    Anon: Hopeless I most deffinitely am not. And Ken Ham is not the only source I read or listen to. If you read any of the Darwin posts you would know that I watch a lot of secular/evolutionistic documentarys, especially National Geographic, and I hear what they say about their belief in evolution. All assumptions and probabilities. I heard the same thing (again) yesterday from a programme about the Big Bang. Their first sentence was SO scientific! I’ll leave it to your imagination to work it out.
    I have also read books outside the Christian library.
    I’m certainly not in any box.

  33. Anonymous said

    Yeah, sure Maz.
    I’ve read the site. You,ve claimed that even if proof was presented that it wouldn’t matter to you because you would continue to still believe what you wanted. THAT’S real mature, scientific, and rational….NOT! You watch and read, but you willfully chose not to listen, understand, and accept.
    F.L.A. described you well as being inside a self-made bubble of selective ignorance that would only allow information of your own mindset to enter.You wouldn’t have it any other way. And as Chris has told you, despite however the universe or life on earth originally began, THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON WEATHER OR NOT THE PROCCESS EVOLUTION IS A FACT AND HAS OCCURED. Odd that you could not understand that.But then, if you actually wanted to understand anything about history or the sciences, you wouldn’t be a Young-earth Creationist to begin with.Believe whatever you want to, but you only make yourself look like a fool and empower those who debate against you.
    Just so you know, I am a Christian. But I have the good sense to know facts when they are presented, when enough is enough, and the emotional and spiritual security to not need people like Ken Ham and others of his ilk with their custommadeup “history” and “sciences” to support my faith. Young Earth Creation sciences are for the spiritually insecure and willfully ignorant.I’ll leave it to your imagination to work it out.Perhaps one day you’ll grow enough as a person and a Christian to understand.But I doubt it.
    Goodbye.

  34. Tripp said

    Anonymous (nice that you hid behind that monicker) –

    Those are some fairly defammatory remarks towards a person who has done nothing to you. You’re doing nothing but accusing instead of debating.

    Where is the Moderator? Anonymous is close to crossing that line, I believe.

    You’re a Christian??? Yeah, OK.

  35. Maz said

    Anon: Why not put your name so we know who we’re talking to?
    I said I’d rather live the Christian life than believe in evolution (even if it was true, which it isn’t), because it offers a better way of life. I don’t think that is immature…..who doesn’t want to live a better way? The way of evolution doesn’t offer anyone a real incentive for possessing the kind of attributes a true born again Christian wants to possess. To be like Christ.
    No it isn’t scientific……..spiritual would be the correct word.
    Rational? I’m not that worried, if it helps me to be a better person.

    To be honest, whatever you say about my ignorance (and I would probably not put it quite as F.L.A. put it), but I could probably say the same about the ignorance of the evolutionist, and particularly the scientists who should know better than to place their beliefs in pure assumptions and speculations. Atleast I have had a REAL experience with my Creator God, something no one can argue against.

    If scientists can’t figure out how it all began in the first place, how are they so sure about how it all continued?

    You know that sentence I was talking about, that these scientists said about our origins? SO very succinct….but people ACTUALLY BELIEVE this stuff! ”In the Beginning there was NOTHING.”
    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! And you want me to believe in evolution aswell!

    To begin with…I wasn’t a Young Earth Creationist….as I said, even when I began my Christian walk, I believed in what I had been taught….indoctrinated with…..at school. Until I saw that it was completely opposed to what the Bible ACTUALLY SAID about the Beginning.

    The only power you have is the power to speak and to communicate, I shall continue to be a fool for Christ. Doesn’t bother me one bit.

    If you are a Christian, then what are you doing believing in something that is diametrically opposed to Gods Word? Did God make the Premordial Blob or the Ape in His image? How blasphemous that would be to believe Anon?

    There is sense and then there is discernment. One is common to man, the other is common to a child of God.

    I don’t NEED Ken Ham any more than you need those who believe the way you do.
    As I said, and if I have to, I will repeat it…..I read and listen to all sorts…..athiestic/evolutionistic aswell as people like Ken Ham. What I hear from the ”other side” (and I don’t mean the dead!) doesn’t convince me in the least that evolution or any of the origin stories of our Universe or our earth and the things upon it, is correct in any way.

    I have done a lot of growing, physically and spiritually….probably a lot more than you…whoever you are. Presumption is also a sin. Be careful Anon.

  36. MattF said

    Jeff42: “Sure I believe that there was grace before the incarnation, but Christ isn’t even mentioned in Romans 5:12.”

    True. That’s why I’ve been empasizing the value of context. Unless you have a handle on how Scripture is using its terms, you cannot claim to understand what it is saying. I claim that it is dangerous to assert that the same wording, phrasing, and sequence can mean two different things in the same passage without justification beyond personal preference.

    If you have justification beyond personal preference, I’m eager to hear it.

    Jeff42: “There is a definite sequence in Romans 5:12 – Adam, sin, death, death spreads to all men… The verse is clear that sin came in through Adam, and then, consequent to that, death enters the scene. Surely you are willing to admit that this is the sequence that is presented clearly in Romans, wouldn’t you?”

    Yes. As I mentioned before, there clearly appears to be a causal link shown here. But I do not agree that this sequence must be strictly chronological, since this same phrasing is not strictly chronological in several places in verses 15 through 21.

    I also note that the vocabulary used in verse 12 is curious: “spread” (as in “death spread to all men”) is a verb that hints at prior existence.

    Am I demanding that things be taken out of chronological order in Adam’s case? No. But neither do I think it appropriate to claim that the order must be chronological, especially based on the context.

    Jeff42: “There are legitimate comparisons to be made between Adam and Christ – first Adam, last Adam; federal headship, etc., but to try to say that since Christ earned a salvation that applied to those who lived before his incarnation, this suggests that death existed before Adam, seems to me to be theological gymnastics springing from a prior bias against the clear truth of Romans 5 – that death did not enter the scene until after Adam’s sin.”

    And it seems to me that demanding two different meanings of the same wording in the same passage to illustrate a similar process is twisting the meanings to fit one’s own preconceived notions. Why is reading two different meanings in parallel passages in the same context a requirement for you? How is demanding that two explanations that use the same vocabulary and structure in the same passage require two different understandings “clear truth”? You seem to be asking that people understand what they read on a case-by-case basis, asking that they know how you interpret one case versus another case before they understand what the passage really means.

    (Federal?)

    Maz: “If you don’t think that the Bible disallows evolution then you are reading the Bible from a scientifically theoretical standpoint and not from what the Bible clearly tells us.”

    Is believing that the Bible allows for the Sun to be at the center of the Solar System “reading the Bible from a scientifically theoretical standpoint”? How about believing that the Bible allows for gravitational theory? Atomic theory? Thermodynamics? (Please note that the very phrase “allows for” puts the Bible in a higher position; I’m only trying to describe scientific notions that the Bible does not teach are false.)

    Maz: “I don’t know how much clearer God could have put it….”

    As I’ve said, God doesn’t seem interested in addressing the subject at all for some reason. But as long as you’re convinced that you know what God really meant when He said things, even if it’s not what He actually said (e.g., “perfect” instead of “very good”, even when there was something that was “not good”), then there’s just no way to convince you of that.

    Maz: “as you seem blinded by science.”

    I have raised no science-based objections here so far (except to point out that lots of science is not addressed by the Bible). My objections to your arguments have been based on the words in Scripture, how they are used, and their context. And, I might add, I have been the only one defending myself with Scripture, not just-so stories or functional definitions.

    Maz: “there is no evidence to prove evolution.”

    If you’re expecting anything scientific to be “proven”, you’ve sorely misunderstood how science works.

    Maz: “The fossil record is scanty at best and the transitional forms are missing….as in ‘ missing links’…..they aren’t there. (Ofcourse I know about the few fossils that they put forward to try and help their extremely weak case).”

    So what’s your stance, then? “Transitional fossils don’t exist, except for those” (dozens of fossilized transitional species)?

    Good night. You’re clearly not desiring to discuss things reasonably.

    Besides that, fossils are one of the poorest evidences of evolution (though they do corroborate it); they merely get trotted out quite a bit because they’re quick, easy to appraise, and rather undeniable from a logical standpoint. Surely, if you understand evolution as much as you claim, you’d know that.

    Maz: “but for someone who has the Bible for their Truth and then to believe what the scientists are saying……with absolutely no answer to how life came to be here in the first place (and Genesis does) I find this atrociously ignorant.”

    This has been mentioned to you before. By me. Evolution does not even attempt to address where life came from. It is a theory explaining life’s diversity, not its origin. (Look up “abiogenesis”.)

    Maz: “I am fighting evolution, and here, theistic evolution (one and the same really)…..the lie, that God did not create the world and all things in it by the power of His Word (Jesus) in 6 days.”

    It’s apparent from your arguments so far that you have no idea what you’re fighting. You seem to be combatting some strange theory of evolution that you invented — certainly not the theory of evolution as it is understood by science.

    Why you would consider the defeat of any ideas in a theory of evolution that you invented some sort of victory is utterly beyond me.

    I’ll say it again, though I don’t expect that it will sink in this time, either: Evolution has nothing to say about whether or not God (or, if you prefer, Jesus) created life one way or the other. I’ve already told you that I don’t deny or allegorize Genesis. If you can decide that you know what God really meant in spite of what He said, though, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you can decide what I really mean in spite of what I say, too.

    Darned pesky ninth commandment.

    Maz: “If you came out and said the Bible appears to teach evolution…maybe I could somehow believe why you think it does….but to say that you believe evolution could have been the means and yet to say there be nothing in the Bible that teaches it, is very dangerous. You are putting science before the Word of God.”

    Is it dangerous, then, to “believe” gravity? To “believe” atoms? To “believe” electricity? To “believe” meteorology, if I believe it could be the means whereby God allows the rain to fall on the just and the unjust? Is any of this putting science before the Word of God?

    Maz: “It is as if you WANT to believe in evolution even though the Bible doesn’t teach it.”

    Only in the same way that I “WANT to believe in” any of the other scientific ideas mentioned above. I provisionally accept them as more and more data comes to light.

    Maz: “In fact what the Bible does teach is quite the opposite!”

    Silence is not necessarily the opposite of any stance. Haven’t you ever heard of “silent agreement”?

    Unless you can show me where the Bible shows the method God used to create, you can’t tell me that the Bible teaches the opposite. You can’t teach the opposite of something if you never address the topic.

    Maz: “So how do you preach the Bible…and Genesis, with this ‘evolution’ message, when it isn’t in there?”

    In the same way one might bring in meteorological understanding to illuminate what might have happened when the flood hit. Or linguistics to illuminate a passage of Scripture. Or anthropology to show the reasons behind a custom described in Scripture. Or archaeology to illustrate the setting of a historical account in Scripture.

    Natural sciences and the Bible do not often directly intersect, but one can often be used to shed light on the other. I would never make the mistake of trying to preach evolution from the Bible, but it might be able to better help us understand what has been written.

    Maz: “Is Romans 5 v 12 a straw man?”

    No. But your description of my interpretation of it is. Look up “straw man”.

    Maz: “The way of evolution doesn’t offer anyone a real incentive for possessing the kind of attributes a true born again Christian wants to possess. To be like Christ.”

    There is no “way of evolution”. Evolution does not attempt to describe to you how you should live your life or what kind of attributes you should have or want to have — any more than gravitational theory does, or atomic theory, or plate tectonic theory. Nor does it attempt to create any kind of moral incentive, any more than any of these other areas of study.

    Maz: “To begin with…I wasn’t a Young Earth Creationist….as I said, even when I began my Christian walk, I believed in what I had been taught….indoctrinated with…..at school. Until I saw that it was completely opposed to what the Bible ACTUALLY SAID about the Beginning.”

    That’s funny. When I began my Christian walk, I believed in what I had been indoctrinated with — young-Earth creationism — until I saw that what they said (“perfect”) was not what the Bible actually said (“very good”, but with some things that were “not good”) about the beginning.

    Maz: “If you are a Christian, then what are you doing believing in something that is diametrically opposed to Gods Word? Did God make the Premordial Blob or the Ape in His image? How blasphemous that would be to believe Anon?”

    I don’t remember Anonymous claiming either of those things. You’re constructing ideas that are contrary to God’s Word that no one has advocated; then, you seem to believe you’ve scored some sort of victory by knocking those ideas down. Does this tactic make sense to you on any level? Why do you think you’ve demonstrated anything this way?

    If I were to say, “Republicans believe that drowning baby kittens is necessary to win elections”, and then show that drowning baby kittens is wrong, have I done anything to demolish the Republicans’ political standing?

    Maz: “What I hear from the ”other side” (and I don’t mean the dead!) doesn’t convince me in the least that evolution or any of the origin stories of our Universe or our earth and the things upon it, is correct in any way.”

    Evolution. Is. Not. An. Origin. Story. Please try to understand what you’re criticizing before you critique it.

    Maz: “I have done a lot of growing, physically and spiritually….probably a lot more than you…whoever you are. Presumption is also a sin. Be careful Anon.”

    Pot? It’s Kettle calling. He says you’re black.

    (Aren’t you presuming how much growth Anonymous has undergone — specifically, that it’s probably a lot less than you?)

    Until and unless you show some desire to conduct a reasonable conversation, or to address what’s actually being discussed, I grow less and less interested in trying to talk about much of anything.

  37. Bob Griffin said

    Maz,

    I think we know who anonymous is. Sounds just like a lot of the posts from about 950 – 1020 on our other site. I wish I had a supreme understanding of everything like he does.

  38. Maz said

    MattF: If I don’t know what I’m talking about with regards to the theory of evolution (that I’v invented my own) it’s because I speak what I hear from the evolutionists….they don’t know what they are talking about either, though they have convinced themselves that they do.

    I’v already told you the method God used to create the heavens and the earth….the Bible tells us…..”by the Word of His power”…or by the power of His Word…Jesus. HE SPOKE…..AND IT WAS CREATED.
    If you want to know any more than that then you will have to ask God for the details because only He would know….He hasn’t chosen to explain the details to us, (except ofcourse what is in Genesis).

    If you or Anon (or are you the same person?) was a bit clearer about what EXACTLY you believe, then I wouldn’t have to resort to feeling in the dark about what you appear to believe.
    In fact, everything you have said thus far seems quite confusing, not because I am too thick to understand,but you really don’t seem to have articulated very well your precise beliefs about the Beginnings of all that God created and how He continued to work in that creation.

    What is a reasonable conversation? That I agree with all that you say and do not
    oppose it in any way? How am I to be reasonable? I DO NOT believe in evolution, and I certainly do not believe that God used it to create or sustain life on earth. That is the crux of what I am opposing.
    And how is it I am not addressing what is ”actually being discussed”? We don’t always keep strictly to the subject in hand on other sites either…have you not noticed?

    Col: 1 v 16,17 says this:
    ”For by HIM were ALL THINGS CREATED,(not evolved), that are in heaven and in the earth, visible and invisible…….ALL THINGS were CREATED (not evolved) BY HIM, and for Him, and He is before all things, and BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST.”

    Is it possible for preachers to preach on evolution? NO. ;-)
    And that is what I have been trying to show throughout the posts I have put here.

  39. Maz said

    Bob: I seriously question his ”supreme understanding”.

  40. Maz said

    MattF: I have re-read your first post, just to check back on what you said originally about evolution.
    You said, ”The theory of evolution attempts to describe how populations of organisms behave, it does not address how life came to be…”. Actually, this is not the theory of evolution that I hear from other evolutionists. Evolution attempts (and I would agree with the wording used) to show us, how life ‘evolved’ from microbe to the variety of animals we see today……this is shown on what they call the ‘evolutionary tree’ with branches showing the evolution of different species etc. Natural selection on the other hand is not evolution, but adaptations within the species already existing.

    Now, I would like to ask you how evolution fits in with your Christian belief about God.
    I hope you will excuse me if you feel that you have already done this…..but maybe I have missed it somewhere in the posts.

  41. [...] Recent Comments jAsOn on Do you think murderers can be …killa on Do you think murderers can be …jAsOn on Do you think murderers can be …ADB on Do you think murderers can be …Maz on Is it possible for Preachers t… [...]

  42. Zerxil said

    MAZ ARE YOU AGAINST MACRO EVOLUTION, OR ALL EVOLUTION?

  43. Maz said

    Zerxil: I do not believe evolution of any kind has taken place from one species to another, or from a jelly millions of years ago in the premordial ocean. What I mean by species (and I always seem to get these mixed up!) is the canine or feline, which are two separate species (or genus). They did not come from any common ancestor anymore than we came from apes. So to answer your question, I would say no. I do however believe in variations within the species, (or genus). There are different cats and there are different dogs etc.

  44. Zerxil said

    After the fall some animals became carnivores. Their previous genus or species changed to their new one. right?

  45. Maz said

    Zerxil: No, it was just their eating habits…no major change. Some of the animals already had large teeth to tare tough fruit, others would eat softer fruit and leaves. After the fall, they would have adapted….but again, no major change.

  46. Jeff42 said

    MattF: “I claim that it is dangerous to assert that the same wording, phrasing, and sequence can mean two different things in the same passage without justification beyond personal preference.”

    When did I do that? Show me where I said that the same wording, phrasing, etc. means two different things in the same context. I think Romans 5 is quite clear throughout. Adam’s sin brought death and condemnation to all men. Christ sinless sacrifice brought justification to the many (those who receive it). There is a comparison and contrast going on between Adam and Christ here. That’s the clear teaching of the passage. To try to use this passage to justify the belief that death existed before Adam’s sin is to bring in that which is not taught here. A sound principle of hermeneutics is to let the explicit interpret the implicit, and not the other way around.

    MattF: “As I mentioned before, there clearly appears to be a causal link shown here. But I do not agree that this sequence must be strictly chronological, since this same phrasing is not strictly chronological in several places in verses 15 through 21.”

    I’m sorry, but the chronology of the passage seems very clear if you let the passage speak – Adam – sin – condemnation/death – grace/Christ – justification through the cross for those who believe. Nothing in THIS PASSAGE that would even hint at the fact that death somehow preceded Adam.

    MattF: “I also note that the vocabulary used in verse 12 is curious: “spread” (as in “death spread to all men” ;) is a verb that hints at prior existence.”

    I’m assuming this is a serious comment, although there is some question due to the wink. Of course it existed before it spread. It was a result of Adam’s sin. After the fall death is on the scene and it spreads to all men. This would in no way suggest that death was present before Adam.

    If you want to make a case that death existed before Adam, you are going to have to make it from a more explicit text. And you are going to have to prove that there was someone around before Adam who could die.(And I don’t know of any that can support that notion.)

    Paul says clearly in Romans 5 that Adam’s sin precedes the entrance of condemnation and death. Genesis 1 clearly teaches (as well as other texts like 1 Cor. 15:45) that Adam was the first man. According to the clear teaching of the Bible there was no one around to die before Adam is created. Death doesn’t enter the scene in Genesis until chapter 4 (after the Fall). The generations of Adam are listed in chapter 5 – no mention of Adam having a human father. And in the other genealogies in the Bible no father is mentioned for Adam, except for Luke 3:38, which lists his Father as God. The Scripture is clear that Adam was the first man, fell into sin, and brought condemnation and death into the picture.

  47. MattF said

    Maz: “If I don’t know what I’m talking about with regards to the theory of evolution (that I’v invented my own) it’s because I speak what I hear from the evolutionists…”

    Fortunately, in our age, it’s quite easy to look up what the theory of evolution is and what it does and does not entail. Personal beliefs about the origin of life itself can be easily winnowed out as relevant or not.

    Maz: “I’v already told you the method God used to create the heavens and the earth….the Bible tells us…..”by the Word of His power”…or by the power of His Word…Jesus. HE SPOKE…..AND IT WAS CREATED.”

    I know. And we agree on this. Unfortunately, all it tells us is exactly that — that he spoke, and that it was created.

    For example, we cannot tell how long it was between the time God said, “Let there be light” and light appeared. Was it instantly? Five minutes? An hour? Who knows? The Scripture doesn’t make it plain.

    And through what mechanism did it appear? Was it supernatural, or would there have been an apparent cause? Would a scientist with instruments have been able to say, “When God said, ‘Let there be light,’ X happened, causing the light to appear”? We can’t tell that, either.

    Maz: “If you want to know any more than that then you will have to ask God for the details because only He would know….He hasn’t chosen to explain the details to us, (except ofcourse what is in Genesis).”

    My point exactly.

    Maz: “If you or Anon (or are you the same person?) was a bit clearer about what EXACTLY you believe, then I wouldn’t have to resort to feeling in the dark about what you appear to believe.”

    We’re not the same person. Why, under those circumstances, you would feel the right to criticize what you thought people’s beliefs must be is rather confusing.

    Maz: “In fact, everything you have said thus far seems quite confusing, not because I am too thick to understand,but you really don’t seem to have articulated very well your precise beliefs about the Beginnings of all that God created and how He continued to work in that creation.”

    To be fair, I haven’t had much time to; I’ve been busy trying to point out why certain things that people have said must be so aren’t. I offered to give more detail if you wanted it.

    As I reflect back, I also note that people have not been very forthcoming in answering my objections — such as addressing passages that young-Earth creationists usually interpret figuratively by dint of their interpretation of Genesis, as in Hebrews 4 and Romans 8. This hasn’t exactly been a two-way street.

    Maz: “What is a reasonable conversation? That I agree with all that you say and do not
    oppose it in any way? How am I to be reasonable?”

    You could start by talking about what people are talking about, and not deciding that you know exactly where people stand before they articulate their position. Agreement with that position is not necessary.

    Maz: “And how is it I am not addressing what is ”actually being discussed”? We don’t always keep strictly to the subject in hand on other sites either…have you not noticed?”

    Wandering off-topic is one thing. Believing that you are attacking evolution by attacking abiogenesis or the origin of the Universe is another.

    Maz: “”For by HIM were ALL THINGS CREATED,(not evolved), that are in heaven and in the earth, visible and invisible…….ALL THINGS were CREATED (not evolved) BY HIM, and for Him, and He is before all things, and BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST.””

    And I’ve maintained that it is possible for God to have created through natural processes. The ideas are not mutually exclusive, especially since we tell our children when we say that God created them that God does create through natural processes.

    Maz: “Evolution attempts (and I would agree with the wording used) to show us, how life ‘evolved’ from microbe to the variety of animals we see today……this is shown on what they call the ‘evolutionary tree’ with branches showing the evolution of different species etc.”

    Essentially right. It does not attempt to explain how the first life form (which was probably not a modern microbe) got here; it simply explains what happens once life arrives on the scene.

    Maz: “Natural selection on the other hand is not evolution, but adaptations within the species already existing.”

    How, then, are new species prevented from forming? Small changes can accumulate into large ones.

    Before you reply, let me point out that evolution from one species into another has been observed. Many times. Directly. In the laboratory and in the wild. Your explanation must show why we have watched organisms change from one species into another (some within a single human lifetime) while simultaneously preventing the speciation events you don’t want.

    Maz: “Now, I would like to ask you how evolution fits in with your Christian belief about God.”

    I think God used evolution to create the diversity of species we see. I’m not sure what you aren’t clear on.

    If you want me to give a comprehensive background of what I believe creation looked like and why, that would take up quite some room and time, and represent quite a jump off the topic. All I intended to do is point out that the passages which some believe to exclude the idea of evolution don’t necessarily do so.

    Here are some ideas to tickle your imagination:

    Note that in Hebrew, the phrasing is not as rigid as it is presented in English. The wrap-up to each day is not so much “and the evening and the morning was the xth day” and more “evening and morning ‘n’ a xth day”. Note, too, that time frames are not given as part of the creative process, e.g., “God made X in the morning and Y in the evening”.

    Some points to go over:

    “Evening and morning” is an idiom in Hebrew — and all Semitic languages, for that matter — which refers to long but indefinite stretches of time. Compare this with Daniel 8:26, where in the Hebrew, “evening and morning” is singular; at the shortest, this is one “evening and morning” that is 3000 years long.

    The Hebrew word in Genesis 1 translated “day” does not always refer to 24 hours, even in the context of Genesis 1 (see Genesis 2:4).

    Even enumerated days are not always 24 hours long in Scripture, even though it doesn’t have much cause to enumerate days; Zechariah 14:7 has the same phraseology as Genesis 1:5 — “echad yom”, literally “one day”, even though the former refers to a period of 1000 years.

    None of these demand long periods of time, never mind evolution, but I think they permit them. There’s a lot more, of course, including some passages in Job and Psalm and Revelation and other places concerning God’s words about what creation looked like, but this is already a huge tangent.

    Jeff42: “Show me where I said that the same wording, phrasing, etc. means two different things in the same context.”

    Romans 5:15 says that the “gift by grace” is “by one man, Jesus Christ”. There is clearly a causal relationship — that is, Christ caused the gift to be bestowed on mankind. However, that grace was bestowed on mankind before the point in time of Christ’s work. There is clearly not a chronological relationship — that is to say, Christ’s work did not precede the gift of God’s grace.

    Likewise, Romans 5:12 establishes that sin came by Adam and that death came by sin. Using the parallel passage as a template, we can show that there is a causal relationship between Adam, sin, and death. It may be stretching things to insist, however, that there is a chronological relationship, especially since a chronological relationship demonstrably does not exist in the parallel argument involving Christ.

    To insist that a chronological relationship must exist in one case when it clearly cannot exist in the other seems to be demanding that the same phraseology is being interpreted two different ways.

    Jeff42: “A sound principle of hermeneutics is to let the explicit interpret the implicit, and not the other way around.”

    Another one is to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

    But I’d agree with your point; it seems that we come to different conclusions on it, though. I’d say the explicit meaning is one of agency, since Christ is clearly the agent through whom God’s gift of grace arrived and Adam is clearly the agent through whom sin (and death) arrived. The implicit meaning is one of chronological order, which — oddly enough — some people insist must apply in one instance in this passage and must not apply in the other.

    Jeff42: “I’m assuming this is a serious comment, although there is some question due to the wink. Of course it existed before it spread. It was a result of Adam’s sin. After the fall death is on the scene and it spreads to all men. This would in no way suggest that death was present before Adam.”

    Yes, it was serious. (This version of WordPress seems to turn a close quote followed by an end parenthesis followed by a space into a wink.) And I can accept your point.

    Jeff42: “If you want to make a case that death existed before Adam, you are going to have to make it from a more explicit text.”

    Well, to be technical, if I were to demand that death existed before Adam, I’d have to find an explicit text. Fortunately, as I established in a previous posting — #36 — I am not trying to assert that the order must not have been chronological. I am merely trying to show that it was not necessarily chronological. To be fair, if you’re going to assert that it was necessarily chronological in Adam’s case, you’ll have to find a more explicit text than this.

    Jeff42: “And you are going to have to prove that there was someone around before Adam who could die.(And I don’t know of any that can support that notion.)”

    Not so much someone as something. I don’t think there were any humans before Adam. A common young-Earth creationist position — alluded to by Maz — is that there was no death on Earth at all, by anything, until the point in time Adam sinned. (What animals ate if no plants were allowed to die is beyond me.) They often point to this verse as evidence of this position. All I mean to assert is that this verse doesn’t necessarily mean that.

    It’s also interesting to note, now that I think about it, that only mankind was ever offered eternal life. Of course, one could just as easily argue that only mankind was in a position to understand, accept, or reject such an offer, so perhaps it makes sense that only mankind was presented with it.

  48. Maz said

    MattF: You are asking me questions about things that are’nt even in the Bible. God created by His Word, He has not chosen to tell us any more about HOW He did it other than in Genesis 1, so why are you asking me, would I know more than you?

    God created the first MAN, Adam….no father….he was ALONE, on the earth, until God created Eve, wouldn’t you say that was MIRACULOUS? Instantaneous?
    Where does any evolution fit in?

    You say that evolution has occurred from one species into another. Can you give an example?

    If ‘evening and morning’ represented ”long but indefinite stretches of time”, how many thousands or millions of years was it before the sun and moon were created (on the 4th ‘day’), and how did the plants survive for so long without photosynthesis? If you are going to say that, the sun ‘appeared’ on the fourth day, you may like to explain why the earth must have been shrouded in dark cloud so that you could not see the sun, and yet had light, (if you don’t believe the original light was supernatural)….I am guessing ofcourse, that you believe it was a natural light and not supernatural.

    So if Adam was created at the beginning of the 6th day, he was obviously a lot older than the 930 years that is recorded in Genesis…..930 + however long the 6th day was? Otherwise you would have to say, that God created Adam on the very LAST ‘day’ of the 6th ‘day’, for him to be 930?
    The millions or thousands of years ‘day’ is not possible. It would have to be there ofcourse ONLY to accomodate evolution. Those that know Hebrew that I have read, say that the word YOM for day, and the numerical chronology AND the phrase ‘the evening and the morning’ TOGETHER, can only mean an ordinary 24 hour day……God….the SUPERNATURAL, OMNIPOTENT GOD, created it that way as He tells us in His Word. And Exodus confirms this…or why did the Jewish people have a 6 day working week? Resting on the 7th, the Sabbath?

    ”The Hebrew word in Genesis 1 translated ‘day’ does not always refer to 24 hours, even in the context of Genesis 1, (see Gen. 2 v 4).” Tell me, how long was the 7th day?
    I agree, the word ‘day’ does not ALWAYS refer to 24 hours, BUT IT DOES IN Genesis 1 with the ‘evening and morning’ and the numeric sequence. :-)

    ”The wrap up to each day is not so much ‘and the evening and the morning was the Xth day”..
    BUT THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. Why would the Bible be written in such a way as to be downright deceiving in the very origins of our Universe and our world? God does not veil His Truth in such a way as to let His people believe one thing when He means something else entirely. If God used evolution He would have plainly written it in His Word.
    But you cannot point to a single scripture that supports your claim for evolution, all you can say is that ‘it does not disallow it’ or something similar to that effect.
    Really I am finding it quite perplexing to listen to the grammatical gymnastics you are performing.

    I’m sure, that those who made it possible for us to have the Bible in the English language, (KJV of 1611) and actualy burned at the stake for that priveledge, would have translated it from the original Greek in the clearest way possible for us to understand, otherwise we would ALL have to be Hebrew scholars to interpret it correctly. And in those days, the English people were not as literate as we are today.

    Tell me, WHEN, do YOU say, death entered into this world, if it wasn’t through Adams sin?

  49. Jeff42 said

    MattF:

    I guess we’ll just disagree concerning the chronology of 5:12. Verse 12 clearly presents a chronology while verse 15 is a comparison of the results of the actions of Adam and Christ respectively. I don’t know how you can escape what seems to be the plain fact of verse 12 that first you have Adam, then you have Adam’s sin, and then you have the penalty for that sin – condemnation and death. Since the penalty for sin is death, it seems obvious that the sin would have to precede the penalty. And I certainly don’t see verse 15 as negating the clear teaching of verse 12. We don’t have to beat this horse any more. Also, we may have been talking past each other all along since you admit that there were no humans before Adam, thus no human death before Adam.

  50. abc's said

    I think that religious services are among the most suitable places to teach scientific literacy. I don’t believe that anyone’s particular notion of God should shield them from truths about the world.

  51. Maz said

    Abc’s: I think you are right there! But Christians should be informed of the facts about the difference between what evolution says and what the Bible tells us. Too many Christians don’t know enough to defend their own faith. I’v spoken to many and found them sadly lacking in any knowedge to do with Gods creation in Genesis let alone evolution.

  52. abc's said

    Maz

    I agree. Many people are also sadly misinformed about the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it.

  53. Maz said

    Abc’s: That’s strange isn’t it really, when you think that the school took so much trouble in teaching it to them all those years with no other ‘theory’ to contend with.

  54. abc's said

    Maz

    The same could be said for all those hours in Sunday school that kids sit through.

  55. Zerxil said

    THAT IS SCARY, ABC & MAZ AGREEING ON SOMETHING…

  56. Maz said

    Abc’s: That was when most kids went to Sunday school. I was one, but can’t remember much about what they taught because I was usually mucking about! The only thing….or person I should say, that made any impression on me was this man called Jesus. At the time I thot he was just in stories in the Bible…..I know different now. I thank my parents for sending me to Sunday School.

    Zerxil: I guess miracles still happen today!!

  57. F. L. A. said

    Here is an example of one species becoming another Maz, although I’m sure you’ll disagree with it as it probably won’t fit your specialized idea of what constitutes a separate species.

    Three species of wildflowers called Goatsbeards were introduced into the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the species interbred,[hybridizing]producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly in the late 1940′s, two new species appeared near Pullman, Washington.Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring.The evolutionary processes had produced a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the Goatsbeard plants from which they had evolved.

    In 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They survived and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population. They are smaller and more lightly colored than their ancestors from Australia, and they eat Hawaiian plants that are poisonous to the Australian wallabies, because they evolved a new liver enzyme to detoxify them.They can no longer breed with Australian wallabies, thus, they have become a new species.
    Also, Maize evolved roughly four thousand years ago.It’s the ancestor of corn, in case you did not know.

    Your comment in post#45 is typical Ken Ham hogwash, and demonstrates that you have little understanding of biology, zoology,etc., etc. If you don’t understand why your “teeth argument” won’t work in your favor, then we can go over it with you and explain the flaws within it.
    Let’s pick an animal, say, the Cheetah.
    It has a tawny-yellow spotted coat to help it hide from it’s prey until it’s close enough for a rushing attack.It’s vision[like lions] is a completely horizontal band for scanning the horizon. It’s whole body is completely designed for short distance speed[It's the fastest land animal now surviving on Earth].Now you might like to think that your God made the Cheetah spotted “just because”, but this does not explain the rest of it’s body design. What kind of plant life would a Cheetah be chasing around in the Garden of Eden at almost 70 miles an hour?!? And now you could try and say “Well, after the Fall, animal life was effected by SIN and thus changed in ways that made them be killers”. Their digestive tract would also need to be changed, for herbivores as a rule have larger digestive tracts than carnivores, and sometimes multiple stomachs[they ALSO have grinding molars, but you seem to like looking over this important fact].In fact the whole animal would have to be changed so much….that it would become a vastly different animal in form and action. And yet, you somehow claim that this does not constitute as some form of evolution?
    Shall we pick another animal?
    The Pacific Octopus?
    the Tiger Shark?
    The Tiger Beetle?
    We could go on and on and on.

    Mr. Griffin, post#37, who were you talking about? Me, John, Chris C., Abc’s, or someone else?

    It’s odd that Brad piped up at the beginning of this topic but has never tried to actually debate, or offer information to support his disagreements with the topic of debate. Wouldn’t the “Inquisitors little helper” appreciate a little help from someone other than Mr. Griffin?

    Preachitmonkyman?
    As in the character “MonkeyMan” of Native American decent that John and I used to argue with all the time in the past on similar topics? If so, then why the long silence? We have missed making you look foolish[ huge sharp-toothed grin].
    Maybe character “EducatedDawg” will come back out into the limelights too.

  58. Maz said

    F.L.A: I don’t know much about plants, so I can’t comment. Might have been a similar family of plant.
    Wallabys….were still wallabys.
    And whatever changes there were within the cat family, the cheetahs were still cheetahs….there is no evolution across species. Teeth can change I admit, but that doesn’t prove evolution.
    You could list a dozen animals….but then I have listed animals that defy evolution but you don’t accept them either.
    Animals WITHIN their species (or genus) can change…..think about the number of different species of dogs….but they are still dogs. Many physical changes through breeding, but they remain dogs, and they LOSE information interbreeding.
    Any change in an animal involves LOSS of information within the DNA….it is NEVER ADDED. That is why evolution just can’t be true.

    By the way…welcome back.

  59. F. L. A. said

    I was never really gone. Only “land-locked” within John’s territory.You didn’t actually MISS me, did you? I knew that you wouldn’t be satisfied with my examples.
    What animals have you listed that defy evolution, Maz? And how is it that teeth changing[among other things] does not prove evolution?

  60. Maz said

    F.L.A: Small variations in an animal does not prove evolution from jelly/fish to man.
    It just shows mutations within a species….which is what I said earlier.
    I suggest you look back in the posts for those examples…..I shall look for some more if you want them.

  61. Maz said

    F.L.A: I think I posted them on the ”Darwin” debate actually.
    We seem to be going off the subject a bit here….. ”Is it possible for preachers to preach evolution.”

  62. F. L. A. said

    You aren’t trying to run away from my question are you? I hope you are not referring to your bird colors and zebra stripes comments, for they were covered.
    “Small variations” and mutations add up in time to really BIG variations Maz.

  63. Maz said

    F.L.A: Me? Run? I’d have gone a long time ago!

    No birds or zebras.

    If you want to continue this on the ‘Darwin’ debate…..

  64. F. L. A. said

    As you wish.

  65. MattF said

    Maz: “You are asking me questions about things that are’nt even in the Bible. God created by His Word, He has not chosen to tell us any more about HOW He did it other than in Genesis 1, so why are you asking me, would I know more than you?”

    It occurs to me that Scripture supports the idea that God created (at least some things) indirectly. For example, in Genesis 1:11-12, we read: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass… And the earth brought forth grass…”

    This is paralleled in other portions of the Genesis account: God does not create some things directly, but tells His creation to do it. This is absolute proof of nothing, of course. Still, it raises interesting questions. How would an agrarian nomad have pictured the earth bringing forth plants? Would he have pictured something instantaneous? (We can’t say, of course, but the questions are interesting.)

    Maz: “Where does any evolution fit in?”

    I’ve raised the question of whether or not Adam might have been different. Some who accept evolution, for example, nevertheless believe that Adam was a special creation.

    Maz: “You say that evolution has occurred from one species into another. Can you give an example?”

    Yup. We’ve watched one species change to another in all sorts of organisms — from single-celled organisms (Helacyton gartleri) to mosquitoes (the molestus form of Culex pipiens) to plants (Primula kewensis) to deer mice (Peromyces maniculatus) to birds (the “greenish warbler”, Phylloscsopus trochilides) to bees (Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta).

    Some organisms appear to speciate spontaneously depending on their environment. A Wolbachia bacterium causes reproductive isolation after mating between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti when it infects them.

    My personal favorite is Helacyton gartleri because it’s so weird. It’s now a single-celled organism that appears to be effectively immortal if given appropriate environmental provisions. It used to be a woman named Henrietta Lacks.

    Britton-Davidian et al. wrote an article entitled “Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice”, which details six instances of speciation in house mice on one island in 500 years.

    You might also want to try reading “Observed Instances of Speciation” by Joseph Boxhorn; or “Some More Observed Speciation Effects” by Stassen et al.; or “At the Water’s Edge” by Carl Zimmer; or “Darwin’s Cathedral” by Wilson; or “Lying Stones of Marrakesh” by Sterelny; or “Sex and Death” by Sterelny and Griffiths.

    Maz: “If ‘evening and morning’ represented ”long but indefinite stretches of time”, how many thousands or millions of years was it before the sun and moon were created (on the 4th ‘day’), and how did the plants survive for so long without photosynthesis?”

    There we run into another subtlety of the Hebrew. First of all, it is necessary to recognize that Hebrew has no past perfect tense — only the past. (We can see how not knowing this might lead to awkwardness in reading Genesis 2:19. The order of events is not that God made man, then God made the beasts, then Adam named them all; but since Hebrew lacks a past perfect tense, it has no distinction between what was done and what had already been done by that point.)

    Note, too, that the context of Genesis 1 is *on Earth*. If you start at Genesis 1:1, you can see that events are described in one long run-on sentence that runs, at the very least, over the entire chapter. Genesis 1:2 moves the focus to what’s happening on the surface of the Earth, and there’s nothing in the context to make it appear otherwise (that we might be seeing some of this from, say, space).

    Quick jump into science. Science maintains that Earth’s atmosphere was translucent, but not transparent, until plant life arrived to scrub the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and release oxygen. If this is true, until the atmosphere was rendered transparent, you would have been able to tell the difference between day and night, but you would not have seen any heavenly bodies. Even with a translucent atmosphere, photosynthesis is possible.

    Note that God’s declaration in Genesis 1:14-15 is for there to be lights in the sky. We still seem to be on Earth, and this is the moment when we can see the Sun and Moon. In my opinion (and those of many ancient Rabbinic scholars, too, I might add), the Sun became *visible* at this point, but had existed beforehand. (Rabbinic scholars have rationalized that unless light is generated by a point source — and not merely “existing” — there would be no shadow, no “day” and “night”. On that basis, they have argued that the Sun *had been* created by Day Four, and Day Four merely announces its appearance in Earth’s sky.)

    What’s remarkable is that Genesis gets this right. The atmosphere would have to be transparent to see the heavenly bodies, and complex biochemistry (like photosynthesis) is necessary to liberate free oxygen and render the atmosphere transparent. (Free oxygen doesn’t remain free for long unless something is constantly making more; oxygen is very reactive stuff, which is why many animals use it.) I don’t think there’s any way Moses could have known this all by himself.

    Maz: “So if Adam was created at the beginning of the 6th day, he was obviously a lot older than the 930 years that is recorded in Genesis…”

    Not necessarily. I maintain (as did many Jewish scholars (e.g., Philo and Josephus) and Christian teachers in the first few centuries AD (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose), even though creation is a rather peripheral doctrine to Christianity and Judaism) that the days were long but indefinite stretches of time. I don’t even maintain that each day was the same length as all the others. (And we don’t know when during Day Six Adam was created.)

    It’s also interesting to note the findings of the International Council on Bible Innerancy in 1982. These were all people who believed that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God. It gathered to discuss the age of the Earth and the Universe, among other things, and after deliberating the issues for several hours, all present signed a statement that believe in six consecutive twenty-four hour days of creation is nonessential to belief in Biblical innerancy except one — Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (which seems to illustrate just how radical and isolated the belief that young-Earth creationism is the only way to understand Genesis 1 really is). Gleason Archer, professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote a paper about the proceedings; he concluded (emphasis mine), “Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed.”

    To paraphrase, “Even if you ignore science, the idea that God created the Earth in six consecutive twenty-four-hour days is easily seen as just flat-out wrong.”

    Especially when you become familiar with the language the creation account was written in, I have to agree.

    Maz: “It would have to be there ofcourse ONLY to accomodate evolution.”

    Nope.

    Maz: “Those that know Hebrew that I have read, say that the word YOM for day, and the numerical chronology AND the phrase ‘the evening and the morning’ TOGETHER, can only mean an ordinary 24 hour day……”

    They’re wrong. Many Jewish and Christian scholars would vehemently disagree, even before the advent of modern scientific understanding. (The phrasing in Genesis 1 with respect to numbering days and mentioning evening and morning is, in many respects, unique in Genesis 1, so how people can make claims about the general form as it appears in Genesis 1 is kind of odd, since no general form exists. In any case, there is no rule that this structure in Hebrew can only refer to 24-hour days. Even people who spoke Hebrew mention this point.)

    Maz: “And Exodus confirms this…or why did the Jewish people have a 6 day working week? Resting on the 7th, the Sabbath?”

    You would have an excellent point if the Sabbath only ever referred to one day in seven in the Old Testament. It doesn’t. (Here’s an opportunity to check it out for yourself.)

    Maz: “I agree, the word ‘day’ does not ALWAYS refer to 24 hours, BUT IT DOES IN Genesis 1 with the ‘evening and morning’ and the numeric sequence.”

    Native speakers of Hebrew disagree with you.

    Maz: “”The wrap up to each day is not so much ‘and the evening and the morning was the Xth day”.. BUT THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS.”

    In the King James Version, I grant you that this is true. In the Hebrew, it is not so ironclad.

    Maz: “If God used evolution He would have plainly written it in His Word.”

    Why? Who are you to tell God what He should have included in His Word?

    Maz: “Really I am finding it quite perplexing to listen to the grammatical gymnastics you are performing.”

    It’s not just me. I have substantial teaching history of Biblical scholars on my side. I am trying to show you that the original text is substantially different from what you, as an English speaker, might expect. Please do not mistake my effort to inform you about some of the difficulty of making accurate translations for grammatical gymnastics.

    Maz: “I’m sure, that those who made it possible for us to have the Bible in the English language, (KJV of 1611) and actualy burned at the stake for that priveledge, would have translated it from the original Greek in the clearest way possible for us to understand, otherwise we would ALL have to be Hebrew scholars to interpret it correctly.”

    Yes. But I’m sure you also understand (1) that English is substantially different from Hebrew, and that picking the right meaning out of the many possible ones is difficult; and (2) that substantial finds have allowed us better insight into what the Scriptures were talking about than King James’ scholars had access to, linguistically and archaeologically. (If you don’t believe me, check out Rembrandt’s paintings of some Biblical scenes. There were many details he and his contemporaries were ignorant of.) We even have access to manuscripts much more reliable than the Masoretic Text.

    Maz: “Tell me, WHEN, do YOU say, death entered into this world, if it wasn’t through Adams sin?”

    I believe human death started when Adam fell. But the Bible teaches that God made everything, including suffering, pain, and death; and that neither Satan nor man has any creative ability on that level at all. The Bible also states that God finished creating on Day Six, and on Day Seven (which is never brought to a close, curiously), He rested. So I believe that death was here all along, that God didn’t have to revert to a “Plan B” when Adam sinned (since the Bible says that the plans of God cannot be thwarted), and that death came to the human race when Adam fell (thus forfeiting God’s offer of eternal life).

  66. MattF said

    Maz: “Any change in an animal involves LOSS of information within the DNA….it is NEVER ADDED.”

    Again, Maz, please try to understand what you’re critiquing before your criticize it.

    For everything a mutation can do, there is a corresponding mutation that can undo it. In other words, if there is a mutation that subtracts information from a genome, there is also a mutation that adds it. And both kinds have been directly observed, by any reasonable definition of the term “information”. We’ve seen increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, brand new genetically-related abilities, and brand new genetic material. (If these don’t qualify for your definition of “information”, then your point is a non sequitur, since these are all that is needed to drive evolution.)

    In fact, there’s a specific kind of mutation that can’t do anything but increase available information: gene duplication. Follow that up with point mutations in one or both copies, and you have new information. We’ve turned up organisms for which this nicely explains the presence of perplexing proteins.

    If you actually studied information theory, you’d run into Shannon and Weaver, who showed that random noise maximizes information. This is fortunate for evolution, since random noise creates variation on which natural selection can act.

  67. F. L. A. said

    I like you MattF.
    That could work against you, unfortunately.

  68. MattF said

    Maz: “Why would the Bible be written in such a way as to be downright deceiving in the very origins of our Universe and our world?”

    I don’t believe that it is written in a deceptive way, especially if you’re willing to take the time to study it. Note that this is different from being easy to understand. (I also have to admit that the subject of creation may be left purposefully vague; there are much more important things that God tells us in His Word in more definite ways, e.g., how we should treat each other, our standing before a holy God, His plan for mankind’s redemption, and so on. Perhaps God left creation vague on purpose so that we wouldn’t mistake it for the main point.)

    Let me ask a question in parallel: Why would God create the Universe and the Earth so that it looks exactly like the Earth and the Universe really are old (so that many independent lines of inquiry yield identical results) and that life really evolved on this planet (so that many independent tests yield identical results)?

    Romans 1:20 tells us that God’s invisible attributes are clearly visible in creation. If that’s true, it pays to come to the study of creation with as few preconceived notions as possible. If we come expecting to find the attributes we want to find instead of the attributes that are actually there, we stand in danger of committing idolatry — of trying to form God into our image.

    And lest you accuse me again of being blinded by science, let me remind you again that I came to the conclusion that the young-Earth creationists are wrong based on Biblical studies before I came to accept evolution. And I came to the conclusion that the Earth is old and that evolution really happens and has happened by the sheer weight of the evidence, once I was able to shed the massive lies that young-Earth creationism had thrown at me (like the notion that DNA can only ever lose information).

  69. Maz said

    MattF: SO what about the ‘greenish warbler’, how has it ‘evolved’ and from what to what?

    Henrietta Lacks, evolved into a ‘single celled organism’?? PLEASE TELL!

    Mice……they were still mice I presume after supposedly ‘evolving’?

    Considering that there was no one ON THE EARTH to see the sun ‘appear’, your reasoning really does not answer the question why GOD said it was MADE on the fourth day. It more than likely actually ‘appeared’ in space…..or created in other words. It would only ‘appear’ on the earth if someone was there to witness it, which Moses wasn’t when he wrote about it. GOD told him what happened….”and He made the stars also”, doesn’t say they ‘appeared’ from the viewpoint of earth but from Gods viewpoint. There is absolutely no mention of the creation of the sun (or moon ad stars) BEFORE the fourth day, so I maintain that God told us it was MADE aswell as the moon and stars on the fourth day. Why treat the creation of the sun, moon and stars any different to the creation of the other things God made? Is it because it doesn’t fit in with evolutionary teaching?

    So ‘minority’ and ‘radical’ means that they are…we are… wrong? So the majority is always right, yes? I don’t think so. The Bible is full of people and people groups that were a minority, but they were right.

    So are you saying that our TRANSLATION of the original Hebrew is in error? In other words we cannot understand what it means unless we get a qualification in Hebrew language? Do you think God would have had a translation of His Word full of errors and mistranslations? ESPECIALLY IN GENESIS? (Strange).
    In 1611, it would have been the only translation then for the common man to read and understand God and His ways. It was men of God, guided by the Holy Spirit that translated it.
    Would they have been in such error? Didn’t THEY know the original Hebrew? Ofcourse they did. Would they have translated it as correcty as possible? Yes, ofcourse they would.

    So we have scholars on both sides that say ‘you’re wrong’. So who is unbiased enough to say who is really right?

    There goes the ‘who are you to tell God…’, That is not what I am doing…any more than you are telling God what He ACTUALLY SAID in Genesis rather than what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN that He said.

    ”I believe human death started when Adam fell.” Right, now I understand where you are coming from! You believe it was ONLY HUMAN DEATH that entered.
    Is that what God said? He told Adam, that in the day he ate of the fruit he would die, but don’t you realize that the ground was also cursed with death and I believe everything else came under the curse of death at that point (including the pain of child-birth for Eve). At the end of the ages God will restore what Adam lost, and that includes EVERYTHING, as we see in Isaiah 11 v 6-9 and other places in scripture, especially Revelation. And in Romans it speaks of the ”whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. And not only they, but…..we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is the redemption of our body.” The WHOLE CREATION is waiting for redemption from the curse.

    If God made pain, suffering and death….it was not BEFORE sin….but a RESULT of sin by man.
    Happy day! 8)

  70. Maz said

    MattF: Gene duplication is not NEW information, it is a COPY of what is ALREADY THERE.
    New information is not CREATED.

    Variation…yes. Evolution….No.

    But Gods Creation IS important….it reveals an Almighty Creator God, Who created ALL THINGS by HIS POWER ALONE. He says a lot about it in other passages in the Bible, especially in Isaiah…Ch’s 40 v 26: 42 v 5: 45 v 12, 18: and also He has to remind Job of His creation. It IS important, to God…and it should be to us.
    It also reveals how sin entered the world and how the ‘very good’ world was cursed and how death and disease entered. Even the weeds in your garden are a sign of the curse.

    And let me ask you a question, why would He make Adam an adult, looking like he is older than a day?

    What image are YOU trying to form God into?
    Yes, just LOOK around at Gods creation without your preconceived ideas and theories, and SEE the wonders that God created……this is one thing I do not understand about evolutionists of any type, shape or form….that they look at nature and CANNOT SEE it’s beauty, it’s design, it’s complexity. There is no way it JUST HAPPENED. (Without a Divine Hand!)
    The same scientists that say the Universe began from NOTHING are also saying we came from a blob of amino acids millions of years in the distant premordial past. I know Who I would rather believe.

    You are a Christian accusing other Christians (Young Earthers) of lying (”massive lies” I believe you said). How would you feel if someone….another brother in Christ, said that of you? I trust those YE’s completely. They sound like they are talking sense to me let alone with the scientific evidence they present.
    On the other hand, I do not trust those who misrepresent science and talk as if evolution is fact with words that if listened to very closely are not saying what they want you to believe.
    David Attenborough is one person who is always using such words as ‘probably’ and ‘may have’ and ‘it’s believed’ and ‘possibly’ all through his programs…I’v heard it and it really annoys me that he says it, and says it as if it is actually FACT!

  71. F. L. A. said

    People like Ken Ham and those at the websites that you have recommended use those words too, Maz.

  72. Maz said

    F.L.A: What words?

  73. F. L. A. said

    Probably, may have, possibly, it’s believed, etc., etc.

  74. F. L. A. said

    The great thing about modern unbiased science is that, if it is unsure of an answer it will use such words, and be careful to make no absolute claims about being correct in it’s assumptions until new evidence gives some form of confirmation for or against it.
    Unlike Young Earth Creation Science which will use such words, leave questions answered, and yet still boldly claim to be absolutely correct in it’s assumptions, based on a personal theological fervor.

  75. Maz said

    F.L.A: Maybe you could tell me in what context these words were used.
    Evolutionists use these words to try and project the understanding that it ACTUALLY happened, whereas, ‘probably’ and ‘maybe’, are not an actuality.

    You say evolutionists use such words if they are unsure of an answer, ”and be careful to make no absolute claims about being correct in it’s assumptions until new evidence gives some form of confirmation for or against,” The trouble is, even when the evidence does NOT give confirmation, or there is a lack of it, they STILL make absolute claims about being correct in their assumptions and they still believe in it!

    I was listening to someone talking about the eye again the other day, and that scientists don’t really know how it evolved….BUT, they will NOT ACCEPT that it did not evolve, and they will put anyone down that believes any other way than evolution. It has happened, and it does happen.
    That kind of attitude has been present more than once on this site.

  76. MattF said

    Maz: “Henrietta Lacks, evolved into a ’single celled organism’?? PLEASE TELL!”

    She had a cancerous tumor. After they were removed from Henrietta Lacks, the cells grew, ate, and multiplied, all on their own. (Normal human cells don’t do that.) The number of these single-celled organisms is now greater than the number of cells of Henrietta Lacks at any moment in her life.

    Maz: “Mice……they were still mice I presume after supposedly ‘evolving’?”

    This may be the source of some of your confusion. “Mouse” is not a species. In fact, if we ever witnessed a mouse giving birth to something rather far removed from a mouse, that would be remarkable disproof of evolution as we understand it.

    Maz: “Considering that there was no one ON THE EARTH to see the sun ‘appear’,”

    The spirit of God was, according to Genesis 1:2. Admittedly, God is omnipresent, but our attention is rather poignantly brought there and — perhaps tellingly — never moved off. Assuming that the creation story is told from the vantage point of space or Heaven or whatever has no basis in the Scripture, and assuming that it is told from the Earth does.

    Keep in mind that God calls for lights “in the firmament of heaven”, that is, Earth’s sky.

    Maz: “your reasoning really does not answer the question why GOD said it was MADE on the fourth day.”

    My explanation did address that. It was the whole perfect versus past perfect thing, and parallels Genesis 2:19 in that regard. Even though Genesis 2:19 tells us that God made the beasts and fowls, He obviously (according to Genesis 1) did not make them when Genesis 2:19 seems to say that He did.

    Maz: “It would only ‘appear’ on the earth if someone was there to witness it, which Moses wasn’t when he wrote about it.”

    So is everything that Moses describes showing up in creation invalid? After all, he didn’t see it.

    Maz: “There is absolutely no mention of the creation of the sun (or moon ad stars) BEFORE the fourth day, so I maintain that God told us it was MADE aswell as the moon and stars on the fourth day.”

    Actually, I’d say that there is. Genesis 1:1 isn’t a stand-alone sentence, but the beginning of the story (which one can glean by paying attention to conjunctions, even in King James’ English). Something was made before our attention is drawn to the Earth in Genesis 1:2. Otherwise, wouldn’t Genesis 1:1 read that God created the Earth, or that He created nothing and the Earth, or some such thing?

    Maz: “Why treat the creation of the sun, moon and stars any different to the creation of the other things God made? Is it because it doesn’t fit in with evolutionary teaching?”

    No. It is because if light and darkness are to be separated, the light must be coming from a point source. Biblical scholars argued this long before current theories about the formation of the Sun or the discovery of photosynthesis. I mentioned this already.

    And modern theories about the formation of the Sun has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

    Why are you so rooted in the idea that evolution is the only reason to accept an ancient Earth? You keep insisting that, even though clear evidence is being given to you that that isn’t so. It doen’t exactly pain a flattering picture of your mental faculties to keep insisting that in spite of clear evidence otherwise.

    Maz: “So ‘minority’ and ‘radical’ means that they are…we are… wrong? So the majority is always right, yes?”

    Clearly, no. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can’t reasonably claim that the Holocaust was a hoax, for example, just because the majority isn’t always right.

    Maz: “So are you saying that our TRANSLATION of the original Hebrew is in error?”

    Yes.

    Maz: “In other words we cannot understand what it means unless we get a qualification in Hebrew language?”

    No. It’s not nearly that black and white.

    Maz: “Do you think God would have had a translation of His Word full of errors and mistranslations? ESPECIALLY IN GENESIS? (Strange).”

    Again, I invite you to look back at what people at the time thought Biblical scenes looked like, when they didn’t have the benefit of modern archaeological findings to show them otherwise. They got all sorts of things completely wrong.

    Maz: “Would they have been in such error? Didn’t THEY know the original Hebrew? Ofcourse they did. Would they have translated it as correcty as possible? Yes, ofcourse they would.”

    I’m not saying that they didn’t do the best job they possibly could. They were still men, though, and capable of making mistakes.

    Don’t all of us make mistakes in understanding the Bible? Who do you know that gets it perfectly right on every reading?

    Maz: “So we have scholars on both sides that say ‘you’re wrong’. So who is unbiased enough to say who is really right?”

    I have an idea. Both sides make statements about the natural world. The side that is wrong should be at variance with observable fact. That’s no guarantee that a side that is not at variance with the facts is right, of course, but at least we can eliminate error.

    Guess which side is at variance with observable fact?

    Maz: “There goes the ‘who are you to tell God…’, That is not what I am doing…”

    Your words: “If God used evolution He would have plainly written it in His Word.”

    What is that besides telling God what would and would not be included?

    Maz: “any more than you are telling God what He ACTUALLY SAID in Genesis rather than what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN that He said.”

    Not true. I am telling you ways to interpret the words that are there that are fully consistent with the language. You are advocating the insertion of completely new content.

    Maz: “but don’t you realize that the ground was also cursed with death and I believe everything else came under the curse of death at that point (including the pain of child-birth for Eve).”

    False, unless you want to make stuff up. The ground was cursed with thorns and thistles, which are not death. Pain is not death. (And please go back to my question about what zero multiplied by something is. God didn’t say He would make it painful; He said that the pain would be greatly multiplied.)

    Maz: “At the end of the ages God will restore what Adam lost, and that includes EVERYTHING, as we see in Isaiah 11 v 6-9″

    This passage never states that the things that God will institute are things that we lost. This appears to be an assumption on your part, unless you can you point to a passage that does.

    Maz: “And in Romans it speaks of the ”whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. And not only they, but…..we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is the redemption of our body.” The WHOLE CREATION is waiting for redemption from the curse.”

    This is a passage which young-Earth creationists have traditionally interpreted as allegory. You still haven’t really addressed that point.

    Biblical scholars have often maintained that “creation” is the wrong word in that passage. It’s interesting to note that a prominent one was a young-Earth creationist who wrote a rather prominent commentary (John Gill). I invite you to check this out for yourself. He insists that the right word is “Gentiles”, and that translating it “creation” is a violation of context. (It does seem odd, when you think about it, that Paul would stop describing the relationship of Jews and Gentiles to God to talk about all of creation for a bit, then return to the original subject matter without any clear context shift in either case.)

    Maz: “If God made pain, suffering and death….it was not BEFORE sin….but a RESULT of sin by man.”

    Again, the Bible indicates that God stopped creating before man sinned; Genesis 2:2 says that “on the seventh day God ended His work“. This either means that Genesis 2:2 is wrong or that someone else made pain, suffering, and death (which I could easily contradict with other Scriptures if you like). The only alternative seems to be that they existed before Adam sinned, but that their reach to man was limited somehow.

    Maz: “Gene duplication is not NEW information, it is a COPY of what is ALREADY THERE.
    New information is not CREATED.”

    Is too. A full 500-gigabyte hard drive has twice as much information as a full 250-gigabyte hard drive, even if the former merely has two copies of the latter. (Again, I invite you to study information theory.)

    Besides, if you were to study how gene duplication actually occurs, you would see that the new gene is actually made. And your objection does nothing to address point mutations in one or both of the duplicate genes.

    Maz: “Variation…yes. Evolution….No.”

    That kind of variation is evolution.

    Maz: “But Gods Creation IS important….it reveals an Almighty Creator God, Who created ALL THINGS by HIS POWER ALONE. He says a lot about it in other passages in the Bible, especially in Isaiah…Ch’s 40 v 26: 42 v 5: 45 v 12, 18: and also He has to remind Job of His creation. It IS important, to God…and it should be to us.”

    Let me clarify. It may be that God considers the fact that we know He created much more important than that we know exactly how it was done.

    While we’re on the subject of Job, though, let me point at a quick couple of verses that seems to corroborate the view of the atmosphere that I mentioned earlier: Job 38:4, 9.

    Maz: “It also reveals how sin entered the world and how the ‘very good’ world was cursed and how death and disease entered. Even the weeds in your garden are a sign of the curse.”

    Even though we differ about God’s creative method, we seem pretty unified about the message. And maybe that’s the point.

    Maz: “And let me ask you a question, why would He make Adam an adult, looking like he is older than a day?”

    Stature alone is perhaps the poorest indicator of age.

    Let’s posit someone with a detailed knowledge of human anatomy and a battery of instruments who lands next to Adam five minutes after his creation. He goes to work looking for the more reliable telltale indicators of age: coloration and elasticity of the skin, tooth enamel wear, hair consistency, telomere length, and so on.

    I’m not convinced that Adam would have had an apparent age — certainly not one that would have been consistent along multiple lines of independent inquiry, as the age of the Earth is.

    More than that, the Earth has an apparent history. Would our theoretical scientist be able to find evidence of the broken leg Adam had when he was a six-year-old boy? The scar tissue sustained from various accidents along the way? The wear and tear on his digestive tract?

    This is the nature of the history we find surrounding Earth. If that history is merely an illusion, what are we to think about the nature of God and the things that are supposed to be “clearly seen” in creation (Romans 1:20)?

    Maz: “What image are YOU trying to form God into?”

    Scripture tells me that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18) and that His attributes are clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:20). That’s good enough for me.

    Maz: “Yes, just LOOK around at Gods creation without your preconceived ideas and theories, and SEE the wonders that God created……this is one thing I do not understand about evolutionists of any type, shape or form….that they look at nature and CANNOT SEE it’s beauty, it’s design, it’s complexity. There is no way it JUST HAPPENED. (Without a Divine Hand!)”

    I have never said — or even attempted to imply — that creation is not remarkable. Nor have I said or implied that it “just happened”. If God created through evolution, it was at all times under His complete control.

    Why are you so fond of putting words in the mouths of people with whom you do not agree?

    Maz: “You are a Christian accusing other Christians (Young Earthers) of lying (”massive lies” I believe you said). How would you feel if someone….another brother in Christ, said that of you?”

    If I were in the position of teaching my Christian brethren, and if there were solid, empirical evidence that what I was saying was wrong even though I knew better, then I would certainly hope that someone would call me on the carpet for it!

    I’m willing to believe that most young-Earth creationist teachers are merely misled. They hear some anecdote or bit of “evidence” from someone that they assume is reliable and parrot it without checking for themselves. But the history of young-Earth creationism is replete with teachers who are told exactly why their “evidence” is wrong, but they continue to trot out the same old lines anyway. The commonly-repeated “evidence” that I hear over and over again has been known to be invalid for decades, even centuries in some cases!

    And then there are the more ignominious cases, such as a recent trial in Dover, PA, where Intelligent Design advocates were caught lying under oath about what they had done in order to advance their cause.

    This sort of deliberate “lying for Jesus” is what I mean to denounce.

    Maz: “I trust those YE’s completely. They sound like they are talking sense to me let alone with the scientific evidence they present.”

    Of course they sound like they’re making sense. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t continue to have traction with their teaching. People would immediately see it for the poppycock it is and ignore it.

    They commonly use techniques used in politics and advertising to make it sound like they have a point, exploiting bugs in human thinking that make things sound like good common sense even though they’re flatly illogical. A favorite tactic, for example, is to pretend that apparent evidence against evolution is evidence that creation is correct, even though that’s not true.

    Think, now: Have you ever been presented with scientific evidence for creation, not merely against evolution?

    (I say “apparent evidence against evolution” because I have yet to run into a bit of “evidence” that isn’t based on a grossly distorted view of evolution itself; they like to claim victory for denouncing this distorted view rather than the actual view. And this after more than twenty years in the young-Earth creationist camp, desperately wanting there to be a good, solid bit of evidence.)

    Maz: “David Attenborough is one person who is always using such words as ‘probably’ and ‘may have’ and ‘it’s believed’ and ‘possibly’ all through his programs…I’v heard it and it really annoys me that he says it, and says it as if it is actually FACT!”

    That’s because of how science comes to understand what it comes to understand. It tacitly acknowledges that any idea, no matter how solid it seems, can be overturned immediately by the discovery of new data that forces us to re-examine our ideas. It is the responsible scientific documentary that admits that we don’t know.

    (Of course, there is a fair bit of difference between acknowledging that we don’t know the full truth and doubting because we don’t know the full truth. Things could fall sideways tomorrow, for example, for all science knows. It’s responsible to acknowledge that the understanding of science is limited, but it’s often silly to claim that the information being discussed is really in doubt.)

    That’s the difference between science and dogma that seems to be escaping you. Science never claims to have the full truth. Dogma claims that it cannot possibly be in error.

    Maz: “You say evolutionists use such words if they are unsure of an answer, ”and be careful to make no absolute claims about being correct in it’s assumptions until new evidence gives some form of confirmation for or against,” The trouble is, even when the evidence does NOT give confirmation, or there is a lack of it, they STILL make absolute claims about being correct in their assumptions and they still believe in it!”

    There will always be gaps in any scientific explanation. This does not invalidate its claims. Evidence against the current explanation is what counts; otherwise, science would never get anything done.

    (“You may believe that tennis balls fall when dropped close to Earth’s surface, but you have no evidence about this tennis ball! Why do you continue to make that claim?”)

    Maz: “I was listening to someone talking about the eye again the other day, and that scientists don’t really know how it evolved….BUT, they will NOT ACCEPT that it did not evolve, and they will put anyone down that believes any other way than evolution. It has happened, and it does happen.”

    That’s because there’s good, solid evidence that evolution is happening and has happened. There’s no other proposition that consistently explains all the observed data.

    Besides that, no scientific theory has complete information from top to bottom. If your requirement for accepting something is completeness of information, you will need to reject Christianity, too; God hasn’t told us everything, nor does He seem interested in doing so.

    Maz: “That kind of attitude has been present more than once on this site.”

    Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It’s elementary logic. If you want to refute a notion, you can’t point to absences; you have to point to contradictions.

  77. Chris C. said

    Hey MattF, don’t know if you read any of the other thread regarding Darwin and evolution but I just wanted to say thanks for your comments. I have spent 1100 posts discussing evolution with Maz and a gentleman named Bob and am still facing the “If evolution is true, why don’t we see transitional forms all around us?” question. You seem articulate, perhaps you might offer a different response to this question than I have in my 20 or so attempts.

  78. Jeff42 said

    MattF,

    What’s your take on Exodus 31:15-17? In that context “six days” is used twice. In 31:15 it obviously means six literal 24 hour days. Do you interpret the same phrase in 31:17 to mean six indeterminate periods of time?

  79. Maz said

    Chris: The question is valid, and I for one have not had a satisfactory answer……no amount of articulation is going to produce more fossils with any evidence of millions of years of ”missing links”. Why do you think the evolutionist is STILL looking?

  80. Maz said

    MattF: Re: Henrietta Lacks…..things are doing that every single day….consuming food and multiplying…all on their own!

    Moses wrote, what he didn’t see, therefore the Spirit of God inspired his writing, and from the Spirits vantage point, the sun would NOT appear, He, the Spirit that was there in the Beginninng, SAID, it was MADE on the fourth day. If it was there in the Beginning, there would have been light in verse two….unless you believe that when God said, ”Let there be light”, He really meant, ”Let there be the sun!” Explain.

    God cannot lie….I agree with that….so what about Genesis?!

    You know, the ”commonly repeated evidence” I hear from evolutionists can also be proved to be invalid…….by scientists WHO KNOW. I have a list of hundreds that believe in the Biblical Creation….as I said in a post on ”Darwin”. Men who are well qualified to speak in their respective fields. Scientists from both sides have differing interpretations of the SAME evidence, but only one is right. You say the evolutionist scientist is, I say the Creation scientist is…..both well educated scientists……how can one be so wrong with all their expertise?
    By their belief system ONLY.

    You talk about ID’s lying in court….but were they Christians? Not all ID’s believe in God, don’t forget.

    Yes, I have been presented with evidence FOR Creation aswell as AGAINST evolution…..it goes together.
    Pity that doesn’t happen in many schools….they are’nt allowed to teach Creation, just the evolutionistic dogma…ONE WAY. What an outcry would come from evolutionists if it was the
    other way around!

    ”Evidence AGAINST the current explanation is what counts, otherwise science would never get anything done.” Now you are saying the opposite of what you have just apparently accused me of. Or have I misread you?

    ”…there’s good solid, evidence that evolution is happening and has happened. There’s no other proposition that consistently explains all the observed data”.
    No ‘good’, no ‘solid’, no ‘evidence’ for evolution happening or has ever happened on this earth….in fact the fossil evidence should be far more reliable than present day observation…..do I need to repeat myself yet again? Can’t say anything different than what I have said before. Evolutionists just won’t acknowledge it.

    I don’t need the Bible to tell me completely EVERYTHING for me to believe in God….He has proved HIMSELF to me many times. There’s no comparison to evidence for evolution and the evidence a believer has for the existence of their Father God.

    The attitude I was talking about was the demeaning kind that looks down on us because we believe in a Divine Creator, and everything was created by Him. That makes us look ‘fools’ in some peoples eyes, and they call as such (aswell as other colourful phrases, altho downright rudeness is not allowed on here….they had to ban a certain person for that).

    Don’t know if I touched on ALL you said, your posts are SO LONG! Yes, I know you are trying to answer ALL my points, but we need to somehow keep it shorter. I tend not to read some of it!

  81. Maz said

    MattF: …and any others interested, that list of scientists is on the (naturally) Answers in Genesis website under ‘Get Answers’, then click on ‘Creation Scientists (and other biographies)’.
    Under the form you will find the list of modern scientists who have accepted the Biblical account of Creation. They include Physicists, Geologists, Biochemists, Palaeontologists, Microbiologists and many others.

  82. F. L. A. said

    I had a hunch it would be those kind of “scientists”.Naturally.
    Is this the only source in which to locate such men and women of…uh,…science?

  83. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”…men and women of…uh,…science?” That says a lot doesn’t it, and only confirms my idea of the attitude that non-christian, non-creationist people tend to have about those who don’t follow the evolutionary pathway…….filled with gaps……mind your step!

    I havn’t seen any other source, but if the scientists believe in the Biblical account of Creation then it will obviously be on a Christian/Creationist web site. An evolution web site is hardly going to print them are they?

  84. Maz said

    F.L.A: For you and any others of like mind, I am posting part of an interview with a plate techtonics expert.
    First published: Creation 19(3):40–43. June 1997
    by Carl Wieland and Don Batten.

    Interview with plate tectonics expert Dr John Baumgardner.

    John Baumgardner (B.S, M.S., Ph.D (UCLA)) is a geophysicist employed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His work involves detailed computer modeling of the structure and processes of the earth’s interior, as well as a variety of other fluid dynamics phenomena.

    [Creation magazine]: Dr Baumgardner, some say that because of continental drift (the idea that the continents have broken apart and moved thousands of miles) one has to believe in ‘millions of years’.

    [John Baumgardner:] Well, I believe there is now overwhelming evidence in favour of continental break-up and large-scale plate tectonic activity. The acceptance of these concepts is an amazing example of a scientific revolution, which occurred roughly between 1960 and 1970. However, this revolution did not go far enough, because the earth science community neglected and suppressed the evidence for catastrophism—large-scale, rapid change—throughout the geological record. So the timescale the uniformitarian scientists today are using is dramatically too long. The strong weight of evidence is that there was a massive catastrophe, corresponding to the Genesis Flood, which involved large and rapid continental movements. My conclusion is that the only mechanism capable of producing that scale of catastrophe and not wrecking the planet in the process had to be internal to the earth.

    I am persuaded it involved rapid subduction (sinking) of the pre-Flood ocean floor, pulling the ‘plates’ apart at the beginning of the Flood, and was probably associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ described in Scripture.

    [CM]: A 1993 New Scientist article spoke highly of your 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonics.2

    [JB]: There are to my knowledge three other computer codes for modeling the earth’s mantle and so on, in the world. These other three use a mathematical method not so well suited for the modern parallel supercomputers. The one I developed uses the finite element technique and performs very well on the new, very large supercomputers. So, many of my colleagues are recognizing it as the most capable code in the world.

    Last year NASA funded this effort as one of the nine grand challenge projects for the next three years in their High Performance Computing and Communication initiative, and are supporting two post-doctoral researchers to collaborate with me to improve it, and apply it to study the earth.

    This code is comparable to what are called general circulation models for the atmosphere and oceans, which are some of the largest codes in the world in terms of how much machine power they consume. It’s got lots of physics in it to model the details of the mechanical behaviour of the silicate rock inside the earth. My present focus is to make the representation of the tectonic plates even more realistic. So the code is in an ongoing state of development, but it’s come a long way in the last 15 years.

    [CM]: We understand you’ve shown that as these floating blocks of rock push down into the material below, things get hotter, so the ‘slipperyness’ increases and there’s a runaway effect. The faster they sink the hotter they get, so the faster they can sink.

    [JB]: Yes—rock that represents the ocean floor is colder, and therefore denser than the rock below it and so can sink into the earth’s interior. And the properties of the rock inside the earth, especially at the high temperatures that exist there, make it possible for the colder rock from the earth’s surface to peel away and sink in a runaway manner down through the mantle—very rapidly.

    [CM]: So this ‘happens’ on your computer model all by itself, from the laws of science—over a short time-scale, not millions of years?

    [JB]: That’s correct. Exactly how long is something I’m working to refine. But it seems that once this sinking of the pre-Flood ocean floor (in a conveyor-belt-like fashion down into the earth, pulling things apart behind it) starts, it is not a slow process spanning millions of years—it’s almost certain that it runs to completion and ‘recycles’ all of the existing floor in a few weeks or months.

    [CM]: You’re part of a team of top creation scientists3 which is developing a model of catastrophic plate tectonics based on this mechanism, which believes the continents broke up (from a single landmass) during, not after the Flood as some have proposed.

    [JB]: Yes. There is compelling evidence from the fossil-bearing sediments on the continents that the breakup occurred during the time these sediments were being deposited. We are convinced that this ‘continental sprint’ as it’s been called, was during the time of the Flood, and part of the mechanism for it.

    [CM]: How did you become a Christian?

    [JB]:Primarily through a verse by verse Bible study in the Gospel of John, in a college Sunday School class when I was 26 years old. It focused on the question of who is this Jesus Christ, and is he authentic or not? I had little church background prior to that point, but a lot of scientific training. I was well schooled in evolution, and it took several months before I started to realize the problems with this idea. Later, I was exposed to the evidence for a young earth and realized that the case for it was indeed solid.

    [CM]: Why is six-day, recent creation important?

    [JB]: I believe it’s a pivotal issue in regard to the reliability of God’s Word. It ultimately bears on the authenticity of Jesus, because Jesus put his stamp of authority on the writings of Moses, which taken at face value, indicate that the original earth was a perfect world, one which included man and woman, one in which there was no death. There were no carnivorous animals—all the animals and man were given the green plants to eat. To make sense of the history of the world as the Bible lays it out, does not allow for millions of years, but does require that there be a catastrophe which destroyed all the air-breathing land life except for that preserved in Noah’s Ark. So I believe there is no negotiation possible on this question.

    The rest can be found on AiG’s web site (ofcourse!).

  85. abc's said

    Maz
    84

    That article is about a couple of guys that created a computer program that demonstrates their preconceived notions. That’s exactly what this paragraph is saying.

    “You’re part of a team of top creation scientists3 which is developing a model of catastrophic plate tectonics based on this mechanism, which believes the continents broke up (from a single landmass) during, not after the Flood as some have proposed.”

    Because it was printed at a creationist source, that almost guarantees that it was never peer reviewed by other scientists in the field.
    It’s just plainly not the truth.

  86. Jeff42 said

    “It’s just plainly not the truth.” – Abc’s

    Careful with the logic there Abc’s. It doesn’t follow that just because something isn’t “peer reviewed,” that is isn’t the truth. There are many examples in history of men whose ideas were rejected by the majority of their peers that, nevertheless, turned out to be right.

  87. abc's said

    Jeff42

    That wasn’t my logic.
    I just didn’t realize that I would need to explain that their ideas are false because they stand in direct contradiction to the evidence and established theories that have been peer reviewed.

  88. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”Because it was printed at a creationist source, that almost guarantees that it was never peer reviewed by other scientists in their field.”
    What would guarantee it was never peer reviewed by other scientists in their field is the fact that it was a Creationist who did it, and the evolutionist scientists would have been biased against it. This is the prejudice that meets the Creationist scientist head-on. They, like you and other evolutionists, don’t even consider their work to be of any worth just because they are Creationists and therefore do not believe in evolution. That prejudice, and that attitude has been prevalent on this site, which just confirms again what I have been saying.

  89. abc's said

    Maz

    We already discussed that on a different thread. It isn’t true.
    It is up to the people who write the papers to submit them for review by other experts. They don’t submit them, because they know it isn’t supported by the evidence.

  90. Maz said

    Abc’s: Evolution scientists and Creation scientists mix as well as oil and water………and never the twain shall agree.
    They don’t submit them? That is not true. Some have tried and failed. They have evidence, it’s just not the evidence that agrees with evolutionary theory.
    You just don’t get it do you?

  91. Maz said

    Can Creationists really be scientists?

    It shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many real scientists who believed in biblical creation. Consider Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible. Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, also believed the Genesis creation account. So also did the Dutch geologist Nicolaus Steno (1631–1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy.

    Even in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, there were prominent Bible-believing English scientists, such as chemists Andrew Ure (1778–1857) and John Murray (1786?–1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759–1850), and geologist George Young (1777–1848). James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Indeed, Maxwell’s equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution. These and many other great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.

    Dr. John Baumgardner
    Today there are many other Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scripture. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields,5 which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global Flood recorded in Genesis. Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian.6

    Consider the biblical creationist Georgia Purdom (one of the authors of this book) who has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics. Dr. Purdom certainly understands DNA, mutations, and natural selection. However, she is convinced that these do not support evolution because such processes go in the “wrong direction” to make evolution work.7 On the contrary, they confirm biblical creation.

    I have a Ph.D. from a secular university and have done extensive research in solar astrophysics. In my Ph.D. research, I made a number of discoveries about the nature of near-surface solar flows, including the detection of a never-before-seen polar alignment of supergranules, as well as patterns indicative of giant over-turning cells. Was I hindered in my research by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true? No, it’s just the reverse. It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation, and experimentation.

    Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists. But, in a way, an evolutionist is being inconsistent when he or she does science. The big bang supporter claims the universe is a random chance event, and yet he or she studies it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the byproducts of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.

  92. abc's said

    Maz

    You don’t know what you are saying. I have taken part in the peer review vetting process several times. I have been on both sides of the process.

    Since you are so interested in biology, physics and geophysics I encourage you to undertake some new research and submit your findings to a local college professor with expertise in the area you decide to contribute to.

    See what happens.

  93. Maz said

    Abc’s: Have you passed any Creationist work for publication?

  94. abc's said

    No, because the evidence doesn’t support a theory of a young Universe that was created in a few days.

  95. Maz said

    Abc’s: Which proves my point.
    Here is some more information on peer reviews.

    Feedback 2008
    Creationism, Science and Peer Review.

    We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-to-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.
    Introduction
    Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work. The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation.

    One of the ways they do this is to show that a particular creationist scientist either does not participate in the main stream scientific community, or—if they do—that they do not actually do research in, or are not regarded as sufficiently competent in relation to, the topics that they write about. Critics also claim that creationist scientists do not publish their ‘research’ in the recognised mainstream scientific journals. And this clearly indicates to critics of scientific creationism that creationist theories are ‘junk science’ because such theories have not passed the normal peer review process that all other recognized scientific research has had to undergo.

    Typical of demands for peer review opponents of young-earth creationism is the physiologist Dr Richard Meiss of the Indiana University School of Medicine: ‘If the truths of creation science were as plainly manifest and as crashingly obvious as its proponents claim, surely they could convince at least a few outside reviewers of their validity on scientific merit alone.’1 Likewise, self-professed progressive creationist who is really a theistic evolutionary sympathizer Greg Neyman of the AnswersInCreation website:

    ‘Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously … Basically, several other scientists who are experts in the field examine your work to see if it contains errors. Occasionally you will see young earth claims of their work being peer-reviewed. … However, for young earth work to be taken seriously, it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists … Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America, [not just] on the ICR website. If the RATE [Radio isotopes and the Age of The Earth] project truly publishes some work which is good enough for publication in secular journals, then they would surely pursue that route. It is clear in this case that the “peers” for these articles are other young-earth proponents, which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the works.’
    Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted.

    Proponents of young-earth creationism are not the only scientists who have experienced this kind of discrimination. Scientists that reject the commonly asserted ‘consensus’ view of climate change (that the earth is abnormally warming as a result of human-caused carbon emissions) are routinely derided in the popular media as ‘pseudoscientists’, ‘heretics’, ‘on the payroll of the big multinationals’ or as having the moral credit of a holocaust denier. In fact, these modern ideological disagreements and debates mirror many scientific debates that have occurred throughout history.

    What value, then, is peer review? How does it work? Why do creationist scientists generally not submit their work to peer review by scientists who do not accept scientific creationism?

    The Importance of Peer Review
    As someone who has peer reviewed others’ work and who has also had my own work peer-reviewed, I want to affirm the value and importance of peer review. On many occasions my own submissions and those of others have been greatly improved by reviewers’ feedback. I have also, at times, recommended against publishing a particular submission—not because I disagreed with the author’s conclusions, but because I discovered false assumptions or serious flaws in the arguments presented. However, it must be remembered that peer review is not a perfect process. It is done by imperfect and sinful human beings in a fallen world.

    Nevertheless, in many people’s estimation the description ‘peer-reviewed’ has become shorthand for ‘quality.’ To say that an article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is to assert scientific validation and approval. To say that an article has not been peer-reviewed is tantamount to calling it disreputable. As Lawrence Altman put it: ‘[P]assing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.’

    Moreover, additional kudos and prestige is attached to those articles published in the leading journals such as Nature and Science. Yet as Thomas Stossel, a Professor at Harvard Medical School, stated:

    ‘But unbeknownst to the media, the journals at the top got there because of herd behavior by researchers, not because they are better than lower-tier journals at vetting research quality. Here’s why: Researchers submit their best work to the top journals, which can therefore afford to maintain their prestige by rejecting, not publishing, many high quality papers. That’s brand creation—not science. Most of their editorial effort goes into deciding which submitted papers are sufficiently newsworthy. Anonymous peer review by jealous competitors has its merits, but it has a tendency to select for fashionable if relatively unoriginal and inoffensive papers … although these reports often do not substantively advance scientific knowledge, and many subsequently are invalidated.’
    It should also be noted that peer review panels do not necessarily determine whether an article is published. The editors of the journal have the final say, and can often override the recommendations of peer reviewers.

    In any case, many landmark scientific papers (like Watson’s and Crick’s on DNA6) were never subjected to peer review, and as David Shatz has pointed out, ‘many heavily cited papers, including some describing work which won a Nobel Prize, were originally rejected by peer review.’

    The First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) was first formulated by German physician J. R Mayer in 1842. However, Mayer’s revolutionary research was rejected by the leading German physics journal Annalen der Physik. The leading journal Nature also admitted in a mea culpa editorial:

    ‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.—Nature

    ‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.’
    Nature also turned down Enrico Fermi’s paper on weak interaction theory of beta decay because it was allegedly too remote from reality, so Fermi had to submit to Zeitschrift für Physik instead, with success.

    Suffice to say, the peer review process is not foolproof and has many problems and limitations.

  96. abc's said

    Maz

    I understand the argument you are making, it’s nothing new.

    Submit some original creation research to an expert in the field.

    See what happens.

  97. Maz said

    Abc’s: If scientists with well earned qualifications and letters after their name cannot get a fair peer review what chance have I got…..I have a GCE ‘O’ level with credit, in Art!

  98. abc's said

    Nothing wrong with art.

    If you try to get published in the journal Nature, your chances are probably stupefyingly low.

    I’m sure that a local college professor will give it a look though. People earn honorary doctorates like that all of the time.

  99. Maz said

    Abc’s: I’m sure I have nothing original or unique to add to the scientific world. My writing history has been in the area of science fiction/romance novels and short stories.

  100. MattF said

    Chris C.: “I have spent 1100 posts discussing evolution with Maz and a gentleman named Bob and am still facing the “If evolution is true, why don’t we see transitional forms all around us?” question. You seem articulate, perhaps you might offer a different response to this question than I have in my 20 or so attempts.”

    Thank you for your flattery. :) I don’t have time to check the other thread out right now, but it might be worth pointing out that every organism, past and present, is a transitional form. They are all, during their lifetime, at the forefront of their particular branch of evolutionary history.

    To put it another way: Every living thing, even one we call “transitional”, is a fully-formed organism. It’s not as if Ambulocetus thought to itself, “Gee, if I keep the family line going the way it’s going, one of my great-to-the-nth-grandchildren will be a whale someday.” Every organism is the result of all its ancestors’ previous naturally selected adaptations to the environment. An organism also has no control over which of its own attributes will be kept by its descendants and which will be winnowed out. We merely call some forms “transitional” because we didn’t know about them before and they (at least partially) fill in a gap we had until we found them.

    It’s also a mistake to think that if we could take all the organisms alive today and line them up from least to most “complex” (or least to most “evolved”) that they’d directly reflect evolutionary history. Modern organisms represent the very tips of the branches of the phylogenetic tree, not anything along the branches themselves (or the trunk). Evolution also doesn’t follow a single, well-defined, linear path; it acts on different organisms in different environments in different ways, and can even impose multiple pressures on a single organism.

    If they can’t see why this tells us “why we don’t see transitional forms all around us” (in a sense, we do), they aren’t interested in discussing evolution — merely their own private notion of it, and there’s no reason you should feel compelled to convince them of the truth of their delusional misunderstanding of the theory.

    Jeff42: “What’s your take on Exodus 31:15-17? In that context “six days” is used twice. In 31:15 it obviously means six literal 24 hour days. Do you interpret the same phrase in 31:17 to mean six indeterminate periods of time?”

    Here’s my take on words that have multiple literal meanings (such as “day”). It would be much easier to show this as a flowchart, but I’ll try anyway.

    Question 1: Is there a most common meaning of the word in question? (For example, “yom” — the word used for “day” in Genesis 1 and Exodus 31:15-17 — most frequently refers to a period of 24 hours, though not exclusively.) If so, and if the rest of the questions can be answered “No”, then that is most likely the meaning of the word.

    Question 2: Is there a use of that word in the direct context of the passage where the word is clearly not used in its most common sense no matter how you interpret the use of the word in question (e.g., Genesis 2:4 in the context of Genesis 1)? If so, the meaning of the word in question may follow.

    Question 3: Is there a use of that word in a parallel portion of Scripture where the meaning of the original word in doubt is modified? If so, the meaning we understand the original word to have must be adjusted accordingly. (Whether or not this is true in Genesis 1 seems to depend on whom you ask; the best ones that have been presented to me still appear to be on the level of analogy, so I don’t personally accept them.)

    Question 4: Is the same subject addressed in a different portion of Scripture that might eliminate some or all of the meanings of that word? If so, the meaning we understand the original word to have must be modified. (A phrase commonly used to describe some elements of both God and creation, commonly translated “everlasting” or “from everlasting to everlasting” — “olam olam” — has some interesting implications with respect to this. I invite you to study it.)

    Question 5: Is there a modifying phrase used for this word that appears elsewhere in Scripture which might clarify the word in doubt (e.g, “evening and morning” used to modify “vision” in Daniel 8:26 and “day” in Genesis 1)? If so, the meaning we understand the original word to have might be changed.

    Question 6: Is there a meaning that clearly violates directly observable reality (e.g., “day” to mean “24 hours” in Genesis 1)? If so, the nonsensical meanings must be discarded. (Note that even if a miracle is performed, the forensic signs of the results of that miracle persist in directly observable reality. For example, if someone performed a spectroscopic analysis on the water Jesus turned into wine after He performed the miracle, she would find that the substance really was wine. The forensic results, if they are available, should line up with the finishing phenomena of the miracle performed.)

    If, after all this, the meaning is still ambiguous, we have to consider other possibilities. Is it possible that there is more than one intended meaning, for example?

    Based on this outline, it seems clear that “yom” in Exodus 31:15-17 refers to a period of 24 hours. It also seems clear that “yom” in Genesis 1 does not.

    Maz: “no amount of articulation is going to produce more fossils with any evidence of millions of years of ”missing links”.”

    First of all, the “missing links” game is an unfairly moving target, especially given the dearth of fossil evidence at all. If there are two species, A and B, and you ask for a link in between them, let’s say one is found — we’ll call it A prime. Now, to the person who will not be convinced by any evidence no matter how compelling, there are two missing links — one between A and A prime and one between A prime and B. (This is a well-understood logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts”.)

    A far better question to ask is this: Of the fossilized transitional forms that have been found, which ones represent intermediary forms between two species in a way consistent with evolutionary theory? More importantly, why? (Yes — there are specific things a transitional form between A and B is supposed to exhibit. It’s not merely “half A and half B”. If it violates those things, even if it bears some resemblance to A and some resemblance to B, the organism in question cannot be a transitional form between A and B. The way a creature looks alone is not the best indication of its evolutionary history — not by a long shot.)

    Maz: “Why do you think the evolutionist is STILL looking?”

    Two chief reasons, though there are others. First, the evolutionist remembers that her “answers” might always be contradicted by further evidence. Any evidence that she later finds is either refutation of her stance or confirming evidence of it. It is, therefore, intellectually honest to keep looking; that way, she can either inform people why she thinks the way she does (if she is confirmed) or stop spreading misinformation as soon as possible (if she is refuted). Note that this would also be in the best interest of creationists with respect to intellectual honesty, but one never sees it. Second, her curiosity drives her. The rarity of fossils guarantees that she will never have the complete picture, but she still wants to see as much as she can. The only way to get more of the picture of the natural world as it truly exists and has existed is to continue to investigate reality.

    Maz: “Re: Henrietta Lacks…..things are doing that every single day….consuming food and multiplying…all on their own!”

    Yes. But human cells, all on their own and separated from the body, do not. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand the significance?

    Maz: “Moses wrote, what he didn’t see,”

    Cite? (You may be right, but I don’t know, and I’ve seen you make mention of made-up stuff.)

    Maz: “the Spirit that was there in the Beginninng, SAID, it was MADE on the fourth day.”

    Not exactly. He said that it was made while describing the context of Day Four. Maybe He made it then, maybe He had made it (past perfect) so that it would appear in the firmament of heaven. The passage isn’t absolutely clear. And as I’ve said, I’m not the only one to think so; even native Hebrew Bible scholars argued this point, long before the advent of modern science.

    Maz: “If it was there in the Beginning, there would have been light in verse two….unless you believe that when God said, ”Let there be light”, He really meant, ”Let there be the sun!” Explain.”

    The nebular hypothesis of the formation of the Solar System seems to explain this nicely. In the beginning, the Earth would have been dark. When the Sun shone for the first time, light would have been visible from the surface of the Earth for the first time. (Well, about eight minutes later, but you know what I mean.)

    Maz: “God cannot lie….I agree with that….so what about Genesis?!”

    I do not think Genesis is a lie. I think it is often misunderstood, but that is not the same thing.

    More to the point, I do not think God can lie in His creation or in Scripture. If you could wrap your head around the mountains of directly observable evidence against the young-Earth position, you would understand why I bring this up.

    Maz: “You know, the ”commonly repeated evidence” I hear from evolutionists can also be proved to be invalid…….by scientists WHO KNOW.”

    Right. Science is a process; because reality is singular, some ideas will be shown to be wrong. The difference is that if a part of evolutionary evidence is proven to be mistaken or false, scientists modify or discard that part of the theory. If a part of young-Earth creationist “evidence” is proven to be mistaken or false, young-Earth creationists have gone right on touting it as true — as long as the idea makes good horse sense to people who are unfamiliar with scientific findings and aren’t likely to investigate for themselves.

    I can throw lots of specific examples into the ring if you’re interested. This general lack of honesty is one of the things that created the initial distance between young-Earth creationism and me, before I saw clearly that many of their chief tenets are nowhere to be found in Scripture, and some even misrepresent Scripture. (I’ve held back from doing so until now because the list of lies is a long one, as is the list of people who teach them; as you’ve pointed out, my posts are already long, and I have a job and a family to worry about as well.)

    Maz: “I have a list of hundreds that believe in the Biblical Creation….as I said in a post on ”Darwin”.”

    Oh, right. The list from Answers in Genesis. You know that most of that list is a lie, right?

    http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie014.html

    Maz: “how can one be so wrong with all their expertise?
    By their belief system ONLY.”

    If the belief system were the only factor, we’d expect to see acceptance of young-Earth creationism remain more or less the same (proportionally speaking) across all educational levels. After all, if belief is the only reason to accept or reject young-Earth creationism, why would the highest degree of education attained be a factor?

    Polls consistently show that the higher the educational level, the lower the number of people (proportionally) who believe in young-Earth creationism. (Here’s one: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3994/is_200707/ai_n19434016/pg_18)

    An easy way to explain this is that the more education one gets, the more likely one is to run into actual evidence that young-Earth creationism is wrong — assuming that people who are smart enough to get post-graduate degrees are also smart enough to know how to weigh evidence properly.

    Another easy way to explain this is to assert that young-Earth creationists are stupid, and are simply incapable of the kind of intelligence needed to attain post-graduate education. I certainly do not believe this to be the case.

    Can you think of another reason why acceptance of young-Earth creationism is consistently inversely proportional to educational level? (Interpreting data is hard, and it’s always possible that I’m missing an explanation staring me in the face.)

    Maz: “You talk about ID’s lying in court….but were they Christians? Not all ID’s believe in God, don’t forget.”

    They claimed to be. In fact, they were excoriated by the judge for assuming posts of religious leadership while apparently not finding a problem with lying under oath. It’s a matter of public record. A quote from the judge’s concluding statement:

    “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

    Oh, and no claiming that he was an activist judge. He was appointed by none other than George W. Bush, and was often reported as being one of the most conservative judges around. Fortunately, though, he knew lies when he saw them.

    Maz: “Yes, I have been presented with evidence FOR Creation aswell as AGAINST evolution…..it goes together.”

    Can you name some? Please?

    Maz: “Pity that doesn’t happen in many schools….they are’nt allowed to teach Creation, just the evolutionistic dogma…ONE WAY. What an outcry would come from evolutionists if it was the other way around!”

    I’d like to see creationism taught in the schools — in, say, a social studies course. The young-Earth creationist movement, for example, has had a profound effect on politics in American society; our young people are ill-served by having the topic be completely ignored.

    But it doesn’t belong in science class. It’s not science. (It makes no predictions, for example, that one could then go out and test to see whether or not the theory matches up with reality.)

    Maz: “”Evidence AGAINST the current explanation is what counts, otherwise science would never get anything done.” Now you are saying the opposite of what you have just apparently accused me of. Or have I misread you?”

    Clearly, you have. If we are to show that evolution is false, we must find evidence that contradicts it. Evidence that contradicts evolution, if it exists, is not necessarily evidence for creation.

    For it to qualify as evidence that contradicts evolution and is for creation, we must find out what creation would predict about a certain phenomenon and what evolution would predict about that phenomenon. If they are different, we must find out through experimentation what that phenomenon is actually like. The results will either serve as confirming evidence that one of the competing theories is correct — or, possibly, show that both theories are wrong. (Perhaps one or both needs to be modified, more evidence needs to be gathered, or both theories need to be completely discarded.)

    Maz: “No ‘good’, no ’solid’, no ‘evidence’ for evolution happening or has ever happened on this earth….”

    Surely, you’ve heard of forensic science — that we can reconstruct the past based on things we observe in the present?

    We see clear signs in the present that evolution occurred in the past. The evidence is mountainous.

    Maz: “in fact the fossil evidence should be far more reliable than present day observation…”

    Why? (The fossil record, for what it’s worth, corroborates evolution. But why is it more reliable than present-day observation?)

    There are much stronger lines of evidence for evolution than the fossil record.

    Maz: “..do I need to repeat myself yet again? Can’t say anything different than what I have said before. Evolutionists just won’t acknowledge it.”

    Maybe it would help if you gave some evidence that showed why what you say is true.

    Maz: “I don’t need the Bible to tell me completely EVERYTHING for me to believe in God….He has proved HIMSELF to me many times.”

    I agree with you.

    Maz: “There’s no comparison to evidence for evolution and the evidence a believer has for the existence of their Father God.”

    The only thing I mean to compare is the basis for human knowledge. I can’t think of a single thing humans claim to know about which they have complete information. It’s rather foolish to claim that one should reject evolution — or anything else — on the basis that the knowledge one has about it is not exhaustive.

    Maz: “Yes, I know you are trying to answer ALL my points, but we need to somehow keep it shorter. I tend not to read some of it!”

    Ah. That explains why I’ve had to repeat myself a lot. And why you seem to ignore perfectly good evidence.

    Maz: “An evolution web site is hardly going to print them are they?”

    It should. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

    Notoriety in science does not come from agreeing with what everyone else says. Notoriety comes from showing why that thing that everyone else is claiming is wrong. Einstein, for example, became famous because he showed why what Newton and legions of physicists who came afterward claimed was wrong. (Close, but wrong.) Scientists dream of overturning some widely-held notion with solid evidence, guaranteeing that they will be in the spotlight and studied by science students around the world (at least, until their ideas are overturned). Meekly going along with the status quo is a virtual guarantee of anonymity.

    There are a lot of resources, then, that dedicate time and space to refuting specific creationist claims with solid, observed fact and actual studies. They have to be able to refute creationist claims in the name of intellectual honesty, to show why one should accept the things they have to say. (Of course, since creationist claims often appeal to people’s notions of common sense instead of experimentation and logic, they often have to refute the same things over and over; and one really can’t blame them for getting tired of it and just disengaging after a while.) Regrettably, these resources are frequently ignored by the creationist community. (I admit to my shame that I ignored them for years, convinced that they couldn’t possibly have anything compelling to say at first and then later trying desperately to convince myself that young-Earth creationism was true by refusing to look at the evidence against it.)

    Now, how many evolutionists do you see on creationist websites, with specific claims addressed and answered, refuted with specific studies and not just rhetoric?

    Maz: “For you and any others of like mind, I am posting part of an interview with a plate techtonics expert.”

    I have significant programming experience, and can make a computer say anything I want it to. The fact that he came to his conclusions using a supercomputer proves nothing, unless he can show why his supercomputer simulation parallels reality.

    Maz: “The rest can be found on AiG’s web site (ofcourse!).”

    I invite you to investigate “No Answers In Genesis”, a website maintained in Australia that shows just how badly Answers In Genesis has warped the truth in order to keep pushing their teaching.

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

    I encourage you to look at what the representatives of Answers In Genesis have said and whether or not what they say is true, and not be tempted to excuse their words because they might convince someone to embrace Christendom. There is no excuse for calling someone to Christianity through a lie.

    Maz: “They have evidence, it’s just not the evidence that agrees with evolutionary theory.”

    Cite?

    Maz: “It shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many real scientists who believed in biblical creation. Consider Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.”

    He also died before the theory of evolution was posited. He doesn’t really count.

    Besides, acceptance of evolution does not mean that you deny that God created everything.

    Maz: “Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778)”

    He also died before the theory of evolution was posited. You might as well be saying that Relativity is wrong because Linnaeus didn’t advocate it.

    Besides, acceptance of evolution does not mean that you deny that God created everything.

    Maz: “Even in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, there were prominent Bible-believing English scientists”

    Such as Charles Lyell, a devout Christian who believed the Bible and was dragged, kicking and screaming, by the weight of the evidence before him as a geologist to conclude that the Earth really is old. Check out his book, Principles of Geology, which states in its concluding remarks:

    “We are prepared, therefore, to find that in time also the confines of the universe lie beyond the reach of mortal ken.  But in whatever direction we pursue our researches, whether in time or space, we discover every where the clear proofs of a Creative Intelligence, and of His foresight, wisdom, and power.”

    He predated radiometric dating and the theory of evolution, and still accepted that the evidence clearly indicates that the Earth is old.

    (This is a fairly common tactic of young-Earth creationist groups who list Bible-believing scientists. They either neglect to mention that the scientist in question pre-dates evolutionary theory or neglect to mention that believing in the Bible does not necessarily constitute acceptance of the ideas of a young Earth or of instantaneous creation.)

    Maz: “On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture.”

    Um, no. If you read the actual paper, he bases his “theory” on notions such as the idea that all of the hydrogen nuclei were created in alignment. There is no “principle of Scripture” that teaches this. More to the point, all he predicted was that the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune would be similar, a safe bet given their similar size and composition; he predicted nothing about their orientation or strength, which might have meant something.

    Maz: “However, she is convinced that these do not support evolution because such processes go in the “wrong direction” to make evolution work.”

    I’m skeptical, primarily because “wrong direction” doesn’t sound very specific. Do you have a link to her writings so that we know what she meant, so that we can watch things go in the “wrong direction” for ourselves, and so that we can verify that the “wrong direction” is the “right direction” for creation?

    Maz: “Was I hindered in my research by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true?”

    No more than any scientist is hindered by believing that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true. As I’ve tried to point out, believing in an old Earth and evolution are immaterial to believing in the truth of the Bible.

    Anyway, here’s a much better refutation of the article you chose to quote in full rather than point to:

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_creation_scientists.htm

  101. Jeff42 said

    MattF: “Based on this outline, it seems clear that ‘yom’ in Exodus 31:15-17 refers to a period of 24 hours. It also seems clear that ‘yom’ in Genesis 1 does not.”

    Just to clarify, you are saying that in Exodus 34:17 “yom” (… in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed) is referring to literal 24 hour days, but when “yom” is used in Genesis 1, the meaning is not literal 24 hour days. This would seem to set up a contradiction between Ex. 31 and Gen. 1. At this point I am not debating your answer. I simply want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.

    Also, just to clarify things, do you believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture? And do you believe that faith in Christ alone is the only way to salvation? I hope this does not offend you, but I am simply trying to get where you are coming from.

  102. Maz said

    MattF: ”..every organism, past and present, is transitional” That is YOUR interpretation of what you see. It is NOT fact.

    ..”they are’nt interested in discussing evolution….merely their own private notion of it..”
    I thot we were discussing whether preachers could preach evolution….in contrast, ofcourse, with creation which is in the Bible they purport to believe in.

    The discussion has TWO sides, not one. But that is evolutionists for you….all one sided.
    Our ”notion” is a belief just like evolution is a belief. Our interpretations of the ‘evidence’ differs, that’s all. You look from the point of ‘there is no God’, we look from the position that there is.

    Havn’t got time to read your voluminous post now, so will be back later.

  103. Maz said

    Jeff42: That is a good point! If the ‘day’ in Exodus was 24 hours…representing the ‘days’ of creation…..how come the ‘days’ of creation were not 24 hours long?

    MattF: See above. This is inconsistency of the highest order.

  104. MattF said

    Jeff42: “Just to clarify, you are saying that in Exodus 34:17 “yom” (… in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed) is referring to literal 24 hour days, but when “yom” is used in Genesis 1, the meaning is not literal 24 hour days. This would seem to set up a contradiction between Ex. 31 and Gen. 1. At this point I am not debating your answer. I simply want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.”

    Let me try to be more clear. I obviously muddled my words.

    I think that God purposely outlined His creation as He did in Genesis because He knew that, later, He would be using that outline as a model for humans to follow.

    I think (well, thought, but I’ll get to that in a moment) the commandment God was laying out in Genesis 31:15-17 refers, in the main, to how He wanted Israel to lay out its week — a collection of seven 24-hour days. The example He gave them to follow refers back to Genesis 1, where He worked for six periods and abstained from work on the seventh. The most straightforward way to refer to these days (in verse 15) is as 24-hour days.

    As I’ve mentioned before, this would be a powerful point for insisting that the days in Genesis 1 were 24 hours long if the Sabbath was only ever celebrated as one 24-hour day in seven 24-hour days. It wasn’t. And you’ll note that verse 13 actually makes it much less clear than I first surmised as I revisit the passage, since it reads, “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep”. He didn’t say, “Verily my sabbath ye shall keep”, which would be a clear way to indicate that He was speaking specifically about the one-day-a-week Sabbath — as He did in, for example, Exodus 20:8, when He said, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”, and not “Remember the sabbath days, to keep them holy”.

    Perhaps God was talking in there (Exodus 31) about all of the Sabbath periods He wanted them to keep — which, even though they were not always one 24-hour-day in seven, always kept the one-part-of-seven pattern.

  105. Maz said

    MattF: I question some evolutionist scientists ”intellectual honesty”. There are some that are so rooted in evolution that they cannot possibly believe that creation could have occurred even if the evidence leans that way. My biologists experience in college is an example, no doubt she is not on her own. If they havn’t an answer to something, they will STILL believe in the evolutionary process and will keep looking for THE EVIDENCE until they ‘hopefully’ find it. Because IT MUST BE THERE!

    I find it hard to answer your terribly long posts because I can’t find where I’v left off…so I’ll just try and answer whatever I find. It would be a good idea perhaps if you number the points you are making.

    ”The nebular hypothesis of the formation of the Solar System seems to explain this nicely. In the beginning, the Earth would have been dark. When the Sun shone for the first time, light would have been visible from the surface of the Earth for the first time. (Well, about eight minutes later, but you know what I mean.)”

    HYPOTHESIS….THEORY. They don’t really know. Nowhere do you explain when the sun was created….you ASSUME it is just there, and then it ”shone for the first time”. Through Genesis 1 we see God telling us what was CREATED and MADE, and when, but for some reason (you say) He does not tell us about the ‘creation’ of the sun atall….it just begins to shine. Well, this certainly fits neatly into an evolutionary hypothesis. But it is NOT TRUE. And it is NOT Biblical.
    And no one was ‘on the earth’ to see it appear. God is everywhere, eternal, and He wouldn’t talk about something ‘appearing’ without talking about it’s creation first. It is as nebulous as the solar system hypothesis!

    Genesis is not misunderstood. People who try and fit millions of years and evolution into Genesis make God a liar. What God SAID, HE DID.

    As with Henrietta….the human cells must have been affected in some way by the bacteria…..the human cells DO NOT do it by themselves naturally. Some other agent is at work here.

    Now you are accusing Answers in Genesis of lying. This is serious, so I will check out your claim and come back about it.
    Be back later.

  106. MattF said

    Maz: “The discussion has TWO sides, not one. But that is evolutionists for you….all one sided.”

    That’s because the evidence seems to land pretty solidly on one side once you get past a very preliminary overview of the two points of view.

    Let’s look at the Miller-Urey experiment, for example, which took a model of the Earth’s early environment, zapped it with some electricity to simulate lightning, and generated amino acids (the basic building blocks of proteins, and all biological structures are made of proteins). If you’re lucky, a creationist treatment of this experiment will last a page or two, trying to explain in loose scientific-sounding language why the Miller-Urey experiment is invalid.

    But if you look at science’s treatment of the Miller-Urey experiment, you’ll not only see a host of experiments meant to address the objections to its validity, but hosts more meant to explore every nook and cranny of what the results might mean and how they should be interpreted. The way science understands Miller-Urey is insanely more detailed than any creationist treatment has ever been; and I’m not aware of a single creationist experiment done to analyze how Miller-Urey should be interpreted.

    It’s like that all over evolution. The amount of detail, experimentation, empirical evidence, and exploration of reasoning and rationale through further questions and experiments is staggering.

    Creationism is largely rhetoric. Unfortunately, rhetoric isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit in scientific circles; what matters is the results of your experiments, what you think those results tell you, and whether your explanation is consistent with other experimental data.

    So it’s more than just two points of view. Much more. Especially since one of them seems to have actual results on its side. I encourage you to look past all the rhetoric and see what the different sides claim and, more importantly, why they claim it.

    Maz: “Our ”notion” is a belief just like evolution is a belief. Our interpretations of the ‘evidence’ differs, that’s all. You look from the point of ‘there is no God’, we look from the position that there is.”

    No. Evolution is a belief like Utah is an overweight guinea pig.

    You don’t “believe” evolution; you accept it (or not) based on the available evidence. What kind of a stupid belief would evolution be, anyway? No one claimed it as their religion on the census. It makes no attempt to explain ultimate reality (it stops at the diversity of life; it doesn’t even include the origin of life), or the role people have in that ultimate reality. It has no social structure built around the “belief”. It has no moral guidelines to impose on adherents. It has no supernatural powers or beings. It has no accompanying rituals.

    And perhaps most telling, “beliefs” are made of answers that do not change; they explain ultimate reality, after all. Evolutionary theory is constantly changing as new facts come to light.

    Finally, as I’ve tried to explain many times before, evolution has nothing to say about whether God exists one way or the other. I do not come to evolution with the assumption that there is no God. I do not come to any scientific theory with the assumption that there is no God. I merely come to the table with the assumption that God is not forced to play magic tricks and poof things into existence; a careful examination of things should give us insight into what happened, not what we’d prefer to think happened.

    Especially now that I understand that the amount of detail given about creation is substantially less than the young-Earth creationist camp might want you to believe, I’m inclined to see what the facts indicate and know that God can work through anything rather than form a particular interpretation or story in my head and, insensibly, attempt to fit the facts to that picture.

  107. MattF said

    Maz: “There are some that are so rooted in evolution that they cannot possibly believe that creation could have occurred even if the evidence leans that way.”

    That’s kind of a strange what-if game to play, since the evidence doesn’t lean that way, and we can’t say for certain what they’d do if it did. My experience with the scientific community is that they’re rather keen on contradicting what everybody else says based on the facts, so if they found clear evidence of creation, they’d be only too eager to rub it in their colleagues’ faces.

    Maz: “If they havn’t an answer to something, they will STILL believe in the evolutionary process and will keep looking for THE EVIDENCE until they ‘hopefully’ find it. Because IT MUST BE THERE!”

    Right. Until you have contradictory evidence, the de facto explanation is assumed, but you keep exploring until you have evidence one way or the other. We’ve been here.

    Maz: “HYPOTHESIS….THEORY. They don’t really know.”

    Hypotheses and theories are different from guesses. They have to be based on fact.

    Maz: “Nowhere do you explain when the sun was created….you ASSUME it is just there, and then it ‘’shone for the first time”.”

    I believe that it is part of the “heavens and the earth” that God created in Genesis 1:1, before the story moves into detail about what happens on Earth starting in Genesis 1:2. One can see that Genesis 1:2 is continuing the thought of Genesis 1:1 because of the conjunction “And” at the beginning of Genesis 1:2.

    Maz: “for some reason (you say) He does not tell us about the ‘creation’ of the sun atall….it just begins to shine.”

    He also doesn’t tell us about the creation of bacteria, nebulae, galaxies, or lots of other things. Why was God required to tell us the moment of the Sun’s creation? The Bible as a whole is about God working on Earth, so I’m not surprised that the creation story’s action would take place there, too.

    It mentions that He made it, and that’s good enough for me.

    Maz: “And no one was ‘on the earth’ to see it appear.”

    The passage says that God called for lights in the firmament of Heaven. The very order talks about something appearing in Earth’s sky.

    Maz: “God is everywhere, eternal, and He wouldn’t talk about something ‘appearing’ without talking about it’s creation first.”

    Why not?

    Maz: “What God SAID, HE DID.”

    I agree. We’re only disagreeing on how to understand what He said.

    Maz: “As with Henrietta….the human cells must have been affected in some way by the bacteria…”

    What bacteria? There were no bacteria. The human cells became single-celled organisms. All by themselves (well, with God’s help, of course, but you see what I mean).

    Maz: “..the human cells DO NOT do it by themselves naturally. Some other agent is at work here.”

    I should just take your say-so for it, then? What evidence do you have that there was another agent at work? (The burden of proof logically falls on the person making a statement of existence.)

    Maz: “Now you are accusing Answers in Genesis of lying. This is serious, so I will check out your claim and come back about it.”

    The amount of information there is large. I can wait.

  108. Maz said

    MattF: I havn’t finished answering all your points in #100 yet, and I am waiting on an answer to your accusation of AiG lying about the list of Scientists who believe the Genesis account as written. So I am not going to even attempt to read, let alone answer any further posts from you. I suggest you ease up a bit, or those who do want to answer points on this blog will be having to wade through endless reems of posts from you.

  109. Jeff42 said

    MattF,

    Thanks for the clarification. I will look it over and respond. Did you miss the last part of my last post?

    “Also, just to clarify things, do you believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture? And do you believe that faith in Christ alone is the only way to salvation? I hope this does not offend you, but I am simply trying to get where you are coming from.”

  110. Maz said

    MattF: I am really beginning to wonder what kind of a ‘Christian’ you are, apart from a theistic one, believing in evolution. I have had a look at the Noanswersingenesis web site and am not sure what kind of Christians they are either (if indeed they are, as they quote, of all people, Richard Dawkins).

    There are many web sites that are created to oppose and supposedly expose the counterpart, but I am very wary of Christians who are so against another belief within the Church, that they go so far as to produce a web site and use athiests to uphold their position.

    I also noticed that this site is against other creation ministries aswell as AiG.

    I am taking these accusations very seriously, as I said, and I hope that I shall be as noble as the Bereans were, to check out exactly what you are saying about a fellow brother or sister in the Lord. Lying is certainly not glorifying to the Lord, but neither is the accusation against a brother or sister in the family of God unless it is shown to be beyond question.

    I have no answer to give you at the moment, but I intend to give you an answer to whatever conclusion I come to.

  111. MattF said

    Maz: “Thanks for the clarification. I will look it over and respond. Did you miss the last part of my last post?”

    I guess I did miss it. My apologies. I didn’t mean to ignore it.

    Maz: “Also, just to clarify things, do you believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture? And do you believe that faith in Christ alone is the only way to salvation? I hope this does not offend you, but I am simply trying to get where you are coming from.”

    Yes and yes. I have a few caveats, however.

    I believe that Scripture is inspired in its entirety, that it is inerrant, and that it is sufficient. However, I also believe that no one understands all of it exactly right, myself probably foremost. Why? Because the natural man cannot understand the things of God; we need God’s help to understand spiritual matters (1 Corinthians 2). I believe that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand what we’re reading as we read it; the way in which God’s children apprehend Scripture is, in some measure, supernatural. However, we also see in a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12); none of us knows how to listen to God exactly right, even though He teaches us patiently over our lives.

    Here’s what this means with respect to our discussion about evolution: If evidence came to light that disproved evolution tomorrow, I would not find that it would shatter my faith. It is a human theory, after all, and because of our limited knowledge will always be limited. It was deeply troubling to learn of all the evidence against young-Earth creationism while I was embracing it, however, because until Bible study showed me the difference between the content and the interpretation of Scripture, I couldn’t see how I could reconcile the real world and Biblical concepts like sin and redemption, precisely because of interpretations thrown at me concerning passages like the ones brought up here (Romans 5, for example).

    By “difference between the content and the interpretation”, I only mean to say that ideas which one interpretation holds to be ironclad are not necessarily so cut and dry. For years, I never failed to see a specific interpretation when I read some Scriptures instead of the actual words on the page in front of me.

    Ultimately, I am responsible to the Word of God, and not someone’s interpretation. If I am wrong, so be it; but as I’ve mentioned, I’m already prepared for the fact that I am likely wrong about a great deal, no matter how careful I try to be.

    Faith, after all, has some measure of uncertainty, doesn’t it?

    Whether it is my interpretation or not, or your interpretation or not, or anyone’s interpretation at all, there is a way in which Genesis 1 is true and correctly interpreted. There are substantial holes in the account, however, so I’m more likely wrong than right. If I find out that my interpretation is wrong, it is my responsibility to be a diligent student and try again.

    Maz: “I have had a look at the Noanswersingenesis web site and am not sure what kind of Christians they are either (if indeed they are, as they quote, of all people, Richard Dawkins).”

    I don’t think they’re Christians — just dedicated to trying to halt the spread of misinformation. If the people they talk about are at variance with fact, even people who do not share our faith and hope in Christ can recognize it. It is, frankly, to our shame that we frequently do not seem to recognize it first. All to often, I’ve seen the support of teachers among Christians who did not deserve to be in their position, but their reprehensible speech and/or behavior is excused because that person is “on our side”.

    Maz: “I also noticed that this site is against other creation ministries aswell as AiG.”

    Yes. Regrettably, Answers In Genesis does not hold a monopoly on misinformation.

    Maz: “I have no answer to give you at the moment, but I intend to give you an answer to whatever conclusion I come to.”

    I know from personal experience that learning that you were lied to by teachers whom you have trusted, who gave you information that you were sure was trustworthy and could be relied on, is excruciatingly painful and confusing.

    I do not mean to bias your investigation, but if you find that there is pain as a result of what you find, I will try to be available in any way I can.

  112. Anonymous said

    MattF,

    Thanks for all the clarification of your beliefs. It was helpful.

    As to Exodus 31:15-17, I find that it is a strong argument in favor of 24 hour days in Genesis. Verse 15 is definitely referring to the weekly 7th day sabbath (not the other sabbaths mentioned in Scripture), which verse 16 repeatedly refers to as “the sabbath.” Then in verse 17 the Creation account is brought into the discussion. The foundation of Israel’s weekly sabbath is God’s command rooted in God example in creation (Gen. 1). You have the same phrase, “six days,” used in both verse 15 and verse 17. It seems pretty clear to me that the author is not using this phrase in two different ways in this context. At least, that seems to me to be the clear intent of the words on the page. I know you don’t agree with this, so we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

  113. Jeff42 said

    The last post was mine.

  114. Chris C. said

    Actually the earth would have been completely uninhabitable for about a billion years even after the sun’s core reached 7 million degress Kelvin and began to fuse hydrogen, thus “lighting up” the sky.

    Based on the emission line spectrum of solar radiation, we know its composition and can compute rouly how long it will take to burn out its remaining hydrogen. We can then turn this rate backwards to find that the sun is rouly 5 billion years old. The planets didn’t form untill after the the sun began to fuse hydrogen. And even when the earth did form, it was far too hot, unstable, and unsuitable for life.

  115. Maz said

    MattF: For a Christian to use an athiest web site to come against other Christians is really not an acceptable way of handling the truth. For the athiests have an agenda against all Christian ministries, and especially those who stand up and speak out for Biblical truth. You have no business using such sites as a child of God. Why aren’t there any Christian sites warning us about AiG or Creation on the web and other ‘creationist’ ministries then?

    And I would still like to know your Christian affiliation.

  116. abc's said

    Mattf

    “Whether it is my interpretation or not, or your interpretation or not, or anyone’s interpretation at all, there is a way in which Genesis 1 is true and correctly interpreted.”

    How can faith be epistemologically valid when it offers no method for distinction between true and false propositions?

    In other words. How can you prove that the “correct interpretation” of Genesis is anything other than a man made myth?

  117. Maz said

    MattF: Concerning your last line in post #111:
    I do not put my trust in a man or a ministry, therefore I would not experience any pain as you assume, at what I would find…if indeed your accusations were founded, which I believe most deffinitely will not be, considering the site where the accusations came from originally.
    My trust is squarely in my God, and my God alone.
    What I believe about Genesis would remain the same, because I believe the truth of the Word as the Holy Spirit has revealed it to me, not by someone in a ministry.
    I have found AiG and other ministries very helpful in my studies, but in no way do I place my faith in their word, but in Gods Word alone.
    Psalm 40 v 4 says, ”Blessed is that man who makes the LORD his trust, and respects not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.”
    I put my trust in GOD, because HE KNOWS who is lying and who isn’t. If I need to know anything He will reveal it to me.

  118. Barney said

    Dear Maz, when the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of the Word to you, He mentions Darwin and the Theory of Evolution? Are you sure you didn’t get your ideas about science from AiG or some other fundamentalist Christian source?

    best,
    Barney

  119. Maz said

    Barney: I honestly can’t remember when I realised the Genesis account was as it was written. It was a long time ago. But I believed in evolution before I became a Christian, and when I came to know Jesus as my Savior, the Pastor and his wife of the Church I began to go to taught the Gap theory and millions of years, so I still believed in it then. I was also told by some Church of England people that it was all a myth! Somehow this did not sound right to me atall. I heard many different ideas of what Genesis was saying, but I now know that what God has written in the first chapter of the Bible is what He has empowered men inspired by the Holy Spirit to write and translate into English. There is no hidden agenda. In 6 days God created the heavens and the earth. Exodus confirms what is written in Genesis. (No scripture is of any private interpretation).

  120. Barney said

    When you put it that way it seems more reasonable. Where’s the fun in being reasonable?!

    j/k

    Barney

  121. MattF said

    Chris C.: “The planets didn’t form untill after the the sun began to fuse hydrogen.”

    Um, I hate to nitpick here, but no. The nebular hypothesis — which has had some interesting confirmation with Hubble findings recently — holds that the Sun and the planets formed at the same time, accreting out of gas and dust in a nebula. In fact, it was the solar wind that cleared out the dust that hadn’t been swept up into planets yet; when the Sun ignited, it halted planetary formation.

    Maz: “For a Christian to use an athiest web site to come against other Christians is really not an acceptable way of handling the truth.”

    Why not? If there is a source of truth that can set us straight from error, why does it matter where it comes from? Even if we can’t rely on them for spiritual insight, can’t we understand that they know what a lie is?

    Should we not accept General Relativity because it was proposed by a Jew, and one rather antagonistic to the idea of a personal God at that? (Shades of “German physics”.)

    Shouldn’t we even be a little bit ashamed that we, as a church, are so bad at detecting falsehood and rejecting it that an atheist website had to pick up the ball?

    Maz: “Why aren’t there any Christian sites warning us about AiG or Creation on the web and other ‘creationist’ ministries then?”

    There are. http://www.asa3.org is the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization of scientists dedicated to trying to maintain truth in science (and rejecting a young Earth); their debates on the nature of theistic evolution are enlightening (some agree with it, some don’t). There are many others. Google Is Your Friend.

    Maz: “And I would still like to know your Christian affiliation.”

    Affiliation? What do you mean by that?

    abc’s: “How can faith be epistemologically valid when it offers no method for distinction between true and false propositions?”

    There is a lot of room in between “I don’t know which of these is true” and “I know which of these is false”. Setting up complete knowledge against complete ignorance as the only two alternatives is fallacious.

    Besides, I really think you start to run into trouble if you start treating the Bible like a science textbook or an almanac. Everything in it is true, but it does not contain the kind of rigorous, descriptive, falsifiable language we’d expect from a scientific resource — language that is the way it is for a reason. If you look at archaeology, many times the things that are written down aren’t even close to what a modern historian would consider the “important parts”, but that’s not the point. God wrote down what we needed to know, regardless of how close or far that was from “the center of the action”.

    Maz: “I do not put my trust in a man or a ministry, therefore I would not experience any pain as you assume, at what I would find…if indeed your accusations were founded, which I believe most deffinitely will not be, considering the site where the accusations came from originally.”

    Assume? I thought I said “if”. (checks) Yup. I said “if”.

    I only meant to try to lend a bit of compassion, should it prove necessary. Still, your reaction to the idea that we might find things were contemplating or listening to (if not necessarily accepting) outside a very small set of voices is telling.

    Your crowing in the face of someone attempting to put himself in a position to serve you, should that be necessary, is also telling.

    Maz: “My trust is squarely in my God, and my God alone.”

    Given that you’re apparently only willing to listen to people who tell you what you already agree with, I have to wonder if that’s true.

    Maz: “I put my trust in GOD, because HE KNOWS who is lying and who isn’t.”

    If true, that’s a very commendable attitude to have. That very notion is why I have been trying to be careful about saying that I “accept” evolution versus “believe in” it. There is no trust, no hope, and no faith in my attitudes towards evolution — merely intellectual acceptance.

    Maz: “I honestly can’t remember when I realised the Genesis account was as it was written.”

    With respect, let me ask again: When did you come to realize that God really meant “perfect” when He said “very good”, or that there was nothing bad even though God said something was “not good”? When did you come to realize that the state of the Earth during Christ’s millennial reign was meant as a restoration of things as they were before the fall?

    Where are either of these things illuminated in Scripture?

    Maz: “(No scripture is of any private interpretation).”

    Juxtaposing this sentence against the previous quote from you is interesting — when you “realized the Genesis account… as it was written”.

    Maz: “There is no hidden agenda.”

    For the record, I don’t think there is, either. There’s a lot of territory in between mistakes, ignorance, and attempts at deliberate deception.

  122. Maz said

    MattF: I wanted to know your ‘affiliation’, in other words what denomination or sect or branch of Christianity that you adhere to because I am finding it difficult to understand your attitude, let alone that you see no wrong in using an athiest site (which is against God and His Word and His Ministries), against fellow believers. And seeing that Satan is the father of lies….where do you think most lies would come from?
    I refuse to debate you further, but I am going to reply to your accusations of lying by AiG.
    I have been in touch with AiG and another Creation Ministry, which I have heard from today.
    They wanted specifics about your accusations so I am still waiting on their reply to those.

  123. abc's said

    Mattf

    “There is a lot of room in between “I don’t know which of these is true” and “I know which of these is false”. Setting up complete knowledge against complete ignorance as the only two alternatives is fallacious.”

    Agreed. However, the idea that there was once a worldwide flood that nearly destroyed all of life a few thousand years ago is false. The Creation story could not have happened literally as it is described in Genesis. A man could not survive a few days inside the belly of a whale. It’s not possible for the Sun to stop in the sky to allow extra time for combatants. I could go on, but i’m sure you get the point.

    “Besides, I really think you start to run into trouble if you start treating the Bible like a science textbook or an almanac.”

    When I read this I take it to mean: If you expect the Bible to be historically accurate on all accounts, or to contain relevant information, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
    I agree. You really start to run into trouble quickly.

    “Everything in it is true, but it does not contain the kind of rigorous, descriptive, falsifiable language we’d expect from a scientific resource — language that is the way it is for a reason.”

    How do you “know” that outside of having faith in it?

  124. MattF said

    Maz: “I wanted to know your ‘affiliation’, in other words what denomination or sect or branch of Christianity that you adhere to because I am finding it difficult to understand your attitude,”

    That’s a bit more difficult to answer than it might first appear. I find it difficult to align with any denomination on all issues; after all, haven’t we agreed that we are ultimately responsible to God and not “a man or a ministry”?

    I spent many years in a Southern Baptist church before relocating, and most of my understanding and opinions still fall along lines they taught. I guess I’m closest to that. The church I currently attend has no denominational affiliation, but I’ve recently moved and have only gone there for a few weeks.

    Denominations I might generally agree with has little to do with my stance on creation, though, which was largely originally shaped by seeing what young-Earth creationists were saying that wasn’t true; later, by studying documents written by church fathers and Biblical scholars; and still later, by following empirical evidence.

    Maz: “let alone that you see no wrong in using an athiest site (which is against God and His Word and His Ministries), against fellow believers.”

    I’m not “against” anybody, nor am I trying to use a site “against” anybody. I’m for the truth, regardless of who has recognized falsehood. Since none of us is perfect — individually or corporately — we ought to listen to those set against us spiritually; they might have something to say worth hearing.

    Criticism is not persecution. Arguments are not evidence. Questions about truth and falsehood are not attacks.

    Finally, I have not personally found conclusive evidence of where the website I refer to stands spiritually. If you have, please elucidate.

    Maz: “I refuse to debate you further”

    Okay. It’s been educational.

    Maz: “They wanted specifics about your accusations so I am still waiting on their reply to those.”

    Here’s a few to investigate; it might speed things along while you’re waiting for their reply. I’ll focus on Ken Ham alone for the time being.

    Ken Ham claims that evolutionists believe that opals take about 30 million years to form, and adds that he has a friend that can make them in a few weeks. Of course, he neglects to mention the difference between natural and synthetic opals, or that they are geologically unstable in the long term (180 million years), and fails to address why, if the geologic column was deposited by the flood, we find no opals in rock strata we age as older than 125 million years old. (There is such a thing as lying by omission. Many of his “evidences”, sadly, are lies by omission.)

    Ken Ham claims that evolutionists will tell you that feathers are the product of random, chance processes acting over millions of years. (This shows a basic misunderstanding of evolution itself.) He also claims that evolution holds that feathers evolved in the first place to help some dinosaurs jump higher and farther.

    Ken Ham lies about transitional forms, wishing them away with little justification (e.g., the assertion that there are no partial dinosaur fossils in spite of, say, theocodonts).

    Ken Ham asserts that mutations are “mistakes”. This is particularly peculiar when he brings it up with respect to poodles, since it is precisely those mutations that made their owners want to keep the traits they produced above those found in the general canine stock.

    Ken Ham claims that, to an evolutionist, “vestigial” — as in “vestigial organs” — means “useless”.

    Ken Ham claims that the Big Bang Theory holds that the Sun was created before the Earth.

    Ken Ham claims that the echidna and the platypus present problems for evolution.

    Ken Ham maintains that evolution is scientifically weak because it is not a “proven fact”. Nothing in science is a “proven fact”, and it is misleading to pretend that something is scientifically weak because it shares something in common with all of science.

    Ken Ham insists that measurements taken that show the Earth’s magnetic field weakening over time proves, if one backs it up, that the Earth cannot be older than a few thousand years — when the Earth’s magnetic field is produced using dynamo action, and Cowling’s Theorem proved that the magnetic field of a dynamo cannot follow any linear trend nearly two centuries ago!

    Ken Ham maintains that as feldspars age, they turn into clay purely because they get old (ignoring the necessary actual chemical reactions to make this happen).

    Ken Ham lies about the steps a scale must go through to become a feather.

    Ken Ham asserts that the entire fossil record was deposited by a global flood, when the available fossil record has far too many organisms to represent the biosphere at any single moment in time.

    At the end of the day, I’d like AIG to answer some very basic questions — like why we only find flowering plants at the top of the fossil record, or why we don’t find tools at the bottom.

  125. MattF said

    Abc’s: “How do you “know” that outside of having faith in it?”

    I don’t. But then, I never claimed knowledge.

  126. F. L. A. said

    MattF, in regards to your post#126,….I couldn’t have said it any better myself.THANK YOU. You sound almost like a Unitarian Universalist[no offense intended].

    Maz, why have you decided to stop debating with MattF?

  127. F. L. A. said

    Sorry, I meant post#124.

  128. John said

    Mmmmm, ditto post #126.

  129. Maz said

    F.L.A: You may not understand, but when a Christian ‘brother’ accuses another of lying, it is, atleast to me, a very serious accusation that needs an answer. I am in touch with Creation on the Web at the moment and am awaiting a reply to the specific accusations MattF. has made from AiG.

    As he has pointed out himself none of us are perfect, I really believe that there are honest reasons for the supposed ‘lies’ MattF accuses AiG and particularly Ken Ham of.

    MattF: As I said none of us are perfect, a list of hundreds of names could possibly have errors in them don’t you agree? Have you personally approached AiG or Ken Ham about this? This should be your first priority, if you have something against a brother, you should enquire from him about it first.

    And your other list of supposed ‘lies’ (even by omission) are only evolutionistic interpretations and beliefs versus Creationist interpretations and beliefs.
    Different interpretations of science cannot be called ‘lies’…..Have you any, apart from the list of scientists, REAL out-and-out lies Ken has told?
    For example……the Piltdown hoax by evolutionists….THAT was a LIE.
    Haeckels embryo’s by an evolutionist……THAT was a LIE.
    I think you get my drift.
    Has Ken Ham told any similar ‘lies’ like these?

  130. MattF said

    F. L. A.: “I couldn’t have said it any better myself.THANK YOU. You sound almost like a Unitarian Universalist[no offense intended].”

    In what way? I’ve never been to a Unitarian Universalist church, nor have I known any members well enough to discuss faith.

    Maz: “Have you personally approached AiG or Ken Ham about this?”

    Personally? No. But I know he has been approached, and the list remains up. Google Is Your Friend.

    Besides, if someone lies publicly, should he not be rebuked publicly? Think of Paul’s example of rebuking Cephas (Peter) before the whole assembly.

    Maz: “And your other list of supposed ‘lies’ (even by omission) are only evolutionistic interpretations and beliefs versus Creationist interpretations and beliefs.”

    Try again. For example, he makes claims about what evolutionists say. He lies about a belief he does not even claim to possess. He ignores facts — like the existence of theocodonts, or the way clay is formed from feldspar — in order to appear to lend his arguments greater weight. He lies about the nature of Earth’s magnetic field to attempt to bolster an argument that the Earth is young.

    These are not matters of interpretation. They are not matters of belief — unless part of your belief system allows misrepresenting the truth to sway people to your side.

    Maz: For example……the Piltdown hoax by evolutionists….THAT was a LIE.

    Consider: Piltdown man was also proven to be a hoax by evolutionists. The hoax may not be one of science’s brighter moments, but it shows that science is self-correcting. Eventually, someone will bring facts to the table to show why something isn’t so. If you read the pertinent literature from the time, you will also see that many American and European scientists refused to accept Piltdown man from the very start.

    How about creationist hoaxes? The Paluxy footprints? The Calaveras skull? Moab and Malachite Man? I could go on and on. In each instance, it’s interesting to note that it is scientists who expose these hoaxes. Creationists are willing to let them go just as they are. They appear to have no self-correcting mechanism.

    Maz: “Haeckels embryo’s by an evolutionist……THAT was a LIE.”

    True, he faked his photos. It was evolutionists who discovered that they were fakes. But again, when it was found that his photos were faked — which glossing over the differences would have led to eventually; it is the similarities and differences of embryos that show lines of descent — authors used corrected versions instead.

    Maz: “I think you get my drift.”

    Yes. And I think you’ve completely missed the point. If creationists were more intellectually honest, they would have self-correcting measures in place to find and remove these untruths.

    Instead, we still hear that there isn’t enough dust on the Moon, that the Sun should have been big enough millions of years ago to make life on Earth impossible, that the Moon would have been scraping the mountaintops if you back up its recession from the Earth, that there’s not enough mass in galactic clusters to hold them together, that scientists have found binary stars where the stars are different ages, that fossils are sorted hydrologically (or, perhaps, by their ability to find higher ground), that the geologic column was laid down by a global flood, that the fossil record is the remains of the Earth’s biosphere at one instant in time, that genetic mutations cannot produce new information, that scientists are trying to use evolution to “disprove” God, that Darwin was confounded by the evolution of the eye, that polystrate fossils present a problem, that polonium halos indicate rapid sedimentation, that it is evidence against evolution that complex machines don’t assemble themselves, and on and on and on and on — lines of “evidence” that have been debunked for decades (and centuries in some cases) through direct measurement and observation, some even before the “evidence” first appeared in print (e.g., the “weakening magnetic field of the Earth” argument was first published fourteen years after Cowling’s Theorem was first published).

    Maz: “Has Ken Ham told any similar ‘lies’ like these?”

    If he has, he’ll have to get in line; more influential creationists have beaten him to the punch.

  131. bookert said

    I came upon this exchange late. Maz, your most revealing comments come in sector 97 – “If scientists with well earned qualifications and letters after their name cannot get a fair peer review what chance have I got…..”

    Maz, you too can earn qualifications and add letters after your name. Why don’t you take a few science courses and start working towards an undergraduate degree? Learn the basics of the Scientific Method and tackle your subject directly. Learn what we know about physics, microbiology and chemistry, and why we know it. Learn about the fossil record, carbon dating and natural selection. Keep it as dry and direct as possible. What is happening and what’s the theory behind it. Work hard, and in less than a decade you can add a phd after your name.

    Then and only then will you be qualified to make a statement like (37) ” If I don’t know what I’m talking about with regards to the theory of evolution (that I’ve invented my own) it’s because I speak what I hear from the evolutionists….they don’t know what they are talking about either, though they have convinced themselves that they do.”

    They don’t know what they’re talking about? Really? They’re fooling themselves? Maz, these “evolutionists” are among the brightest intellects on the planet. They’ve devoted decades of their lives to the study of the earth’s history. They’re not bad people trying to hurt you. They’re a group of extremely sharp people trying to figure out a very tough problem: “what happened?”

    Good luck, Maz.

  132. Maz said

    MattF: Your reasoning that it was evolutionists that actually exposed the hoaxes sounds good until you realise that it took 40 YEARS before they actually said anything about the Piltdown man skull. What about the evolutionists that actually made it? Why didn’t THEY tell the truth about it? But they let it go on for 40 years.
    It is the same with other hoaxes. Ofcourse there are honest evolutionists, I do not believe that all those that believe in Darwin and evolution are liars, or create fakes to try and prove the theory. But there are bad ones that do this. You can’t justify the hoaxes by saying it was evolutionists that exposed them. And how is it that the evolutionist scientists, so good in their fields, couldn’t tell a fake from the real thing? Does this not put in doubt their ablility to see the truth about the fossil record? That they actually saw what they wanted to see?

    I don’t believe for one minute that anyone, including Ken Ham, deliberately lied, not the way evolutionists have done. I believe in their integrity, as Christian brothers and sisters.

    There are a miriad web sites on line that will say whatever you want them to say if you look hard enough. I’v found some real hum-dingers!
    Evolutionists, by and large, intensely dislike the creationist message, let alone disagree with it.
    AiG and other ministries have had outright hostility shown to them.
    Whatever is said, we have a Higher Authority that is watching our every step and hearing our every word. It is important to rememeber this.

  133. Maz said

    Bookert: I don’t think we have to be a PhD to enter into a debate about evolution. We can be well armed with literature etc. from those who are.
    I am not in the age bracket now to go back to college and study, and I wouldn’t want to.
    I love reading. That is where I get my information. And the books are written by those with PhD’s and other qualifications. So what they tell me is what I tell you. What I know, is what they have told me.
    They had to learn from others, who went through the same system of learning, passing on information from one to another. So to say that I don’t know what I am talking about is to say that the ones that told me all I know, didn’t know what they were talking about either. And evolutionists would probably say YES! So it’s down to the fact that evolutionists accept the PhD’s and other qualifications from those who believe in evolution (who agree with it) but not from those who believe in Creation (and disagree with it).

    How does a well educated scientist with letters after his name, who believed and taught evolution, turn from that to believing in Creation if there wasn’t something in the evidence to change his mind so drastically?

    Ad I don’t believe in luck.

  134. MattF said

    Maz: “Your reasoning that it was evolutionists that actually exposed the hoaxes sounds good until you realise that it took 40 YEARS before they actually said anything about the Piltdown man skull.”

    And it’s been a couple of centuries since Cowling’s Theorem. Creationists still continue to cite the weakening magnetic field of the Earth as evidence of a young Earth, though.

    Ever hear of a double standard?

    Maz: “You can’t justify the hoaxes by saying it was evolutionists that exposed them.”

    I don’t even try to justify the hoaxes — just point out that science tends to be self-correcting, and places a limit on error. It has built-in mechanisms to detect falsehood.

    Please try to read for comprehension.

    Maz: “And how is it that the evolutionist scientists, so good in their fields, couldn’t tell a fake from the real thing?”

    They did. It took a while, but they did. The point is not that they don’t make mistakes, but that if one is patient, the mistakes are eventually discovered and corrected.

    Maz: “I don’t believe for one minute that anyone, including Ken Ham, deliberately lied, not the way evolutionists have done.”

    Where did they get some of the data that I mentioned above — especially what, for example, evolutionists say, or the steps needed to go from scale to feather — if they didn’t make it up?

    Maz: “AiG and other ministries have had outright hostility shown to them.”

    That is at least partly because, as pointed out, they misrepresent the facts and tout what they do as science. They just don’t enjoy having their occupation besmirched by those who would dishonestly use it for their own ends. It’s a rare person who wouldn’t be hostile after that.

  135. Maz said

    MattF: All I am going to do now is give you part of an e-mail I had from Philip Bell head of CMI, in response to wha you have said about AiG and Creationists.

    ”To say what he does about Duane Gish shows that he is simply unable to give credit to anyone who disagrees with him with respect to a creationist view. Gish, by any standard, was a very capable scientist indeed (it’s very unlikely that your correspondent, like Gish, worked with two Nobel laureates for example!). Gish did not lie but, by the testimony of even many of his opponents in debate (and he took part in many hundreds—no exaggeration) an absolute gentleman. He infuriated evolutionists on occasion by being able to cut their bluff by quoting the entire publication source of a secular article from memory (he seems to have been blessed with a photographic memory of sorts) that contained information that demolished their case!

    Gish has many opponents of course (so did the Lord Jesus Christ) who said he had lied etc. You see, to deny that evolution has happened is to be guilty of lies to many an evolutionist, almost by definition—to them, the evidence for evolution is so obvious. I haven’t time to comment on all the people he lists here but let’s take one person—Sir Richard Owen. He is well known to have disagreed hotly with evolution and had no regard for Darwinism. It is not incorrect to label him a creationist. This man has simply listed him with no supporting reasons for doing so—leaving his reader (you/others) wondering what his reasons were.

    I’m sure if AiG knew lots of good reasons for not including certain people on their list they’d remove them. Why on earth would they want to leave themselves wide open to being demonstrably wrong? We in CMI would certainly be very careful (we always are) to make our published information as accurate as it can be.”

    When AiG gives me their reply to your accusations I will also give that you.

  136. MattF said

    Sir Richard Owen was rather controversial; he was described, for example, by Richard Broke Freeman as “a most deceitful and odious man”. For example, he gave himself (and Georges Cuvier) credit for discovering the iguanodon, when it was in fact Gideon Mantell who discovered that species. (This was not the only time Owen would claim a discovery as his own when it wasn’t; it was just one of the more infamous.) He was dismissed from the Royal Society’s Zoological Council for plagiarism.

    While he started out as a creationist, by the mid 1840s he had decided differently, primarily because of his work on comparative vertebrate anatomy. He came to believe that all vertebrates were based on an archetype, each species being a unique extension of that archetype. What he saw as the archetype, Darwin saw as the common ancestor; in any case, it wasn’t creationism.

    He opposed Darwin’s views, yes, but that doesn’t make him a creationist.

    As for Gish, he preaches the idea that evolutionists are materialistic atheists who have formed a conspiracy concerned with hiding the weaknesses of evolution while simultaneously suppressing creationism. (This idea seems popular among creationists.)

    Gish’s debate credentials do not impress me. Science is not determined by debate. It never has been. In his debates, one finds the same sort of misrepresented half-truths that I accuse Ham of employing — errors, omissions, quote mining, old data, non sequiturs, and distortions. Scientists have corrected Gish in his presence, yet he has refused to alter his content, using the same arguments in debate after debate after debate. It doesn’t matter how much of a “gentleman” you are — that’s still lying.

    For example, he denies transitional forms — partly because he asserts that the discovery of transitional forms would kill creationism (which, as a statement taken by itself, isn’t even true). He insists that transitional forms must be in a direct line of descent and must have useless parts, neither of which has ever been evolution.

    Gish’s “photographic memory” has been found on occasion to attribute a quote to a scientist that was never uttered; his misquote came from a source that misquoted the scientist he was interested in that he failed to attribute, making him a plagiarist in the same breath. (He quoted O’Connell misquoting Marcellin Boule, but failed to give credit to O’Connell for the information that was part of O’Connell’s point.)

    He asserted that Triceratops appears suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. When confronted on the error in this assertion in a debate with Frederick Edwords, he replied that the supposed ancestor Edwords mentioned was in the same strata as Triceratops and could not be claimed as an ancestor — something he made up, apparently, since the ancestor is found in geologic strata from 10 to 45 million years before Triceratops. Two months after this debate, he was repeating the same line when his opponent (Kenneth Miller) was able to describe and show a series of transitional forms leading to Triceratops. Gish objected that the animals were too close together; Miller pointed out that they were separated by at least 15 million years, giving Gish some reading material so that he would not make this error in future debates. Eleven days later, while debating Michael Alan Park, he repeated his Triceratops assertion. As of 1995, he was still repeating it, having made no attempt to engage the evidence that indicates otherwise with any form of factual information, and certainly never having made a retraction.

    Gish claims that the bombardier beetle could not have evolved, and that any error in the mixture of the two chemicals that create its noxious defensive scent would be spontaneously explosive. This is simply not true. He also claims that there is no series of steps by which one can arrive at a bombardier beetle; many have tried to describe possible steps to him, but he rejects them all with handwaving as tall tales. (You can’t have it both ways.)

    He asserts that the geologic column is dated with the evolutionary timeline for fossils, and that the evolutionary timeline for fossils is determined with the geologic column — thus setting up circular reasoning. In fact, geologists had worked out the geologic column in the eighteenth century more than fifty years before evolution was accepted.

    Gish represents evolution as occurring entirely by chance. Even those evolutionists who reject the idea that God had a hand in it know that that is completely false.

  137. Maz said

    MattF: Evolution DOES occur entirely by chance….or what? Design?

    ”Even those evolutionists who reject the idea that God had a hand in it know that that is completely false.” THAT is a completely false statment! Not EVERY evolutionist believes that. I’v heard what they have said….’it JUST happened!’ and other such phrases.
    Doesn’t that count as a lie!?

  138. Maz said

    MattF: Unless you have something other than insinuations and accusations to make against other Christians I would not waste your time posting anything more to me. This really has been an eye opener about how low some Christians will go to prove their point.

  139. F. L. A. said

    That was the point of MattF, Maz.
    The question that you need to discover the answer to is; are his accusations true or false.

  140. Maz said

    F.L.A: Which is what I am doing.

  141. John said

    We can hardly wait.

  142. Maz said

    John: Patience is a virtue.

  143. Maz said

    MattF: I have had an initial response from AiG which states:

    ”The scientists that are in our list of creation scientists on our
    website have all signed a document stating that they agree to be listed
    and why.”

    I am awaiting a more specific answer but this statement should suffice in itself. (But probably won’t, to you. In fact I doubt any answer will be enough.)

  144. MattF said

    Maz: “Evolution DOES occur entirely by chance….or what? Design?

    ”Even those evolutionists who reject the idea that God had a hand in it know that that is completely false.” THAT is a completely false statment! Not EVERY evolutionist believes that. I’v heard what they have said….’it JUST happened!’ and other such phrases.
    Doesn’t that count as a lie!?”

    This shows, in a nutshell, just how poorly you understand what you claim to understand evidence against. It’s one of the basic notions of evolution — its driving mechanism, if you will. Go and study what you claim to stand against, the better to form intelligent accusations or evidences that refute it. If you knew what role chance plays in evolution, and that evolution is not driven entirely by chance, you’d understand why Gish misrepresents evolution — and, more importantly, how evolutionists can incorporate chance without claiming that evolution is driven entirely by chance.

    Maz: “I have had an initial response from AiG which states:

    ”The scientists that are in our list of creation scientists on our
    website have all signed a document stating that they agree to be listed
    and why.””

    Really? Even the ones who are long dead — like our own Sir Richard Owen (dead in 1892)?

    Maz: “I am awaiting a more specific answer but this statement should suffice in itself. (But probably won’t, to you. In fact I doubt any answer will be enough.)”

    Since it’s pretty easy to demonstrate that it’s not true, of course it’s not enough.

    Maz: “Unless you have something other than insinuations and accusations to make against other Christians I would not waste your time posting anything more to me. This really has been an eye opener about how low some Christians will go to prove their point.”

    Unfortunately, creationists won’t even go as far as trying to explain why the evidences people bring against their arguments are wrongly interpreted, mistaken, or false. That’s all the effort I ask for. They instead go to no lengths to “prove” their point; they merely state them exactly as they always have, not even acknowledging evidence that might show otherwise.

    Besides, how else is one supposed to defend the assertion that a teacher is lying? I definitely have more than insinuations and accusations; I have their actual teachings compared with the facts and/or what that teacher has been directly confronted with. I would hope you wouldn’t just take someone’s say-so without expecting that they have statements from the teacher that can be compared with the facts!

    Oh, wait. Given what you’ve said evolutionists are like — rhetoric straight out of the young-Earth creationist textbook — maybe you would.

  145. Maz said

    MattF: ”Unfortunately, creationists won’t even go as far as trying to explain why the evidences people bring against their arguments are wrongly interpreted, mistaken, or false. That’s all the effort I ask for. They instead go to NO lengths to ”prove” their point; they merely state them exactly as they always have, not even acknowledging evidence that might show otherwise.” Really??

    Let me put it another way…….unfortunately, evolutionists won’t even go as far as trying to explain why the evidences people bring against their arguments are wrongly interpreted, mistaken, or false……….they instead go to NO lengths to ”prove” their point; they merely state them exactly as they always have, not even acknowledging evidence that might show otherwise.”

    YOU SEE, IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.
    And I am getting to the point where I find there is no point in continuing to dialogue with you.
    Whatever I say, or say others with more qualifications might say, you will always have some web site to dig into and find something to come against it. That does not mean that their ‘evidence’ or information is valid, it just means that that is how you seem to work and I am not going to carry on this charade.

    It won’t matter either that I have an answer from AiG, you are obviously very unchristianly antagonistic towards, not only a brother in the Lord, but his ministry and beliefs, just because they are different to yours…….Oh, you are under the impression that he and others are all a pack of liars.

    I even forget sometimes that you are a ‘Christian’ (supposedly) with an attitude that would normally belong to an athiest hell bent on destroying someones integrity.

    Please don’t worry about posting some long blog in answer for I shall not waste my time reading it. I must say it concerns me that I have to write this way, but there it is.

  146. MattF said

    Maz: “evolutionists won’t even go as far as trying to explain why the evidences people bring against their arguments are wrongly interpreted, mistaken, or false”

    Ah, but you see, they do. That’s exactly what I’ve been doing with the “evidences” that have been brought up thus far. That’s exactly what I’m doing when I explain that the difference between natural and synthetic opals is important (and that it is suspicious that someone omitting it from his evidence would leave it out), why feldspar not turning into clay is not a problem, why one cannot extrapolate the decreasing strength of Earth’s magnetic field into the past, and so on.

    Are you really that blind?

    Maz: “YOU SEE, IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.”

    Only if both sides use the same tactics. I have not seen any explanation, for example, for why Gish continues to insist that the transitional forms before Triceratops don’t count; he just continues to state that they don’t exist.

    Maz: “Whatever I say, or say others with more qualifications might say, you will always have some web site to dig into and find something to come against it.”

    Then show that what I have to say is invalid, or ask me to provide references for what I say, or use any of the tactics a reasonable human would use to find out what the facts are.

    What matters is not who has the better rhetoric, or what qualifications a person might have. (That’s a common logical fallacy known as the “appeal to authority”.) What matters is what the facts are.

    Maz: “It won’t matter either that I have an answer from AiG, you are obviously very unchristianly antagonistic towards, not only a brother in the Lord, but his ministry and beliefs, just because they are different to yours…….Oh, you are under the impression that he and others are all a pack of liars.”

    I have evidence that they have lied about their subject matter. Is that not a reason to reject someone’s teaching, until and unless that evidence should prove faulty?

    That they teach something different is not the issue. There are plenty of teachers who teach things that I do not agree with, but which are not at variance with the facts, so I must simply “agree to disagree”. I take strong objection to teachers who spread information that contradicts fact, and who make false claims about what people who do not agree with them believe.

    For example, I happen to be a post-tribulationist — that is, I believe that Christ will bodily return to Earth after the future period known as the “Great Tribulation”, and not before or in the middle of that period. Do I have evidence that those who disagree with me are wrong, or that their arguments are at variance with the facts? Well, no. So I have to shrug my shoulders and admit that they might be right.

    If creationist teachers have facts and evidence on their side, their stance should be able to defeat mine by the very rules I like to employ.

  147. F. L. A. said

    Maz, would you have ducked out of this debate if the challenges where coming from a non-Christian instead of a fellow “Brother in Christ”?

  148. Maz said

    F.L.A: I would have found it easier if it had come from an out-and-out athiest, because I could understand where he is coming from. But a Christian…….I would have expected a godly love even though he disagreed or thought he had good reason to expose a falsehood. I’v had to expose people myself, but I’v done it with humility and grace, and I also find it a sad thing to have to do. I find nothing in MattF’s attitude that gives me any reason to believe he cares about the people he is exposing or that he is actually a brother in Christ. It doesn’t seem to worry him or sadden him to have to expose a fellow believer even if he was right, which I really do not believe. Mistakes happen, misunderstanding, and there could a miriad other reasons for what he thinks is ‘lying’. The exchange with him has been quite disturbing for me, not because of what he has said but the manner in which he has said them.

    I am quite willing to debate with anyone else, but will not communicate anymore with MattF.

  149. F. L. A. said

    Why should one feel bad about having to expose those who one feels is intentionally spreading falsehoods in the name of something as personal as their[said accuser] own theology?

  150. Maz said

    F.L.A: I feel particularly ‘bad’ about it because I do not enjoy saying anything about another brother or sisters erroneous teachings or false prophecies. I do believe some are still believers but have got off into something that is carnal rather than of the Lord. I have to fear (reverance) the Lord in as much as I could, as a human being, also be drawn away into such things. I, and all Christians, have to watch for ourselves but also care for each other, and that sometimes means exposing falsehood where it is to protect the rest of the Body of Christ.
    It should be done in Love also.

  151. MattF said

    Some choice words from Maz in this discussion:

    “It is the theistic evolutionist that tries to allegorise or mythologise or interpret it as poetry or some other thing than what it actually is……”

    “I am fighting evolution, and here, theistic evolution (one and the same really)…..the lie, that God did not create the world and all things in it by the power of His Word (Jesus) in 6 days.”

    “…let the Holy Spirit show you the truth, not your evolutionistic mindset.”

    “I said I’d rather live the Christian life than believe in evolution (even if it was true, which it isn’t), because it offers a better way of life.”

    “I speak what I hear from the evolutionists….they don’t know what they are talking about either, though they have convinced themselves that they do.”

    “this is one thing I do not understand about evolutionists of any type, shape or form….that they look at nature and CANNOT SEE it’s beauty, it’s design, it’s complexity.”

    “People who try and fit millions of years and evolution into Genesis make God a liar.”

    “Our interpretations of the ‘evidence’ differs, that’s all. You look from the point of ‘there is no God’, we look from the position that there is.”

    Saying all these things about people who accept evolution is “loving” somehow, I guess. And finally, to wrap it all up, she seems to think that it’s more loving to question whether or not I am a Christian than to question whether or not certain teachers might be less than completely honest.

    Nice.

    Look — we should hold our teachers to the highest standards of integrity possible. After all, they’ll be judged more harshly than the rest of us — note James 3:1 — and the loving thing to do would be to try to minimize their judgment by showing their missteps, hopefully causing either [1] the teachers correcting themselves; [2] the followers of the teacher correcting the teacher; or [3] the introduction of evidence that the claims of falsehood are incorrect.

    Maz: “I, and all Christians, have to watch for ourselves but also care for each other, and that sometimes means exposing falsehood where it is to protect the rest of the Body of Christ.”

    That’s exactly what I believe I’ve been doing. If it turns out that these are not attempts to twist the truth — and, as I’ve pointed out, it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t be, since some of these statements leave out crucial details, or invent things that evolution teaches or that evolutionists believe when it doesn’t and they don’t — there’s certainly egg on my face; I, and I alone, would bear the shame of it. But if these are as they appear, then the body of Christ as a whole would benefit by turning aside from teachers who would misrepresent things in order to prove a point.

  152. bookert said

    What’s the point of inviting a guest to speak if you’re just going to shout him down? I tried listening to this show, but it was terribly frustrating, hearing this poor guest attempt to get a word in. Add to that, 20 minutes of commercials, random piling on by a “resident Darwin contributor,” whatever that is, and half a dozen bible-thumping phone calls, and very little of the guest remained. Guess I’ll have to read his book.

  153. John said

    Well Bookert, that’s just how things usually work at that radio show when they have on a guest that they are at odds with.
    They cater to the feelings of the majority of their listening audience, I think. Just think of it as “entertainment” instead of “news”, and bare in mind that all of the REAL debate and information exchange takes place HERE with us.
    Tell us what the book is like in your own opinion after you read it.I can’t find it in any of our bookstores yet.

  154. Barney said

    Stu’s amateur hour is what it amounts to. I actually heard him prompt this shows guest to “hurry it up”. Can you imagine?

  155. John said

    Yes.
    He did that to me too when I was on his show.

  156. MattF said

    I have to admit that this whole charade has been tremendously educational to me.

    Talk shows are not about the discussion of ideas. They are strictly-controlled forums that showcase what their audience wants to hear. It’s not discussion; it’s business. They know their audience well, and how to set up shows that will appeal to them. The trick they have to try to pull off consistently is appearing to be fair and balanced on the surface while simultaneously ensuring that the outcome will be clear and one that their faithful audience can agree with.

    It should go without saying that talk shows are generally not interested in people. They don’t care to know your story. They are not interested in your joys and sorrows. They certainly don’t want to bother with your thoughts. They do care about good ratings that will ensure continued broadcasting success. I even have to wonder how often they think of us as people and not simply an Audience to be manipulated, cajoled, and persuaded through any means necessary to deliver to them the rewards they so richly deserve.

    Get people to think that they’re thinking, and they’ll love you for making them feel smug and clever with very little effort. Make people actually think, though, and there will be no end to their murderous hatred for you.

    How interesting and saddening to note that even in a country that gives endless lip service to individuality and freedom of thought and expression, one need only deviate from the accepted norm very slightly before finding oneself the object of unreasoning malice! (As a famous preacher put it, in the minds of many, there’s only one thing worse than being a nonbeliever — and that’s being the wrong kind of believer.)

    It is regrettable that a faith capable of demonstrating so much good has, from the mouths of some of its spokespeople, stooped to chicanery to promote itself and give some measure of hope to its adherents. There is a tradition in Christianity of attempting to seek out the truth; harsh words, even from the mouth of Christ Himself, were reserved for those who should know better but weigh people down with their lies nevertheless. I think of John the Baptist calling the religious leaders of his day — a sect within a religion that was ostensibly following the truth! — a brood of vipers; no lack of harsh words from Christ for the same groups in Matthew 23; the entire book of Amos; and on and on. I have nothing but sympathy for those trapped within someone else’s false teaching — witness my outreach to Maz earlier, an attempt to display love and humility that was not returned in kind, despite her later words about love’s primacy. For the teachers themselves, however, who seem to make it difficult for people to understand the truth, I have anger — and, I believe, justified anger at that.

    I can’t help but feel that I’m witness to a mugging. Yes, one can blame the victim for going into that dark alley, but after seeing the aftermath, one can’t help but desire to try to help the victim and see justice served to the perpetrator.

    In some sense, since we are talking about things which no one understands fully, we have to rely on the honesty of the people involved. We’ve seen that both the evolutionary camp and the creationist camp have made mistakes. We’ve seen that they behave differently when confronted with evidence that their claims might be false. Which, then, is more noble and honest? To admit that mistakes were made and to continue nevertheless in dogged pursuit of the truth? Or to state the same things over and over again, not even bothering to address evidence people have directly confronted you with that might contradict your claims?

    At the end of it all, I really have no problem with someone believing that the Earth is young and that “kinds” (whatever they are) are fixed. You can believe that all animals are illusory and that the Earth was created last Thursday for all I care. But to claim that science or any sort of natural evidence agrees with you is to betray either ignorance or a terrible disregard for truth.

    And that, I suppose, is why I feel I must speak up from time to time. Does it really matter whether a rock presented to you from the Grand Canyon is four thousand years old or thirty million years old? Ultimately speaking, of course not. What does matter is whom you believe, and why. Do you believe the rock is thirty million years old because you understand the reasoning behind the measurement and assessment of its age, as well as the assumptions and uncertainties? Do you believe the rock is four thousand years old because some teacher told you that it was, buttressing his rhetoric with more rhetoric, and the idea that the Grand Canyon could have been made by a global flood somehow makes good horse sense to you?

    What colors your interpretation of Scripture? When the Bible tells us that the Earth cannot be moved [as in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5], do you honestly believe that the Earth is immobile? Why or why not? (Even if the passage is poetic, something must tell you whether the idea presented is literally true or not.) If your answer is that good scientific evidence has been presented that the Earth does move, so these passages need to be interpreted some way other than literally, ask yourself: What kind of proof is necessary to show that my interpretation of a relatively recently and instantaneously created Universe must be incorrect, and I must examine alternate interpretations in the name of intellectual honesty? Is the kind of proof I demand reasonable?

    It comes down to this: We have seen, even in relatively recent history, terrible atrocities performed in the name of God and the Bible; even soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany used “Gott Mit Uns” — “God With Us” — as a motto emblazoned on their belt buckles. Faith is belief in the unobservable; belief in something in spite of the observable facts, on the other hand, is not an indication of strong faith — it’s an indication of either insanity or ignorance. We must remain critical of interpretations, humble enough to admit that we don’t know and always willing to re-learn if and when new facts come to light that challenge our notions. If we do not, we put ourselves in a position to do terrible and ungodly things at the behest of a teacher who is sufficiently convincing.

  157. F. L. A. said

    That was a great post, MattF[In my own opinion].
    It’s good to hear from you again.

  158. Maz said

    I wasn’t able to come back before now because I have been away on holiday, but so that no one can say I didn’t check into the issue about the list of Creationist scientists, here is a reply from AiG about it. The website they mention is the first one given to me in post #100 which I passed onto them.

    AiG:
    I checked into the website that you sent further and it makes some pretty bold claims on the surface; however, being non-Christians they don’t adhere to the Bible which says not to lie. In an atheistic worldview, lying and telling the truth are no different – merely chemical reaction in the brain and if one has a survival advantage, then lying would even be encouraged in that view. So for the sheer fact that this website is arguing that lying is wrong, means they are borrowing from the Bible and assuming it is true. But let’s look at one of their claims for example. With regards to James Dana they say:

    “James Dwight Dana was editor of the American Journal of Science and in his own time was rather a well known geologist. That alone should be enough to realize that he was not a young-earther since that was universally rejected by science at that time. He was one of the last holdouts to evolution. But by 1874 he accepted evolution though, in his own words, ‘while admitting the derivation of man from an inferior species, I believe that there was a Divine creative act at the origin of man…’4 So why is Answers in Genesis trying to call him one of their own since they are rather intolerant of even a hint of theistic evolution or old-earthism?”

    But if one looks at our website, nowhere do we claim that James Dana is one of our own. In fact, he is listed as an old earther and placed in the section that merely states that he believed in a Creator. Nowhere do we state anything else and yet the website listed below makes it out like we are saying something that we are not and then they are trying to accuse us of lying. So they are making a fabrication of their own.

    We also make no claim that all of the scientists are still living. The heading for the current-day scientists listed reads as follows: “Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation.”

    If anyone has anything to say about their response I would encourage them to go to Aig and speak to them personally about it rather than to me here.

  159. MattF said

    AIG: “In an atheistic worldview, lying and telling the truth are no different – merely chemical reaction in the brain and if one has a survival advantage, then lying would even be encouraged in that view.”

    Holy cats. I can’t think of a single atheist I know who wouldn’t be deeply offended by that statement. Of course lying and telling the truth are different. At a minimum, you could consider that people are social creatures, and ethical treatment is a good way to keep the species healthy. (Social species will often make individual sacrifices for the collective good.)

    Besides that, there are extreme situations where even a decent number of Bible-believing Christians would wrestle with telling the truth versus lying. (You’re hiding Jews from the Nazis in 1940s Germany. An SS officer asks if you’re hiding Jews. Do you tell him the truth?)

    And to our collective Christian shame, Martin Luther once said, “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church… a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.” What does that say about people who figure out whether or not to tell the truth based on the Bible?

    AIG: “So for the sheer fact that this website is arguing that lying is wrong, means they are borrowing from the Bible and assuming it is true.”

    Ignoring for the moment that I believe lying is wrong because God says it is, there are lots of people who believe that lying is wrong without ever using the Bible as justification.

    AIG: “But if one looks at our website, nowhere do we claim that James Dana is one of our own. In fact, he is listed as an old earther and placed in the section that merely states that he believed in a Creator.”

    But that’s the point. By 1874, he had accepted evolution (even though he still argued for a supernatural origin for man).

    I also believe in a Creator. I believe that He created using evolution as a mechanism, though I didn’t always. Would I also be eligible for their list? (Note to AIG: This is not a request to be on your list.) If so, what’s their point in creating this list — what distinction are they trying to make? If not, then why is Dana eligible?

    AIG: “We also make no claim that all of the scientists are still living.”

    Right. But this runs afoul of the claim they did make, namely, that all people listed signed a document saying that they agreed to be listed. This claim also does not address scientists who were not creationists in their list (such as Sir Richard Owen or Lord Kelvin). It also does not address those who came before Darwin in their list. It also does not address the present-day “scientists” who are known to have diploma mill degrees (such as Harold Slusher) or to have faked their credentials (such as Saami Shaibani).

    I invite you to examine Project Steve — a list of scientists, all named Steve, that argue that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry …”. The number of scientists named Steve who signed this document dwarfs the total number of scientists who signed AIG’s document. It’s also interesting to note that the closer one gets to the biological sciences, the smaller the chance you’ll find a creationist (by far).

    Of course, ultimately, all this is irrelevant. What we should be discussing is whether or not evolution is true, not who happens to believe it or not; and, as an interesting side note, whether or not young-Earth creationism is demonstrably untrue.

    Maz: “If anyone has anything to say about their response I would encourage them to go to Aig and speak to them personally about it rather than to me here.”

    Maz — it’s a public forum. I don’t just write to address you. I write to address the claims you make (even on behalf of others) in a public forum.

  160. Nadat ik oorspronkelijk commentaar Ik klikte op de-Laat me weten wanneer nieuwe feedback worden toegevoegd-vakje nu en iedere keer een opmerking wordt toegevoegd I get vier de identieke commentaar. Is er een weg manier kun weg mij van die dienst? Bedankt!

  161. bird training, parrot training, how to train a parrot, how to train a bird…

    [...]Is it possible for Preachers to Preach on evolution? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: