Posted on 03/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I believe Genesis ch 1-3 are metaphorical.. after all how can/could a human.. any human.. actually know the mechanics and physics or even the cosmology of creating a moon, planet, solar system or galaxy.. or even a creature..
Humans see time in a lineal way when time may not even be linear.. Human views on mass, matter and whats tangible may be severely limited.. Little wonder Genesis ch 1-3 merely hints at what happened.. in cartoon form.. For several thousand years Genesis ch 1-3 was adequate.. Any more detail would have been confusing to humans then and probably NOW to most all..
Asked "what do you know for sure" today, most if honest would say.. not much.. Humans don't even know what Life is.. let alone what matter is or isn't.. Dark energy / matter is an absolute profound mystery.. Amazing since since almost all of this Universe is made of "IT/them"..
Anything else in this Universe thats NOT dark energy/matter is merely trace elements.. an after thought maybe..
I know and appreciate that. We have a church which is meeting our needs at this time.
I don't think it's metaphorical as much as lacking in a great amount of detail. I think it's an accurate description of what happened put as concisely as possible.
There is a lot to be said about uneducated folks not understanding if God went into great detail. But my suspicion is that even if He did, it would be beyond our comprehension as well, as arrogantly as we think we've arrived.
Even if He went into detail, if what He did varied from what scientists think they know now, they'd still say Scripture was wrong, because they are so convinced that they are right.
I think that God gave us as concise an explanation of what He did to let us know that HE was the one who did it.
Saying *In the beginning* gives the fact without telling how.
Saying the earth was *formless and void* tells us everything we need to know without going into the solar nebula theory and proto-planets, etc, which is our current level of understanding (and may not be right either).
Saying that He used dirt (the dust of the earth) explains the chemical composition without getting into chemistry, which was almost non-existent until fairly recently.
Perhaps the biggest criticism that should dare to be leveled at the Genesis account, isn't that it's wrong, but that it's simplistic for OUR culture in OUR day. It suffices for the rest of the world for all the time until now.
The other challenge that is made against it by the evos about why God didn't go into greater detail, again goes back to the argument that if there were differences, Scripture would always be declared to be wrong, not to mention that the Bible is long enough as it is without adding material that is not really relevant to the work of Christ for the salvation of man.
It reminds me a great deal of explaining stuff to mu kids when they were toddlers.
While they were very bright, their understanding of much of the world was very limited so I had to explain stuff to them as accurately as I could in terms they understood.
What I told them often lacked tremendous amount of detail but was true and as accurate as their current level of understanding allowed.
It is difficult for me to imagine any such thing as a divine "after thought." For this would be to suggest either that God's perfect Logos needed subsequent "correction," or that God is subject to being changed by His interactions with the Creation which He made in the Beginning. Neither concept seems compatible with the idea of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator and providentially sustaining God.
To me, dark energy/dark matter seem to be the main features of a structure specifying the geometry of the gravitational field that, in turn, underlies universal physical reality. But the fact is, we really know very, very little about these detectible "quantities" in nature at the present time.
Certainly I agree with you here: "Human views on mass, matter and whats tangible may be severely limited.. Little wonder Genesis ch 1-3 merely hints at what happened.. in cartoon form.. For several thousand years Genesis ch 1-3 was adequate.. Any more detail would have been confusing to humans then and probably NOW to most all.."
Thank you ever so much for sharing your thoughts, dearest brother in Christ!
Demanding an assembly manual, when they themselves can’t provide one.
Hope my maunderings make sense.
No offense, but in a word, no.
When creationism is finally added to the school science curriculum, will Catholic bashing be covered in week one or week two?
“This week, children, we learn what filthy heretics your Catholic neighbors are. Next week, the Jews.”
I admit that I don't know; that is the difference between us. It is that very uncertainty that opens the door to reconciling Faith and Science - which were never intended by our Creator to be mutually exclusive
Further, my faith is intact despite this uncertainty; strengthened even - supported by evidence observed via the human mind, which was created in the likeness of its creator. Special Relativity is a product of that mind, and a step toward understanding and appreciating the handiwork of our Creator.
I believe we were intended to be intelligent gardeners; and I believe my creator expected his human creations to seek a more intimate understanding of Him via application of the mind created in His likeness.
And you never did explain what happened to Adam and Eve's pre-fall excrement.
How did they digest food?
>>I see,
I’m afraid you haven’t supplied any evidence to support that assertion.
>>so you think God is whizzing around the universe at the speed of light
No, I simply believe God’s inertial frame is vastly different from that of His Biblical audience.
>>to clarify things for us.
God created the human mind in His likeness. I think He expected humans to use that mind in order to be better gardeners; and part of that expected work is a process whereby we seek to understand how His handiwork functions - aka Science.
>>Sooo....was it 144 hours or not?
Yes, but as observed from in His inertial frame, not ours.
And the audacity to say that ours is wrong, when they don’t even know what right is themselves.
Metaphor, allegory, parable ,,, whatever you devise to try and work around it, you'll not find the fundamental truth behind it to be a lie. I have no need to accomodate. It'll all reconcile in due time.
As far as your continued harping on poop, it was inert, digested vegetable matter at the time, bacteria notwithstanding. I suppose it dried out or otherwise fell apart, was spread around by various, natural means since toiling to produce food was unknown. Spread by the wind, trod by animals, whatever, but it became food for plants, primarily, and the creatures that feed off of it as well. Much like leaves or uneaten fruit, that sort of thing. No reason for this to be all that different from today, in other words. A perfect little "biosphere" that actually worked, actually sustained itself, with death being unknown.
Why is this so important to you? I honestly can't envision your rejection of the Biblical account of Creation as having hinged on such a thing.
>> so I’ll say not.
Incorrectly.
>>Dung is not a living creature, LomanBill
Dung is FILLED with living, and previously living, organisms.
Did it Decay in the garden?
What happened when leaves fell off the trees? Did they only start growing new ones after the fall?
Revelation, (note it is not Revelations plural,) is one of those dual purpose books. The churches were literal, and were pretty much as described in Revelation, However after the Third chapter, you would need to understand the prediction made in Ezekiel, because after the third chapter the Church is not mentioned again.
The fiction of evolution has everything to do with thermal dynamics and energy conservation!
Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism
The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
For organized matter performing specific functions to form "spontaneously" you need an outside energy - the intelligent designer!
However, now that I know you don’t believe in quantum physics, either, I have a better sense of your entire approach to science.
Quantum mechanics, while noble in its foundations, has devolved into mystical belief system of little use to engineers or anyone else. Quantum "physicists" try to mystify us with bull, saying "an object can be a particle and a wave" or "you're there and not there at the same time"; the whole concept is akin to heretical Eastern religions. The uncertainty principle which it's based on has been completely discredited by Creation Scientists:
The Law of Cause and Effect (pg. 6-7, especially)
No science in the Space Shuttle, since science died in 1859. Just some engineering.
LOL! I didn't say science died in 1859. Typical for the evo to put words in his opponent's mouth. It tapered off shortly after the early 1900's, which is about how long it took nonsensical Darwinistic ideas to creep into Main Stream Science (MSS). The brilliant engineers who built the shuttle (and all other technology) based their ideas on classical mechanics, electromagnetics, and chemistry, whose foundations were laid over a century before.
This is a remarkable viewpoint.
It is the viewpoint demanded by Biblical faith, and in fact, demanded by conservatism. The tyranny of peer review, which opposes the individualist spirit of conservatism, has obliterated progress in science. Conservatives are the only hope to lead the charge to change this.
Did it Decay in the garden?
What happened when leaves fell off the trees? Did they only start growing new ones after the fall?
Strange the evo obsession with dung! Funny how the evo tries to apply post-Fall physics to event prior to the Fall!
There's many possibilities - digestion was likely a perfect process before man's sin entered the picture - it's likely that defecation didn't even need to take place! Even if it did, thermodynamic diffusion, a process dictated by the 2nd Law, would not have made it offensive in the air! (Sorry to go there, but such a silly comment deserves a response.)
And of course, leaves didn't fall before the Fall!
>>Thus, they have set a precedent that could allow
>>any word to be reinterpreted by the preconceived
>>ideas of the person reading the words.
But in this special case, the “reinterpretation” is supported by observation of the real world. The reinterpretation does not conflict with what the Bible says; rather it leads to a deeper understanding of what the Bible says - and how The Word is reflected in Creation.
Special Relativity, works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.