Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth…’
by Peter Milford
...
The issue of the age of the earth parallels circumcision. In my experience, the first response from Christians who do not accept the age of the earth that the Scriptures indicate, is to say something like “The New Testament does not make a big deal out of the age of the earth” or “It is not the purpose of the Bible to give the age of the earth”. Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about. They believe we are free to hold whatever view our conscience permits. They are right in the first part. In and of itself, the age of the earth is not a central focus of Scripture. But the distortions a long-age view brings to the gospel message make them wrong on the second part...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Why?
God’s word says in over 100 places specifically that the evolution process was prevented, and all things reproduced after their own kind. Why would his word say that if it were a lie?
So, I would be interested in (any of the “over 100”) citations saying, “specifically that the evolution process was prevented...”
Search any Bible text site using the two words After, and kind, and you will get 138 matches. Read them.
and...
The universe is 7 days old from the inception space/time coordinates.
By my understanding, the first three chapters of Genesis are written from the Creator’s perspective: namely, God is the author and the only observer of Creation. Further, that those Scriptures speak of the creation of the spiritual realm as well as the physical realm, that Eden was preeminently in the spiritual realm. For me, the location of the tree of life [midst of both Eden and Paradise] is particularly illuminating:
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7
In my understanding, the perspective of time passing (space/time coordinate) changes to man when Adam is banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.
The Jewish calendar also begins with Adam though I believe they begin counting when they believe Adam was created (as if he was created in the physical realm alone) and not when he fell. Since I perceive Genesis 1-3 speaking of both the spiritual and physical realms, and Adam being created in the spiritual realm and banished to the physical realm, I would not propose a birth date for him relative to our perspective “in” space/time.
Interestingly, we have several other discussions of time and Scripture going on:
Bigotry against Mormons apparently acceptable in Utah LDS (OPEN) (post 269)
To be able to compare scientifically, we’d need to decide if “kind” meant species, genus, family, order, class, phylum? We’d need some method to map one term with the scientific equivalent.
“Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, and many more places too.”Don't stop at verse 17!
God spelled it out, literally.¶ And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exodus 31:18
You’re grasping!
It’s a necessary for the requirements of scientific proof that your units and terms are identical.
Our grasp is in how we go from Scripture to physics.
Again you are confusing observation with circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no observational evidence that man was brought into being by some evolutionary process. None. Were you there? Did you witness it?
No what we have is a scientific method that from the outset excludes the possibility of intelligent design or creation and then after making the a-priori assumption that God could not possibly have actually created man or life or frogs or anything else, attempt to fathom an explanation for how it all got here.
In that sense Evolutionary science categorically denies God's role in his own creation.
Now I freely admit that my analysis starts with the a-priori assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and that we are a product of supernatural intelligent design and not chance.
But I think I can prove both scientifically and statistically that creatures evolving from slime to man is an impossibility beyond our wildest comprehension.
The honest Evolutionist will admit that life itself is a statistical impossibility, but then they claim that EVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here. When a Christian claims that CREATION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here, they are ridiculed and referred to as Neandrathals or fanatics.
One moment you’re declaring that we cannot ust the Bible as science; the next you’re demanding that God’s word conform to your definition of terms for science sake.
Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.
I think you have already been given the cites.
The reason I asked whether or not it would make any difference before providing the cites is because I wanted to know if you would actually be willing to modify your beliefs if you were presented with evidence that God himself had made the claim that he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days.
If not, then the cites were irrelevant.
If so, then I would have provided them.
But now I see that you were provided with the cites even before you answered the question. Cest la vie.
Now that you have the cites, does it help you?
Are you willing to reconsider your position?
“Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes” ;o)
By the requirements of its use.
Scientific method, by necessary and self-imposed rules is valueless. It is not equipped to answer questions of purpose or absolute values. It's useless for this.
Why either side keeps trying to make science speak on something that it is most purposefully mute about is the mystery.
Actually, my post stands. You seem to believe that “evolutionists” are monolithic in all attributes, including their atheism. That’s simply not true. This Christian “evolutionist” (to use your term) beleives that Christianity and evolution are perfectly compatible. In a sense, evolution provides the “how” to the bible’s “what”.
And yes, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution. Science collects data and draws conclusions. Most importantly, science will change or abandon a theory as the evidence or analysis demand. The fact that creationism will never duplicate that part of the process will forever keep it from the realm of science.
Not much of a mystery.
People recognize that science has POWER.
Some wish to utilize that power in areas that it is not at all applicable in order to ‘score points’.
Creationists are not content to call themselves Creationists. They think that by criticizing Science that they do not understand they are “Creation Scientists”.
Similarly militant atheists are not content to have a reasonable explanation whereby things can form from natural processes; they must claim that the existence of these natural processes somehow exclude the possibility of God.
The fact that stars and planets form by gravitational attraction in no way removes God as the creator of the heavens and the Earth.
Similarly the fact that species diverge from one another by natural selection of genetic variation in no way removes God as the creator of all living things.
Though I did find this interesting citation, perhaps you are familiar: Exodus 20:16
No hypocrisy is promoting a standard I don’t believe applies to me. This applies in all logical and scientific endeavor.
The “demand” is a basic logical and scientific requirement.
If you say evolution contradicts kind reproducing with kind, you have to first say what kind means in evolution theory or vice/versa. Else there’s not enough common terminology to use.
What is my position?
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.