Replies

To: hosepipe (in 1127) and Alamo-Girl (in 1129):

Because the two of you both responded similarly and seem in agreement, I'm responding to the both of you at once here.

Said Hosepipe:
I read your "earlier post" and this one too.. there seems to be way to many questions and allusions to questions.. couched in snarky similes.. to approach seriously..

Oh, so first my reasoning falls apart and I'm suckered into something, and now I'm couching alluded questions in snarky similes? oh I wonder what I'll do next! ha ha.

But seriously, have you not done exactly what TXnMA did? Have you not accused me without demonstrating a single one of your accusations as true? What am I to think? How can I honestly come to any other conclusion?

Said Hosepipe:
This forum works best with simple questions not all tangled up like a birds nest..

Well, TXnMA's original question to me about how my reasoning could fall apart to let me get suckered into believing YEC - his original question was simple enough. And I answered it as simply as I could - as a matter of fact I bared my soul so as to speak - for any to poke holes in - if they can - in other words, I explained how I had arrived at my current position on the matter - which is what he had asked.

And besides, I don't believe my questions are tangled up like a bird's nest or whatever you call it. They seemed perfectly logical to me.

Said Hosepipe:
However; the time-line on when/how the earth was "formed" and the time-line of when humans appeared/were created could be different..(Emph. Mine.)

Ahh-huh! Could be?! Hmm. I could be a 747.. Or the king of old England.. or the son of papa-knew-Guinness.. Or a millionaire... But I'm probably not and all the the things I could be but can't demonstrate are sort of besides the point.

As a scientist, I'd rather discuss the facts - the things that we do know - rather then whimsical "could be's".

Said Alamo-Girl:
Thank you both for sharing your insights, dear brothers in Christ!

Thank you kindly for that encouragement! I really appreciate it.

I agree with hosepipe that it is much more productive to simplify the questions you'd like answered and to present them one at a time.

But you see I have found that folks who look at a list of questions and refuse to answer them all are just about as likely to look at any single one of them and refuse to answer that one as well. It's not like my approximately 8 questions were hard, lengthy, or confusing:

Said MrJesse:
1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?
2: At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet?
3: At what point did the generations become literal?
4: Was Noah an actual person?
5: Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob?
6: What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon?
It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe?
7: Do you believe that Noah built the ark?
8: And that God closed the door thereon?

It would be quite easy for someone to just copy those into their reply and insert their answers - and now I've even numbered them so as to make it easier still!

And it doesn't make sense to break those questions across multiple posts because they are really all interrelated, asking "Exactly where do you draw the line between Biblical literalness and allegory?"

Said Alamo-Girl:
It is also helpful to concentrate on the questions themselves ...

Exactly! It is extremely helpful to concentrate on the questions themselves. And that's what I did in explaining how I've arrived at my position when TXnMA wanted to know how my reasoning fell apart such that I could be suckered as he put it. And concentrating on the questions is exactly what I did when I asked about "Was Abraham a real person" and so on.

continued Alamo-Girl:
... rather than the parties involved ...

Again, I agree! But you see, the other parties are refusing to concentrate on the questions. Both TXnMA have accused me of different things like being suckered into things or couching alluded questions, and, with all do respect, and even in your most kind way, you yourself wrote your whole little post almost entirely about the parties involved (myself and hosepipe) and prior dialogs and you completely neglected to address any of the actual questions at hand!

I'm not saying that you were wrong saying that which you did - but that, as you just demonstrated, sometimes it is needful to also talk about the undesirable actions of the parties or prior dialogs.

continued Alamo-Girl:
... or prior dialogues.

I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. TXnMA's challenge to me was number 837 and my response to it was 874 on the same thread. What's the prior dialog?

Said Alamo-Girl:
These two steps would help all of us to follow and perhaps learn or contribute along the way.

Absolutely! I'm doing my best. But sometimes folks come along and try to prove their point by saying unfounded insulting things, then go away as if they were right and I was wrong, even though they never actually demonstrated that I was wrong. But when we try to have a discussion, but we refuse to discuss certain foundational issues, and if we are silent about dishonesty, we are going to find ourselves working on an unstable foundation - for a house built not upon truth cannot stand.

However, your points are valid and the two steps are good - but I think I can add two more steps to those:

If we wish to insult or decry as wrong someone's views or understanding of science, we MUST be absolutely sure to also demonstrate that our claims are true and explain. And secondly, if we discover that someone was right and we were wrong and we insulted them thinking that they were wrong, we MUST apologize.

In today's world of perverted reality, when the major social theme is "There's no such thing as wrong; just don't get caught", it is extremely important for us to remember that as Christians, we live for a higher calling - that of following Jesus Christ - who calls us to be extremely honest, "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no. Anything beyond that is of evil." Jesus said. (Matthew 5:37)

Dialogging with a dishonest person as if they were honest only hurts them - it does not help them.

Now, let's get on to the facts!

Thanks very much, and you all have a wonderful day!

-Jesse

[ What am I to think? How can I honestly come to any other conclusion? ]

Think whatever you wish.. Its just your opinion..
Conclusions are like elbows.. everybody as a few..

[ And I answered it as simply as I could - as a matter of fact I bared my soul so as to speak - for any to poke holes in - if they can ]

As we all do.. all posts are simply opinions.. not absolute facts..

[ As a scientist, I'd rather discuss the facts - the things that we do know - rather then whimsical "could be's". ]

I would rather discuss "could be's" as opposed to what some consider "facts"..
I am in the right place for that to happen, you are not..
What do you know for sure?, and how do you know its that way and not some other way?..

This forum shows opinion, yours, or some other..
Perhaps you thought you were at some scientific choir meeting..
Or that your opinion should be treated as a Scientific Shaman..
Your opinion of others opinions is just an opinion..
Science is often merely a Cargo Cult.. more often than not..

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, questions and concerns, dear brother in Christ!

You posed a set of questions what would seem to elicit simple, point-by-point answers:

Said MrJesse:
1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?
2: At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet?
3: At what point did the generations become literal?
4: Was Noah an actual person?
5: Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob?
6: What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon?
It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe?
7: Do you believe that Noah built the ark?
8: And that God closed the door thereon?

But I suspect some of your correspondents would react like I do, that this is a line of inquiry, a set, which explores the correspondent's epistemology: what kind of knowledge exists, how do you know what you know and how certain are you that you actually know it?

For a Christian the question reduces to “Who do you believe?”

My reply is that I love God surpassingly above all else, I believe Him and I trust Him.

To the epistemological question, my reply from a previous thread is that I perceive the following types of knowledge and their certainty in this order, top to bottom:

1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue, e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - it didn't come from me.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
To clarify: I eschew the doctrines and traditions of men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith or whoever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, David, etc.) do not fall in this category since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He confirms this is so to me personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings - including the geocentricity interpretations of the early church and my own such as in this article.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.

As you can see, my reply to your list of questions will spring from those more basic questions and because of that, it will be quite lengthy:

1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?

See answer to number 6 below. Also, there are different kinds of life, so again I shall present my understanding of the matter which is rooted in Judeo/Christian theology and relates well to Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Scripture and Jewish tradition speak of the soul/spirit in four levels:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is what betty boop and I have often described here as being field-like because it exists in all points of space/time.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

I suspect only the first two on the list would be manifest in such a way that science might be able to detect them - the last two are specially given gifts of God.

2: At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet? See answer to number 6 below.

3: At what point did the generations become literal? After Adam was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3

4: Was Noah an actual person? Yes

5: Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob? Yes, yes and yes

6: What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon? Yes, yes and yes

It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe?

The Scriptures are the inerrant words of God. Period. But the words of God must be Spiritually discerned (I Cor 2:6-16.)

I am neither an Old Earth Creationist nor a Young Earth Creationist. Nor do I lean to the Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that the universe only looks old, it could have been created last Thursday.

I see no conflict at all in the revelations of God the Father in (a) Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, (b) the indwelling Holy Spirit (c) Scriptures and (d) Creation, both spiritual and physical.

In sum, I aver that seven equivalent earth days from the inception space/time coordinates (big bang) is equal to roughly fifteen billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth. For more on this point, Scriptures vis-à-vis Inflationary Theory and Relativity see Age of the Universe by Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder.

Incidentally, often at the root of the theological differences over Creation Week we find Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48 - one side saying that Adam was the first mortal man (YEC) and the other saying that Adam was the first ensouled man (OEC.)

But I also have no “dog” in that dispute because I see Adam as created in the spiritual realm, the first man to become a “living soul” (Genesis 2) and I do not see him becoming earth bound until he was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.

In other words, I assert that the first three chapters of Scripture deal with the creation not only of the physical realm but the spiritual as well:

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

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5

Therefore I see no conflict with the creation of plant life (day 3) – before the creation of the solar system (day 4.) And as further Scriptural evidence I point to these:

The tree of life is in the center of Eden (Gen 2:9) and Paradise (Rev 2:7).

God created the plants and herbs before they were in the earth (Gen 2:4-5)

The intersection or “types” in the physical realm and spiritual realm: Temple, Ark, Tabernacle, Eden/Paradise.

Furthermore, whereas many see Genesis 1 as a historical record only, the leaning I have in the Spirit is that it is prophecy as well.

My understanding of the time appointed to Adamic men is very similar to the Jewish understanding and that of the early Christians - namely, that Adamic man [after he was banished to mortality in Genesis 3) - is appointed 7,000 years (corresponding to Creation week) the last 1,000 years being the Sabbath reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20.)

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17

That is a hidden Spiritual Truth behind these verses:

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4 (a Psalm the Jews attribute to Moses)

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet 3:8

It is further shown in this verse and its fulfillment (emphasis mine):

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Gen 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

That is also the Jewish interpretation (Sanhedrin 97a; Avodah Zarah Sa) of Psalms 90:4

It was also the early Christian understanding. This, from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5:

He speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the Creation, "And God made in six days the works of His hands and on the seventh day He made an end, and He rested on the seventh day, and He sanctified it. Consider, my children what this signifies: That He made an end in six days. The meaning of it is this: that in six thousand years the Creator will bring all things to an end, for with Him one day is a thousand years. He Himself testifies, saying, Behold the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, all things shall be accomplished. And He rested on the seventh day: He means this, that when His Son shall come He will destroy the season of the wicked one, and will judge the godless, and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then He will truly rest on the seventh day.

It is also recorded in the first verse, chapter 33 of 2 Enoch which is the Slavic:

And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that (the first seven) revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.

Following this prophetic timetable envisioned by these Jews and early Christians, Adamic man has little time before the end will come and Christ’s 1,000 reign on earth begins. Using Christian dating, it could be any day now. Using Jewish dating, we have about 240 years to go. This is Jewish year 5769 from Adam’s first moment on earth. The difference is a dispute over the amount of time the Jews were exiled in Babylon: The Jewish Calendar’s 240 missing years

Returning to Scripture and evolution, God specifically mentions things He specially created – and He also leaves the door open to evolution theory here:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. – Genesis 1:20

Thus I perceive biological life as a mixture of things specially created by God and mechanisms created by God whereby biological life adapts or evolves.

The Intelligent Design hypothesis is appealing to me and credible on the face. It simply states that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” And because animals are known to choose their mates, it is obvious that “certain features” are best explained by those choices.

I find most of the ID disputes to be theological, ideological or political – rarely on the merits on the hypothesis which I consider to be more of an observation.

My main dispute with evolution theory is the improper use of the word and concept of “random” when the correct word and concept is “unpredictable.” Stochastic methods apply to either. But a person cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is” – and science does not know – and can never know – the full dimensionality of space/time.

So the use of the word “random” overstates what is known and knowable by the scientific method.

I do however have a very strong objection to those scientists like Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin who misappropriate the theory of evolution to proliferate anti-Christ and anti-God sentiment under the color of science.

Because of the self-imposed "methodological naturalism" science does not even look beyond the natural and therefore is way out of bounds to make judgments concerning God, spirit, soul, miracles, etc.

I do not endorse the "irreducible complexity" theory of some Intelligent Design proponents because it looks backwards. However, I do strongly advocate the forward looking point that order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system.

Also, because of scientists who promote anti-God sentiment under the color of science, I do frequently assert several of the open "origin" questions of science to illustrate how little they actually know:

1. Origin of space/time.
2. Origin of life.
3. Origin of inertia.
4. Origin of information (successful communication)
5. Origin of conscience (sense of right v wrong, good v evil, etc.)
6. Origin of consciousness (including decision processes)

The Jewish mystics claim that God will hold us to account if we fail to notice, to inquire, to try and understand the world around us. I agree (emphasis mine):

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. - Romans 1:18-21

The difference, IMHO, is that the Christian or Jew looks at the depth and height of the physical creation – and sees a revelation of the Creator whereas others see a different context (e.g. Buddhism) or no context at all (atheism/agnosticism.)

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

I, for instance, see the unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner) as God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

Nevertheless, no matter what a Christian may see when he looks at Scriptures and the physical Creation, the bottom line is: to God be the glory!

7: Do you believe that Noah built the ark? Yes

8: And that God closed the door thereon? Yes

To sum it up, I could have answered your list of questions by saying these two things:

Man is not the measure of God.

God’s Name is I AM!

Excuse me for easedropping, but I would like to disagree with an assumption here, one that is part of a collection of assumption I call the “false-dichotomy” arguments:

Your’s is an example of one of them:

” 1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?”

The truth is, these are not the only alternatives to the question, because there is a more fundamental one that has not been answered about any question of origins—which is, why does there have to be an origin? Did things have a beginning or not? For my money, there is just not enough evidence of any kind to conclude that there had to be some kind of instant or gradual origin of things, either the universe, or life, or anything else.

I do not hold to either of the alternatives presented in your question, by the way. Please do not ask me what I believe about “where everything came from.” I don’t know, and only know all those who are promoting what they believe as “absolute truth” don’t know either. The whole problem will go away when people admit, they do not know, and argue what they believe under that honest premise. There is nothing wrong with presenting your views in the form, “this is what I believe about it, and these are my reasons for holding that belief, but to argue one’s beliefs as though they were facts is disingenuous, as far as I’m concerned.

Here’s a thought. Except to back up your beliefs about something (God perhaps, or “no God,” if that’s what you believe) what difference does it make where everything came from.

Cosmology, and all other forms of “historical conjecture” which is what all such “studies” are (none are science, in the classical sense), make not a wit of difference to any science, because what is, is, however it got to be.

To be honest, the first question in your list should have been:

“Did God create Adam and Eve, did all life start from a single primitive cell, or does life exist in some way neither of these addresses?

Excluding the third alternative makes the question a false dichotomy and therefore dishonest.

Hank