Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does the creation and the Bible agree ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does the creation and the Bible agree ?

    Here is a question asked on Quora that I posted a reply on:

    https://www.quora.com/I-teach-scienc...r/Lou-Newton-1

    I teach science. One student asked me, "Science books say humans came from apes. The Bible says humans came from God (Adam and Eve). Finally, sir, which book is wrong?"

    Lou Newton
    Lou Newton, former Steel Mill Crane Designer and Physics Teacher
    Answered 1m ago


    The Bible clearly states that God created the earth to bring forth the plants and then the earth brought forth the animals. So The Bible clearly states that God used “evolution” of some kind to create the plants and animals.

    Notice that God only uses the word CREATE in three places in Gen 1. That is when God creates something out of “nothing”. But God uses the word “made” or “let there be” when God makes something out of something He already created. God does NOT use the word create for the plants, but says let the earth produce the plants.

    But also notice that God uses BOTH the word “made” and “create” when He created man. First God made man by having the earth produce animals that evolved ( with His guidance) into creatures that looked like men physically. But they were animals and not men. They had no spirit like God and so were not in the image of God. So God then created a spirit and breathed this spirit into Adam and Adam became the first man.

    It may have been these animals, that were like men physically, that Cain mated with an built a city.

    The Holy Scriptures and the creation never contradict one another. The creation declares the glory of God. As Isaac Newton said, anytime a man claims that the creation and the Bible contradict one another, he will be proved wrong in time.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Lou Newton View Post
    Here is a question asked on Quora that I posted a reply on:

    https://www.quora.com/I-teach-scienc...r/Lou-Newton-1

    I teach science. One student asked me, "Science books say humans came from apes. The Bible says humans came from God (Adam and Eve). Finally, sir, which book is wrong?"

    Lou Newton
    Lou Newton, former Steel Mill Crane Designer and Physics Teacher
    Answered 1m ago


    The Bible clearly states that God created the earth to bring forth the plants and then the earth brought forth the animals. So The Bible clearly states that God used “evolution” of some kind to create the plants and animals.

    Notice that God only uses the word CREATE in three places in Gen 1. That is when God creates something out of “nothing”. But God uses the word “made” or “let there be” when God makes something out of something He already created. God does NOT use the word create for the plants, but says let the earth produce the plants.

    But also notice that God uses BOTH the word “made” and “create” when He created man. First God made man by having the earth produce animals that evolved ( with His guidance) into creatures that looked like men physically. But they were animals and not men. They had no spirit like God and so were not in the image of God. So God then created a spirit and breathed this spirit into Adam and Adam became the first man.

    It may have been these animals, that were like men physically, that Cain mated with an built a city.

    The Holy Scriptures and the creation never contradict one another. The creation declares the glory of God. As Isaac Newton said, anytime a man claims that the creation and the Bible contradict one another, he will be proved wrong in time.
    I would admit that from a pure science side, that this answer is at first hard to accept. I would also say from a church side, it's almost impossible to accept. I'm beginning to see that when we don't trust Christ and trust something, anything, else that we cannot see how God does things. We will have a hangup somewhere. Isaac Newton's quote is one of the best ever, and a great place to start searching for truth. People on both sides of the argument just assume that each one is completely wrong and with no merit. If we say that there's a God, and that it's possible that he tries to communicate with us, then true religion and true science are the same thing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by redsoxmaloney View Post

      I would admit that from a pure science side, that this answer is at first hard to accept. I would also say from a church side, it's almost impossible to accept. I'm beginning to see that when we don't trust Christ and trust something, anything, else that we cannot see how God does things. We will have a hangup somewhere. Isaac Newton's quote is one of the best ever, and a great place to start searching for truth. People on both sides of the argument just assume that each one is completely wrong and with no merit. If we say that there's a God, and that it's possible that he tries to communicate with us, then true religion and true science are the same thing.
      Thanks for the reply Tom. You are right, people have a very difficult time even considering beliefs they have believed since little children are not true.

      Comment


      • #4
        Relevant NIV scripture verses
        to determine the difference in the use of “created” and “made.”

        Genesis 1:1 NIV
        In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

        Genesis 1:7 NIV
        So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so

        Genesis 1:16 NIV
        God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

        Genesis 1:21 NIV
        So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

        Genesis 1:25 NIV
        God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

        Genesis 1:27 NIV
        So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

        Genesis 1:31 NIV
        God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

        Genesis 2:3 NIV
        Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

        Genesis 2:4 NIV
        This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

        Genesis 2:9 NIV
        The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

        Genesis 2:22 NIV
        Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

        Genesis 5:1 NIV
        This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.

        Genesis 5:2 NIV
        He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”

        Genesis 6:6 NIV
        The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

        Genesis 6:7 NIV
        So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

        Genesis 7:4 NIV
        Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

        Genesis 9:6 NIV
        “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by glen smith View Post
          Relevant NIV scripture verses
          to determine the difference in the use of “created” and “made.”

          Genesis 1:1 NIV
          In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

          Genesis 1:7 NIV
          So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so

          Genesis 1:16 NIV
          God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

          Genesis 1:21 NIV
          So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

          Genesis 1:25 NIV
          God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

          Genesis 1:27 NIV
          So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

          Genesis 1:31 NIV
          God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

          Genesis 2:3 NIV
          Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

          Genesis 2:4 NIV
          This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

          Genesis 2:9 NIV
          The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

          Genesis 2:22 NIV
          Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

          Genesis 5:1 NIV
          This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.

          Genesis 5:2 NIV
          He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”

          Genesis 6:6 NIV
          The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

          Genesis 6:7 NIV
          So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

          Genesis 7:4 NIV
          Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

          Genesis 9:6 NIV
          “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
          Thanks for the scriptures Glen.

          Comment


          • #6
            The Holy Scriptures and the creation never contradict one another. The creation declares the glory of God. As Isaac Newton said, anytime a man claims that the creation and the Bible contradict one another, he will be proved wrong in time.
            [/QUOTE]

            Does the creation and the Bible agree? - This is the question of this post. Lou's quote attributed to Issac Newton answers the question.
            "Anytime a man claims that the creation and the Bible contradict one another, he will be proved wrong in time."

            The term "creation" is a noun describing the work of a creator.
            When the term "creation" is used to mean the cosmos the creator by necessity must logically be greater than the cosmos.
            The creator greater than the cosmos applies to all stories of the cause or origins of the cosmos, even the scientific ones.

            Returning to the question: Does the creation and the Bible agree?
            It must be asked which creation story, if any, does the question assume?

            Assuming the question asks about the creation story in the Bible the following is relevant.
            The creation story in the Bible has suffered many different interpretations.
            However, the biblical creation story left uninterpreted is what it is - the biblical story of creation.
            Therefore, to answer the question let it be heard that the Bible is the source of the biblical creation story and is in disagreement with all other creation stories.
            Using the above assumption the answer is, "Yes" because the Bible contains the creation story of the Bible.

            If the question was not: Does the creation and the Bible agree?
            but this using the assumption that the cosmos was not a creation by a creator:
            Does the scientific notions of the origins of the cosmos and the account of creation as recorded in the Bible agree?
            There are four opposing courses.
            (1) There are various interpretations of the biblical creation account using scientific origins to test or understand the creation story.
            (2) The biblical creation account is considered a creation myth.
            (3) The biblical creation account is not about science.
            (4) The biblical creation account proves scientific origin theories wrong.
            Last edited by glen smith; November 14, 2017, 07:54 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              No, I don't think there's any truth to the ideas that the bible contradicts science. That's against what Newton said, and he knew the scriptures and science better than us. The traditions of men come in error with science. And any science that attempts to erase a creator is also in error. That really should be obvious to all men, but as someone said in another post, men do not change, even up to the end of the age.

              Comment


              • #8
                Men interpret the Holy Scriptures and claim many creation stories. But there is one and only one that is true. That is what God means by His creation story. All the rest of the creation stories are without merit.

                God also reveals His glory with His creation. Many men claim many different things about His creation. But it is only The Truth that only God knows that is true. All other claims are without merit.

                God reveals truth to those who seek His face and are willing to put His truth above all other doctrines of men.

                One can ask these questions:

                1 - Who did Cain marry ? No sister is listed as being born before Cain was banned. If Cain married his sister why would God leave this important detail out ?

                2 - Who was the land of Nob named after ?

                3 - Who helped Cain build a city ? Cain built a city while Adam's line still were shepherds.

                4 - God has left us many fossils and bones of other creatures that walked upright and used tools. What were these creatures ? These creatures walked the earth far before man walked the earth by all evidence that God left us. God is not trying to confuse us is He? He left these fossils for us to find, did he not?

                5 -Where in the Bible does it claim that God did not make other creatures that walked upright and used tools ?

                6 - If God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, then the heavens and the earth would be the whole universe. What would not be included in that creation? Would it not include all matter and all energy to make the first verse true?

                7 - That would seem to indicate that God formed the earth and the universe out of the matter and energy that He created in the beginning, would it not?

                8 - If all matter and all energy was created in the beginning, then what did God create when He used the word two more places in the story ? Could it be that God created the soul for some of the animals that God had the earth form? Could the third place be that God created a spirit for man ?

                9 - Is there not three realms in our universe, the natural, the soul, and the spirit? Would not God tell us about these three realms in the first chapter of His Book ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Evolution and Science and the Theistic Choices.

                  Two branches of empirical science knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested or observed for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. A partial list of these two branches of empirical science include:

                  Natural science: Physics, chemistry, biology, botany, zoology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, earth sciences.

                  Social science: anthropology, archaeology, government, linguistics, political science, psychology (especially social psychology), sociology and, geography, history and law.

                  Moderns are aware that in modern thinking these two branches, natural sciences and the social sciences, begin with the presupposition of evolution.1 How Christians emotionally, rationally, or spiritually reconcile belief and evolution varies with different starting points or presuppositions.

                  1. Creationism is an emotional choice. This thinking process starts with the Bible being literally true. There is not any need to interpret any aspects of the Bible where science is in conflict since the record of the biblical account is always accurate as read literally and it is science which has yet to discover the actual truth. The inerrantist Ken Ham and the young Earth creationist belief is an extreme example, for me.

                  2. Theistic evolution is a rational choice: This thinking process starts with science being true and interprets belief and the Bible so as to reconcile the understanding to match science. As an example, Lou has referred to Dr. Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe site. For me, Dr. Ross represents the extreme application of theistic evolution.

                  3. Faith is a spiritual choice. While living in the realm of two competing truths, science and the biblical record, faith or trust is employed for both. The advantages and progress made by science is accepted and participated in while believing in the biblical record.
                  The spiritual choice of faith requires accepting things irreconcilable. This is trusting God without attempting to know the unknowable. There are many scientists, doctors, and common believers, including my wife, who are examples of this starting point.

                  Those who start with either creationism or theistic evolution often consider this third choice a denial of the truth concerning the facts. These people are accused of blind faith and sticking their head in the sand to ignore the obvious.

                  This post is an introduction for a future post on a major influence on social psychology which all apologist of the Christian faith ought to consider when debating against particular ideas. The idea here is to highlight social psychology depends upon the starting point of evolution. Accordingly, those starting with the presupposition of theistic evolution might be particularly interested in this future post.

                  Footnotes:
                  1. The third branch of the empirical sciences is the formal sciences: math, logic, theoretical computer science, information theory, systems theory, decision theory, statistics, and theoretical linguistics. Unlike other sciences, the formal sciences are not concerned with the validity of theories based on observations in the real world (empirical knowledge), but rather with the properties of formal systems based on definitions and rules. Of course, the applied sciences, engineering and medicine, haven’'t a practical use for theory or evolution and does not require being placed into one of the three choices above.
                  =========================================



                  I did not edit this post. I clicked on the quote button and the post appeared in the edit form instead - Lou
                  Last edited by Lou Newton; December 30, 2017, 05:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by glen smith View Post
                    Evolution and Science and the Theistic Choices.

                    Two branches of empirical science knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested or observed for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. A partial list of these two branches of empirical science include:

                    Natural science: Physics, chemistry, biology, botany, zoology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, earth sciences.

                    Social science: anthropology, archaeology, government, linguistics, political science, psychology (especially social psychology), sociology and, geography, history and law.

                    Moderns are aware that in modern thinking these two branches, natural sciences and the social sciences, begin with the presupposition of evolution.1 How Christians emotionally, rationally, or spiritually reconcile belief and evolution varies with different starting points or presuppositions.

                    1. Creationism is an emotional choice. This thinking process starts with the Bible being literally true. There is not any need to interpret any aspects of the Bible where science is in conflict since the record of the biblical account is always accurate as read literally and it is science which has yet to discover the actual truth. The inerrantist Ken Ham and the young Earth creationist belief is an extreme example, for me.

                    2. Theistic evolution is a rational choice: This thinking process starts with science being true and interprets belief and the Bible so as to reconcile the understanding to match science. As an example, Lou has referred to Dr. Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe site. For me, Dr. Ross represents the extreme application of theistic evolution.

                    3. Faith is a spiritual choice. While living in the realm of two competing truths, science and the biblical record, faith or trust is employed for both. The advantages and progress made by science is accepted and participated in while believing in the biblical record.
                    The spiritual choice of faith requires accepting things irreconcilable. This is trusting God without attempting to know the unknowable. There are many scientists, doctors, and common believers, including my wife, who are examples of this starting point.

                    Those who start with either creationism or theistic evolution often consider this third choice a denial of the truth concerning the facts. These people are accused of blind faith and sticking their head in the sand to ignore the obvious.

                    This post is an introduction for a future post on a major influence on social psychology which all apologist of the Christian faith ought to consider when debating against particular ideas. The idea here is to highlight social psychology depends upon the starting point of evolution. Accordingly, those starting with the presupposition of theistic evolution might be particularly interested in this future post.

                    Footnotes:
                    1. The third branch of the empirical sciences is the formal sciences: math, logic, theoretical computer science, information theory, systems theory, decision theory, statistics, and theoretical linguistics. Unlike other sciences, the formal sciences are not concerned with the validity of theories based on observations in the real world (empirical knowledge), but rather with the properties of formal systems based on definitions and rules. Of course, the applied sciences, engineering and medicine, haven’'t a practical use for theory or evolution and does not require being placed into one of the three choices above.
                    =========================================



                    I did not edit this post. I clicked on the quote button and the post appeared in the edit form instead - Lou
                    Hi Glen,

                    You write: 2.
                    Theistic evolution is a rational choice: This thinking process starts with science being true and interprets belief and the Bible so as to reconcile the understanding to match science. As an example, Lou has referred to Dr. Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe site. For me, Dr. Ross represents the extreme application of theistic evolution.
                    This statement is simply not true. I did not start with assuming that science was true. In fact I used to assume that the young earth interpretation was correct. That is the opposite of what you state. Instead of assuming why or how someone came to their conclusions, you could just ask them.

                    Also I do not agree with Hugh Ross on many things. I do agree with him that the universe is very old.

                    But I came to these conclusions from reading the Holy Scriptures and asking The Lord about them. I believe what The Holy Spirit revealed to me because He confirmed those revelations with The Holy Scriptures. But also I have come to know His voice, just as He promises we will.

                    Some assume that the generations given in the Scriptures reveal the age of the earth. That is proven not to be true by the Holy Scriptures.

                    “The expression ‘A begat B’ does not always imply direct parentage.”73Matthew 1:8 states that ‘Joram begat Uzziah,’ but from the Old Testament (II Kings 8:25; 11:2, 14:1,21) we learn that Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who fathered Joash, father of Amaziah father of Uzziah. Thus ‘begat’ can mean ‘begat the line culminating in.’74 As Kitchen states, “Terms like ‘son’ and ‘father’ can mean not only ‘(grand)son’ and ‘(grand)father,’ but also ‘descendant’ and ‘ancestor’ respectively.”
                    So we see that Matthew skips 3 generations between the two. That does not make either untrue. But both have been misunderstood by many.

                    And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of Life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:12-15).
                    Many men who were descended from Adam are not written in The Book, The Bible. One can not come close to the calculating the years since Adam by adding the generations listed in The Book. Plus if the years passed since Adam were known, that does not give us the years passed since the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth. So instead of 4000 years since Adam, it could be 10,000, 30,000 or more years since Adam.

                    But the whole of the Holy Scriptures tell of a great age of our universe. God has revealed many of His names. One of them is, The Ancient of Days. Now days has to do with the coming of light, each time the light comes after the darkness God calls it a day. God has left us much evidence that the amount of time from the coming of one day to the next is not constant at all, but it changes. A day is NOT about time, but darkness being done away with by the coming of light. God constantly teaches us that time is not to be our focus. We are told to be patient, or to ignore time. But we are to focus on the light, for God is light.

                    God also tells us that He has no beginning and no end. So He exists outside of time. The only importance of time is that we are all given a limited amount of it to choose who we will serve. Those who chose to give their life to Jesus will then be taken to a place where time does not exist.

                    Men have been so focused on time that many have made time the central thing in the first chapter of Genesis. They should focus of light in Genesis 1 instead of time, because God is light and exists outside of time.

                    Now God calls Himself The Ancient of Days. That of course means that God has seen many many days. He has seen the coming of light when the sun rises many many times. But God also tells us that 1000 years is like a day to Him. So one could also conclude that God has seen many many 1000 of years pass. I do not think that God would call 6 of these 1000 years to be many. In fact that is not even the complete number of 7 used by God.

                    Also Gen 1 lists 6 days of creation in which God tells us of the beginning and the end of that day. God says there was darkness and the light came. Darkness was there and then God brought the light to overcome the darkness. God keeps teaching us that light will overcome the darkness. But each period of darkness and then light has a beginning and and end. BUT the seventh day is different, why ?

                    The 7th day God brings light to the world by creating a spirit for Adam and breathing that spirit into Adam and giving him real life. Not just what men call life, like the animals have, but real life like God has. But God does NOT list an end to that 7th day. That is because we are still in the 7th day. God also tells us a very important detail; God says He then rested from creating.

                    How do we know this ? Because first of all God does not list the end of the 7th day in Genesis and God does not neglect to tell us of important details. God does not forget.

                    Also we have God telling Moses that most of the people of "Israel" will not enter His rest. So we know that God is still at rest, or still in the 7th day. So the 7th day has NOT been a earth day, or about time at all. The 7th day was the coming of light, by breathing the spirit ( light) into Adam.

                    The 8th day will come when the 7th day ends. The 8th day also is not about time. But it is about the coming of the Light of all light, The Lord Jesus returns. The 8th day is the day of new beginnings. The 8th day is not an earth day, or about time. But it is about the ending of time and the coming of light. The six days of creation in Genesis 1 are also not about time, but the coming of light. Jesus is that Light, and each day is a natural sign of the nature of our dear Lord, who is Light.

                    This is why babies were to be circumcised on the 8th day. They are unclean until the 8th day, and made clean on the 8th day. Just as all of mankind is unclean until the 8th day when Jesus returns and our flesh is done away with and we are given new bodies and we are made clean ( even in the body) on the 8th day.

                    The whole of the Holy Scriptures is about the revealing of Jesus. It is not about time, but Jesus says He is Light. Time is done away with, but The Light will remain forever.

                    You can see my beliefs have nothing to do with science, but everything to do with The Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Scriptures.
                    Last edited by Lou Newton; December 30, 2017, 06:58 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So sorry you misunderstand.
                      Lou, what you wrote assumes something different than what was posted by me.

                      I. Confusion whether it is Lou or Hugh Ross who is the example.

                      As an example for theistic evolution did I not post the following?
                      “As an example, Lou has referred to Dr. Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe site. For me, Dr. Ross represents the extreme application of theistic evolution.”

                      And your response, “This statement is simply not true.”

                      (A) Are you stating that Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe do not represent Theistic Evolution?
                      If that is what you believe, then my statement about Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe presenting Theistic Evolution, in your opinion would be “simply not true.” However, I respectively disagree with that conclusion.

                      (B) Are you claiming it is not true that you referred to Dr’ Hugh Ross and the Reason to Believe site on a number occasions? I would refer to the following posts by you. Do not these posts counter your statement, “This statement is simply not true” if you meant you have not referred to Dr. Hugh Ross.

                      (1) Are UFO's caused by fallen angels – a Hugh Ross Vedio.
                      (2) Why Did God Make Animals So Violent? in Things of the Lord
                      July 12th, 2016, 10:57 AM
                      Here is an article from RTB that I found interesting. I thought some of you may want to add to the reasons that Hugh Ross gives.
                      (3) Two supermassive black holes discovered at the center of a galaxy
                      Which includes
                      What Does the Discovery of a Supermassive Black Hole Binary Mean for Creationism? By Dr. Hugh Ross
                      (4) Thank God for Merging Neutron Stars
                      May 10th, 2016, 10:44 AM
                      Thank God for Merging Neutron Stars By Dr. Hugh Ross
                      (5) What Microlensed Planets Reveal about God's creation
                      May 10th, 2016, 10:54 AM
                      What Microlensed Planets Reveal about Our Solar System By Dr. Hugh Ross
                      (6) Finding the Firstborn Stars
                      September 28th, 2015, 07:18 PM
                      Finding the Firstborn Stars By Dr. Hugh Ross

                      In addition to these posts there are a number of emails between us which addressed the technique of Dr. Hugh Ross and his presuppositions.
                      ----------
                      (C) Are you assuming that what I posted identified you as holding to a theistic evolution?
                      You seem to think so. Is it not Dr. Hugh Ross who is identified as presenting theistic evolution? That you have quoted him or referenced RTB helps the reader identify Dr. Hugh Ross who is the example of someone presenting theistic evolution presuppositions.

                      II. Reading the post as personally addressing Lou

                      (A) Where did I post that you started with assuming that science was true.
                      What was posted is “Theistic evolution is a rational choice: This thinking process starts with science being true and interprets belief and the Bible so as to reconcile the understanding to match science.” The statement does not label you.

                      As for the statement, it is certainly not the other way around where the thinking process starts with the Bible and interprets science so as to reconcile science with the Bible. That might be said of the Creationism.

                      (B) Lou posted: In fact I used to assume that the young earth interpretation was correct. That is the opposite of what you state.
                      Response: Again, so sorry you thought this was about you or your personal history of how you arrived at your position. This portion of my post is about the presupposition of three different theistic choices.

                      (C) Lou posted: Instead of assuming why or how someone came to their conclusions, you could just ask them.
                      Response: My post makes no assumptions about your own conclusions. Therefore, I did not have a reason to ask. Besides, previously, I have read your position several times and would not have needed to ask.

                      (D) Furthermore, the purpose of the post is stated in the last paragraph.
                      It does not mention Lou.
                      The last paragraph reads: This post is an introduction for a future post on a major influence on social psychology which all apologist of the Christian faith ought to consider when debating against particular ideas. The idea here is to highlight that social psychology depends upon the starting point of evolution. Accordingly, those starting with the presupposition of theistic evolution might be particularly interested in this future post.

                      I feel like an English tutor.
                      Readers ought to be aware of what is in print rather than assuming the meaning of the print is the other's intent which actually originates with their own emotions.
                      Last edited by glen smith; December 31, 2017, 12:06 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I had intended to post a series on evolutionary psychological exploring the influences on of the book by Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Of particular interest is how he has influenced the argument against creation in favor of the evolutionary process.

                        Let me divert to explain again what is meant by creation as there continues to be some confusion. The very concept of the word creation requires a creator of creation. Creation requires that the universe did not just happen but that there was an active causal agent, the creator. Christians believe this causal agent is the LORD. There are various other creation models and stories. Science assumes there is not a creator responsible for the universe and therefore, no creation or creative act. Scientific evolution does not support the idea of a creator and does not speak of the universe as a creation.

                        Back to a brief description of the post that will not be posted. The evolution hypothesis permeates every facet of modern life. Evolution is the assumption behind modern language, academics, sciences, documentaries, news, entertainment, and politics. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was a best seller for several printing in the mid 70’s and continues in print today. The current brain research has provided new discoveries which support the hypothesis.

                        The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is not about the evolution of the physical body but about the evolution of thought and its implication about concepts which the evolving man assumed to be about the spiritual world including the divine right of kings, pagan gods, the Christian God, and prophets and priests. Just as biological evolution found its agent of change in the survival of the fittest, Julian Jaynes finds the mechanics for concepts of religion resulting in thought development in the social structure.

                        My original interest in Julian Jaynes arose because of my under graduate studies in the 60’s. This is when I observed that all the world religions experienced changes about 550 B.C. (between 600 B.C. and 350 B.C.) which could be documented in the religious literature. This is the period when religious practices changed from individual encounters with the spiritual world to encounters led by priests and prophets. Jaynes used this same information during the mid seventies in his hypothesis presented in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

                        Although I disavow the basic assumptions, his argument supporting a developing consciousness is used by those opposed to Christianity. It is for this purpose there was the original intention to post my entire article.

                        Having reconsidered and decided not to post the entirety of the long article. However, might this bit be sufficient to encourage any who wish to do their own research.
                        Last edited by glen smith; January 2, 2018, 08:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-qual...r/Lou-Newton-1

                          Lou Newton, former Steel Mill Crane Designer and Physics Teacher
                          Answered just now


                          I did not become a Christian until I was 32. After that I assumed that the view that God created the universe in six earth days was true. But when I read the account in Genesis I had many questions arise. So instead of deciding myself on what was true, I prayed and asked God to reveal the truth to me. It was soon after that He started to do just that. I was led to book after book and also seen many scriptures in the Bible that did not agree with the 6 earth day creation.

                          After 41 years of study, I now see that God created the universe very long ago, in six “days” that were not earth days. ( for instance a galactic day is about 250 million earth years) Proof on this is all throughout the creation and the Bible. The Hebrew words translated “day” simply means period of time OR the coming of light or coming of warmth. Look it up in a Hebrew dictionary and see this is correct.

                          God calls Himself The Ancient of Days and He also says a 1000 years is like a day to Him. So God has seen many many 1000’s of years since days were created. There was no time before the beginning so that was the beginning of days.

                          Also if one reads with care they will see that God tells Israel that they will not enter His rest. So He was still at rest during the time Israel left Egypt and went to the promised land. Also look in Genesis and see that the 7th day had a beginning but no end. That means we are still in the 7th day. The 8th day will begin when Jesus returns to the earth. So that shows that the “days’ of Genesis 1 were very long periods of time.

                          The creation account put forth by men like Ken Ham is so full of prejudice and errors that I can not see how any thinking person can take it seriously. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is everything that exists in this natural world. That was the Big Bang. But the Bible goes on to say that the earth was without form. So the Big Bang was when God created all matter and energy, but He formed that matter later into stars and planets. Let there be light was when the Sun started nuclear fusion. The 3rd day was when God had the sun and moon first appear visible in the sky. It had given light but was hidden by dust like the clouds hide the sun. Then God formed the atmosphere and land. After that God had the earth produce plants and then animals. Then there is a second act of creation when God created the soul for animals and men.

                          In the 7th day God first made Adam ( it seems to me that He had the earth produce an animal that looked like men). Then God created a spirit for Adam and breathed this breath of life into him. That is what made Adam a man created in the image of God. God is spirit and He gave Adam a spirit.

                          There is much to write about this that can not be all written here. Look here for more, forum.lounewton.com

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X