The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evolution, The Flood, and God’s True Nature


#81

Yes, there are many more. There’s even a smiley [size=180]:slight_smile:[/size] (Alt 1)—but increase the size to 180.
Alt 2 is also a smiley [size=180]:slight_smile:[/size]

There are a whole bunch of symbols with alts beginning with zero. I use alt 0151 regularly. It’s a long dash —

There’s a pretty good list here:
tools.oratory.com/altcodes.html

Paidion ♫

P.S. The musical notes are alt 14.


#82

Paidion

How is that letter pronounced?


#83

Hermano:

As far as suppositions go, you’re stating that the speed of light and carbon decay rates being constant are not known and just assumptions? The speed of light is used in all sorts of equations in physics and most famously in Einstein’s formula ‘E=mc2’. If ‘c’ was a variable then the universe would look a lot different then it does today, ‘c’ would have to be magnitudes larger for the universe to be thousands of years old instead of billions. That would in turn force ‘E’ in turn to be magnitudes larger than it is today, there would be no life or planets as the universe would just be a large ball of infinite energy. As for atomic decay rates, they could have some variability to them but they too have consequences if they are drastically different than what we measure today.


#84

As in “Julius Cæsar”


#85

You misunderstood my question. What I mean is, how is the letter itself pronounced? Also, where in the alphabet is it located?


#86

You called it a “letter.” I thought that was just a minor slip on your part. Clearly it’s not a “letter”; it’s a marrying of “a” and “e” and is used in the word “Cæsar” although many people simple write “Caesar.” It is also used in “Encyclopædia Britannica.” But many people write “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” and in United States it is spelled “encyclopedia.” You also asked about how it is pronounced. It is pronounced as a long “e”.


#87

By the way “æ” and “œ” are called “ligatures.” It struck me just now that you may have been asking for the name of the ligature “æ”.

It’s ancient name was “æsc” (probably pronounced “ēsc”).


#88

If Hermano would subscribe to the physics questions at quora.com/ (geared towards the layman),…Where laymen can get answers - usually from Ph.D. physicists (also chemists, if needed)… Then he might be “a tab more careful”, in what he considers to be - scientific fact. Or physics discoveries, that should be reproducible experimentally.

Otherwise, it’s like my scrambled egg example - made with butter. Where MOST of the professional cooking schools, restaurants, and cooks - use milk.


#89

I see no reason not to believe that everything that has been made (that is, everything that is not the Trinity) was made during those first six 24-hour days of Creation Week, thousands vs. billions of years ago. I grant you that God’s Sabbath rest extends beyond the last 24 hour day of that first Week. However, the Israelites were later commanded to rest from labor on each seventh 24 hour day, with specific reference back to the Creation Week of Genesis 1 & 2.

Hebrews 4 refers to a Sabbath rest. On the seventh day of the Creation Week, God rested, because His work was completely finished. Then as now. He is still at rest, and we are invited to enter His rest. And supporting this idea of a comprehensive, perpetually finished work of God (finished from the beginning of Creation), Revelation 13 enigmatically refers to Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” YLT.

(People ask, “How can a loving God allow evil?” But I argue that God has already disallowed all evil through the finished work of Christ. “It is finished.” Satan was defeated and disarmed at the cross. What the devil gets away with now is because the Church is ‘neglecting its so great a salvation’ Hebrews 2:3. We have power to bind and to loose. We are not to be victimized or defrauded, nor are we to passively watch that happen to others, either.

Thankfully, our enemy will be evicted from this world soon, by Jesus. So, as to the Second Coming, the final process of evicting Satan begins when the Lamb starts breaking those seals on the title deed (Rev. 6). But we have been warned in advance that Satan will not go quietly.

Recall the discussion of a property deed scroll in Jeremiah 32. That passage helps our understanding of how a kinsman could buy back land lost by the owner, by paying the purchase price. The sealed book could then be delivered to the original owner, or the heir. The heir could, at his convenience, break the seals, and, with the open scroll as his authority, take possession of the land—by force, if necessary.)

I would argue that creation was corrupted, and became violent, only after the fall of man, after the door was opened to the death-dealer, Satan. So, I don’t know why Paul refers only to death coming to “men,” and not to “all creatures.”

Satan’s fall into sin is described in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18. While these two passages are referring to the kings of Babylon and Tyre, they also reference the spiritual power behind those kings, namely, Satan.

These passages describe why Satan fell, but they do not say when the fall occurred. We do know this: the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14). So Satan’s fall must have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created, and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Everything that God made during the Creation Week, whether the earth, sky, seas, heaven, animals, or man, was “very good.” This would have included the heaven of heavens and all the angels, including Lucifer (Satan). As Ezekiel 28:15 says, “from the day” Satan was created, he was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him.

The Bible doesn’t give the exact time of the creation of Lucifer and the other angels. However, in Job 38:7, when God is confronting Job, He asks Job where he was when He was laying the foundation of the earth. God asks, “Who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Are “morning stars” symbolic of the heavenly host of angelic beings? It is possible; recall that stars are often equated with angelic or heavenly beings, and some commentators suggest this refers to angels. **If so, the creation of the angels would have been during the first part of the Creation Week. **

At the time of the book of Job, Satan still had access to heaven and to the throne of God. “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, ’Where have you come from?’ Satan answered the LORD, ‘From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it’” (Job 1:6-7). I believe Satan’s access to heaven will be ended with the coming war in heaven (Rev. 12).

The legalist Satan brought in the curse when man sinned. He is malignant and malicious, always looking to penetrate places where God’s protective hedge has been undermined by sin. He organizes and distributes violence, disaster, and death. Biologically, he has tweaked the genetic code to bring us everything from animals becoming carnivorous to Cystic Fibrosis to Zika. Geologically, he is behind a fossil record of catastrophism, and so-called natural disasters. He is very powerful. He is “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4). For now, creation groans.

As I mentioned to qaz on another thread:

"]
As to things happening “independently of God’s creative design,” I would argue that harmful mutations are corruptions of God’s design: that the genetic code has been “tweaked” by malevolent intelligences. As I say in, God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

God is only about life, abundant life, not pestilence and disease. However, by His choice, he has apportioned authority to angels and men, thus limiting his sovereignty.

We are all now here together in this temporal classroom, but eventually every last one of us will choose the gift of Christ (most, when in the lake of fire), and graduate together to eternity.
Finally,

I don’t believe there was pain or death in the physical creation before the fall of man.

I believe the two trees represent two ways of relating to God: 1) through obedience, and so seeing what He truly is: a unipolar Daddy of love (and that He is only Life), or, 2) through disobedience, and seeing what He is not: a false bipolar potentate who must be cajoled and appeased by our human efforts (that He is both Good and Evil).

JESUS is the Tree of Life. Unfortunately, legalistic, works-based religion; morality; a false dichotomy between either greater or lesser evil; intellectualism; and physical death were received through eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (the “Exit sign” tree).

Let’s choose to live exclusively in the Jesus Tree.


#90

Hermano’s “science” is entirely driven by a desire to have conformity with a literal reading of the Bible. No one simply doing the science would ever come to the “conclusions” Hermano and other YECs have. Given that Hermano isn’t interested in arriving at scientific truths, there’s probably no point in me sharing these links, but I will anyway.
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
hubblesite.org/reference_desk/fa … =cosmology


#91

Patheos had an interesting article at How Did Creation Happen? There are viewpoints to reconcile Genesis, with evolution, big bang and old earth - without sacrificing Biblical inerrancy.


#92

Wait, didn’t GotQuestions.org settle this for you—in my favor? :wink: I

[quote]
(https://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-creationism.html):

(I kind of like that, don’t you guys?)

Creationism and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientific models which try to correlate and explain data related to origins. Scientifically speaking, in this area of origins, all is conjecture. We are not talking about “facts.”

As to sacrosanct experimental reproducibility, well, whether you like it or not, we are together in the same boat, even qaz: the origin of the universe cannot be reproduced experimentally. Nor the origin of life.

And speaking of “physics questions,” here is a great free online book by a YEC professor (Ph.D. MIT, National Science Fellow), who I’m pretty sure taught my brother physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.

Plus, for your dining pleasure:

-Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended

-Evidence for a Young World

-Young Earth Creationism

And finally, while supplies last, here is a List of Catholic creationist organisations.”

(But perhaps there is just not enough science therein, referenced or linked to, for you guys. Not enough meat. Plus, current majority opinion of the experts = absolute scientific truth ?] Or, perhaps you are defending your conclusions from your own scientific research?)

Blessings.


#93

Many fields in science are very complex. That is the reason we specialize. If we didn’t specialize in our knowledge, we would never advance science. I see YEC as operating like conspiracy theorists. Basically they assume that the majority (or all) of the experts in a given field are wrong and that some lone guy (Ken Ham) has all the right information. BTW, what are Ken Ham’s credentials?

One thing I have found dishonest in YEC is that often misrepresent credentials. There was this guy named Jobe Martin that came to out church. On the back of his creation videos the summary or whatever talks about his degrees and this or that. But what was his degree in? Dentistry. I just shake my head. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t be a smart person, but it certainly is misleading. Other YECs have done the same thing. They quote some scientist way outside their field of expertise, but don’t tell you that up front! Once you start digging your like, wait, why is a mechanical engineer making assertions in biology?

Basically, YEC believes that either all scientists in their field of expertise are WRONG, or DISHONEST. I suppose that is anyone’s right to think, but I don’t think that is rational way to interpret the data. Whether or not the theory of evolution is totally correct doesn’t really change that the data does point to something very old.

In 50 years people are going to be laughing at Ken Ham, in my opinion and that their position is going to shrink from it’s already tiny base.


#94

And yet in the meantime Ham has been making an absolute killing laughing all the way to the bank. :open_mouth: Just by weight of population he was smart enough to know there were more gullible people in the US than here in Australia… hence his move over your way.


#95

I’ve never heard of him, so I’d best find a wiki somewhere…


#96

[quote=“Hermano”]
Wait, didn’t GotQuestions.org settle this for you—in my favor? :wink: I

Or, come now Hermano. You quote the Calvinist site Got Questions - like it was gospel? They are just giving the Calvinist perspective - mind you. :laughing:


#97

OK, if young-earth creationism does not shy away from scientific fields of study, then it should be subject to the same rigors as scientific fields in testing hypotheses. Scientific fields use the hypothetico-deductive method to advance knowledge. A key part of this method is testing hypotheses. But to be scientific, these hypotheses must be capable of being shown false. That is, there must be some possible empirical observation that could show such hypotheses to be false. For example, consider the following syllogism that represents a testable scientific hypothesis.

Premise 1: If evolution does not occur, bacteria exposed to antibiotics will not adapt to survive.
Premise 2: Bacteria exposed to antibiotics do adapt to survive in the presence of antibiotics.
Conclusion: Evolution occurs.

Now it is possible that bacteria would not adapt to the presence of antibiotics. Thus, the hypothesis could be falsified, and in some cases, it actually is falsified, especially in the case of our most advanced antibiotics that seem to kill all bacteria at the present time. But as it turns out, in many cases, the hypothesis is actually supported, leading to the conclusion that evolution of bacterial resistance occurs, much to the dismay of medical authorities attempting to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

That criterion of falsifiability then should be applicable to young-earth creationism if young-earth creationism is to be considered on a par with scientific fields of study.

Can you give an example of a falsifiable hypothesis generated by young-earth creationism?


#98

How about this Scientific American article?:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Actually, there are many answers - to your question. I just need to enter the right keywords into Google - to answer your question.

I don’t see belief in a young earth creation…vs an earth creation (with science bringing in an old earth, big bang, and evolution) - as a show stopper - THEOLOGICALLY. Both sides can be presented and yet KEEP Biblical inerrancy.


#99

What??? I don’t understand your post.

First, your post needs editing. I, lancia, asked the question, not Hermano, and I asked it of him. Second, the question I asked is not answered by the linked article. The linked article supports my contention. Third, if there are many answers to my question, list one.


#100

Hi Lancia,

In response to your comment, as I contended in an earlier comment above,

All alternatives to creationism are equally unfalsifiable. The scientific method cannot test the past.

Also, creationists don’t deny microevolution. In my original post in this thread, I pointed out,

Blessings.