The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evolution, The Flood, and God’s True Nature

Theology Biblical Theology
#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.

#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.

#101

Lancia. I’m trying to help you, by pointing to an article. It doesn’t necessarily address a specific question. But gives rebuttal - to Hermano’s general position. I think we are on the same side - mind you. :laughing:

Let’s say we are - more or less - on the same side, going forward. And leave my questionable answer behind. Where my position is Old Earth, Big Bang, and possible evolution…all within the context of Biblical inerrancy.

It could be, I’m trying to pick up how Japanese and Mandarin sound - as I answer these posts. Or I’m playing, the wrong background music. :laughing:

Well, I’m back on track now. With the right background music. Look out, Hermano. :laughing:

#102

Even scientists in white lab coats of infallibility do not live in a spiritual vacuum. In this same vein of discussion re. scientific consensus and hypothesis testing:

Climate change–**is global warming clearly proven? **

If so, is it beyond doubt that it is man-made? That it is a crisis of epic proportions? That any skeptics are either ignorant, or are rejecting the facts because of their blind fanaticism? That any dissenting scientists are, in reality, unqualified pseudo-scientists standing against irrefutable evidence and solid consensus?

Also, are there any possible ulterior motives held by promoters of “the crisis of man-made global warming”? Any secret agenda? (Like, say, the spread of socialism?)

If so, could there be a ***spiritual dimension ***to that agenda? (After all, as a prophecy futurist, I believe there will indeed be a literal Antichrist, and a world-wide unity under his leadership—with dire consequences to dissenters.)

As qaz knows, I believe in conspiracies. I have previously linked to Kevin Miller’s must-see movie, Expelled, which supports Intelligent Design, and exposes a conspiracy against I.D. in academia.

(However, I do not buy into all conspiracy theories: for example, I think Elvis is dead. And I believe man really walked on the moon. In fact, I had the privilege of getting to know Col. Jim Irwin, the eighth man to walk on the moon. In 1989 he was visiting Guadalajara on a speaking tour, and my wife organized his stay, and his speaking engagements here. Irwin was a scientist, a devout Christian…and a young earth creationist :astonished: .)

But for me, the biggest conspiracy of all, is that there really is a devil ("the god of this world" 2 Cor. 4:4) who has blinded the minds of unbelievers to both his own existence, as well as to the existence of an exclusively loving God.

Blessings.

#103

Which is what I’m also pointing out to people. Tthe tribulation could occur in MANY WAYS. And different folks, with the alleged gift of prophecy, could be seeing the Zombie Apocalypse - you just never know. And the devil is the chief culprit - behind it. :angry:

#104

The origin of life is not (and need not be) addressed by evolution. No matter how life originated, evolution would address its development after that point.

I disagree. Falsifiable predictions about the fossil record can be raised. For example, given the expected appearances and durations of existence of organisms, one would predict that fossils of humans and long-extinct organisms like trilobites or that fossils of modern birds and ancient pterodactyls would not be found in the same geological strata. So, one could test such a falsifiable hypothesis by looking at strata in different regions of the world for empirical evidence.

The scientific record is used to test the past in many fields. One simple example is the study of pollen cores in the sediments of lakes to understand the climates of the past. Different climates produce different plant species with different pollen morphology. The depth of the pollen found in the cores tells us how relatively long ago particular plants species lived and so tells us something about the climate at that time.

Any particular individual of whatever kind that was created must indeed have been a species of some sort. Are you saying a kind may be more than one species? If that’s the case, you would be saying that a kind that was specially created was represented by a number of different individuals of a number of different related species.

Consider the insect order Coleoptera or the beetles. There are about 400,000 species of beetles known worldwide. Did that order start with one species? if that’s the case, then the rate of speciation of new beetles from that one original beetle species is astronomically high, far surpassing what is conceivable. Even if the order started with a few species, it’s still practically impossible to imagine, given the time frame that creationists envision. Or even worse, did the order start just with a species of the entire insect class Insecta, from which all of the insects, including beetles, evolved in the time creationists say was available?

That’s part of the ambiguity and incoherence I see in creationism, which is why falsifiable hypotheses about creationism are not likely to be formulated.

As I said, the first part of your statement is not relevant to evolution. How life originated has been addressed by other areas of science, not evolution. But the development of different taxonomic groups from earlier ones is an area that is and has been studied by evolution, replete with falsifiable hypotheses. For example, we see hypotheses about the time of divergence of taxonomic groups, which can be tested by comparing the fossil record with genetic differences that have accumulated over time between the groups.

#105

BTW, this is off topic, but because Randy love’s Zombies so much and people some people here hate them and are horrified by them, I thought I’d chime in.

“desensitization” is a good thing, in most cases. Christianity (the version I grew up in) taught me it was bad. It isn’t bad at all, which is why therapy uses it “ERP” to get people over their phobias and OCD symptoms. We, in the west, are not desensitized in many ways to many things that other people around the globe think is “no big deal”. An example of desensitizing: The thought of watching someone butcher a deer is barbarous to me. Why would that be? Because I have never witnessed it. So, could I then imply that a butcher is an immoral person just because I am sensitized to it? By no means. Should my life depend on it, and I had to learn how to butcher an animal, after a few times of doing it would be “nothing” to make note of. Not gross, not anything. It just is.

Parents see their children die in the third world. They move on with life. People in the west are destroyed when it happens, often they shutdown for the rest of their lives, because it is rare. Not something we see happen to other people (often) and so we are very, very sensitive to it.

Clothing is another example. Muslims are very sensitized towards women showing flesh, so they cover them up completely. If a women shows part of her ankle, the men in that culture can’t stop lusting after it, because it isn’t proper! Meanwhile, most men see women on the beach or in their workout clothes and thinking nothing of it. We have desensitized ourselves to it. If we didn’t, then people would literally go insane.

Desensitization protects us in most cases. I suppose it could be misused, but that is the nature of everything.

Zombies creep people out because they are scared of death, they fear gross and ugly things. I’d suggest people look at it more to get over it, because people do live in this world that look pretty close to some of those zombies and I think your inability to look at them without horror would be very hurtful to them. Just some food for thought. Look up ERP (Exposure Response Prevention) that many psychologists use, you may ultimately see how it is good thing and that shying away from scary things just makes them more scary.

#106

I’m still not clear: is Randy trying to warn us about a forthcoming Zombie Apocalypse? Or is he actually trying to desensitize us to it :question:

#107

I can’t speak for Randy. All I am saying is for us to look at why Zombies might scare/offend us. Is it because we are uncomfortable with ugly, rotting things or death, or maybe both?

#108

Lancia, for your consideration, here is a very short essay titled, “The Myth of Falsifiability,” by John F. McGowan, a NASA research engineer, and physics Ph.D.

Also, regarding the question of rapid speciation, required by the YEC model,

From my limited understanding, according to the young-earth model, rapid speciation would have been triggered by environmental pressure working on small, isolated populations. After the Flood, the earth experienced many years, even centuries, of residual catastrophism. Changes occurred through recombination of existing genes in the rich genomes of the “kinds,” not mutations as evolution requires.

A couple of articles on this question, substantiating rapid speciation:

-Getting Enough Genetic Diversity: How Species Arose After the Ark, by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson.
-Darwin’s finches: Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation, by Carl Wieland.

Blessings.

#109

:laughing: lol… I’ve been looking at Randy’s zombies for ages now and I’m well and truly “over it” — NOT because of any latent fear but because I think they’re stupid. But I understood such works for Randy so I just look for his salient points while I sail right past his weird little friends… :laughing:

I’m all for a laugh but after a while it’s just variations of the same message — but I guess according to our own particular bents we all (OR at least I’ll own mine) do the same thing. Maybe I’m just jealous because I can’t put pictures to my idiosyncrasies. :mrgreen: