July 13, 2006

Why I Believe in 6-Day Creation - Part 1

Homeschooling and ScienceThis is a homeschool and family blog dedicated to my two kids (7 and 9) who LOVE science and love the Lord. One of the main reasons we chose to homeschool them was because we believe public schools are teaching a completely godless and secular view of science and history (to the tune of REWRITING history and using FICTION/LIES instead of science). A few days back, I made some comments on a post I read at another blog and it ended up bringing me into a well-mannered debate. I started to think... "Hey, I've never even shared my views on Creationism on my blog before other than in small comments or book reviews". So I thought a post on the topic would be in good order (evolution being one of the reasons we chose to homeschool our kids). It isn't that we DON'T teach secular science and evolution. We most certainly DO. We just present it's weaknesses and alternative views (Creation) as well. After all, shouldn't your children have all the information if they are going to be critical thinkers when they grow up?

Hugh Ross and Notes from Previous Posts

I think Global Warming is very inter-related with the Evolution/Creation debate because there are many people who believe that the science behind both (global warming and evolution) is not all it’s cracked up to be. I know I may never convince anyone to “convert” to 6-Day Creationism but no matter, I will still believe. I don’t think it takes a micro-biologist to see through “particles to people” evolution or the “gap theory”.

Mention has been made of Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe in my comments section on my Evolution and Emissions Debate post. Better information about Hugh Ross can be found here.

Instead of engaging in endless comment debate, I’d rather just give you a few notes on Kent Hovind's seminars that I do agree with and let you all mull over it on your own time.

So here it is, Part 1 of “Why I believe in 6-Day Creation”:

Dr. Dino

Kent Hovind doesn’t copyright his material and tells you to COPY and distribute his DVDs for your Christian friends. I may not agree with every word he says, but most of his science is right on mark. One of the reasons I love Kent Hovind (despite the cloud of critics and other issues surrounding him) is that I truly believe he is SOLD OUT for God and it is contagious. My family has really enjoyed watching his seminars (even though some of the information should be taken with a grain of salt). Answers in Genesis does have a few items on the “Don’t Use That Argument when Debating an Evolutionist” list that Kent Hovind uses, but it only takes a few moments to cross reference that list and I’m not including anything controversial (as far as AIG goes) here.

The following is the first portion of my notes on Kent Hovind's Creation Science Seminar, PART 1 – “The Age of the Earth”…

Dr. Hovind starts out by explaining that even the vocabulary in our public school secular science books uses words in sentences like “evolved” as if it were a fact (even though there are many different meanings for the word and great controversy over many of them). In fact, AIG states that “particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.”

In his seminar, Kent lists the different meanings of the word Evolution and how they all do not add up. I have broken them down and added a few of his notes on these:

1. Cosmic Evolution (WRONG)

"In the Beginning God…" - Cosmic Evolution stands at opposite ends with the Bible. The evolutionist answer to where all matter came from is, “I don’t know”. At least Creationists have an answer. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" - 1st law of thermo-dynamics. Either someone made the world or the world made itself. In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe with a uni (single) verse (spoken sentence). That really preaches, doesn’t it? Kent also says that he does believe in a Big Bang, only it is a lot different than theirs – and the verses for it come at the END of the bible. “2 Peter 3:10… the big bang hasn’t happened yet, but it’s coming soon to a city near you.” I have also seen a bumper sticker that said, “I believe in the Big Bang: God said it, and BANG!!! There it was!” Dr. Hovind notes that in our public schools, many teacher’s manuals instruct teachers to STRESS that the world is billions of years old, and they waste trees to print books which have known errors. One of the textbooks he mentions says, “In the beginning… all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a single mass that was smaller than the period on this page.” Even though this is only one “hypothesis”, it is treated as a proven fact. Almost all modern science textbooks treat the evolution hypothesis this way. One textbook even went so far as to say that 'big bangs' (plural!) "happen every 1-80 billion years" (meaning that the matter will one day come back together to explode again)! Kent Hovind also reads from magazines and lists references of them on his seminar videos. One such magazine stated, “Physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began”… WHAT? Then another (Discover Magazine) states, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing”. I love what Kent Hovind’s says about the two different worldviews: It’s either, “In the beginning God or In the beginning Dirt.” He asks the question, “Which one is a religion?” and answers it with a factual statement, “Both”. The only difference between the two religions is that one is tax-payer supported and the other isn’t.

2. Chemical Evolution (WRONG)
You can’t get past iron with fusion so where did all the elements come from? He talks more about this on another tape, I think. I didn't take many notes on it. There are other interesting articles to read about this, however: here, here and here.

3. Stellar Evolution (WRONG)

No one has ever seen a star form even though every person on planet earth could own 2 Trillion stars for themselves (the spot getting brighter in the Crab Nebula cannot be proven to be a star birth). I'll cover more on this in Part 2 (not just stars but other evidences from space that the earth isn't as old as some scientists and Intelligent Design groups believe).

4. Organic Evolution (WRONG)
There can not be life from non-living material. Spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago. Some of the articles on #2 could also fit under this category.

5. Particles-to-People/Macro Evolution (WRONG)
The Bible says “they bring forth after their kind”. A KIND (species is not really a correct word here) being those which are ABLE to bring forth. It is logical to think that a wolf and dog, while not being the same species, can still bring forth). The Family Canidae, which includes coyotes, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves would be closer to describing what the Bible might have meant when it said "Kind". However, interestingly, many inter-species births result in sterile progeny (as in the case of a zebra/horse and horse/donkey) because of chromosomal anomalies. Many other inter-species pregnancies end by rejection from the maternal immune system so that no birth takes place at all. The 2 Law of Thermo Dynamics (which teaches that everything tends towards disorder - not magical organization) is overlooked by the concept that species can gradually get better over time through selection. The Bible teaches the same thing as the 2 Law of Thermo Dynamics.

Hebrews 1:10-11...
10He also says,
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.

We aren’t getting better. Macro-evolutionists say you can overcome the second law of thermo-dynamics by adding energy. Yet adding energy is destructive. Dr. Hovind's examples are great: "The Japanese added a bunch of energy to Pearl Harbor and it didn’t organize a thing. The sun adds energy to your roof. Does your roof get better?"

The textbooks take liberties to act as if the hypothesis of 'particles-to-people' was proven fact… “You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms.” (Text Book: Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994) Kent Hovind shares his analogy of this ‘theory’: “Frog turns into the prince quickly = fairy tale, Frogs turns into a prince slowly = modern science.” He states that to the evolutionist, “Time is the magic ingredient”. He admits that his version of Creation is a is a religion (and requires some faith because it is not completely provable), yet evolutionists insist that their version is a science and not a religion. I believe as he does that evolution is pure religion. Why, then, should I have to pay for their religion to be taught in schools or their research funded? I thought we should separate church and state?! Science is observable, testable and able to be studied. No one was there to observe the 'big bang' or 'Macro-evolution'. It is a religion.

6. Micro Evolution (RIGHT, but incorrectly labeled)

Variations within a kind or bacterial adaptations to antibiotics – should be called variations or resistances, not evolution. There are different breeds of dogs, sure. There might even be a wolf-dog. That doesn't prove anything. If you keep mating them for eternity (even with other species), the progeny will always be a dog, or it will be sterile - which only disproves natural selection.
Scrown
That's it for today, folks. Tune in tomorrow for Field Trip Foto Friday and Saturday for "Why I Believe in 6-Day Creation: Part 2"! Maybe I can fit all the rest of those notes into one post. That is my plan.

Answers in Genesis
Another wonderful source of information about the age of the earth can be found at Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is a wonderful website and Ken Ham is a very thoughtful and awesome Creationist. They have a super website and magazine and are extremely thorough and up to date with their science news.


Buzz Words: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

29 comments:

Martin LaBar said...

You CAN overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics (locally, but not overall) by adding energy. For instance, I do it when I use energy (mine and the power company's) to vacuum, thereby creating order out of chaos. Living things do it all the time. Your children are a lot more complex than they were as fertilized eggs. They have used energy (and nutrients) to become more complex, more ordered. Hovind is right that just throwing energy at a system won't necessarily make it less disordered. But he is wrong if he says it can never happen. It depends on the energy and the system.

Corey said...

The Family Canidae, which includes coyotes, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves would be closer to describing what the Bible might have meant when it said "Kind"

But is this not similar to the Family Pongidae, the great apes, which includes humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. Yes, we cannot procreate but we have the similiar genetic makeup. We are scientifically defined as animals.

There are other animals hybrids such as lion & tiger (liger), horse & zebra (zebrinny), bison & cow (beefalo), dog & wolf (wolfdog) and whale & dolphin (wolphin).

Daryl Cobranchi said...

And you've completely bungled the First Law of Thermodynamics. Have you never seen a picture of a mushroom cloud? Where did all of that energy come from? From the conversion of a small amount of matter into an enormous amount of energy.

BTW, did you see that Hovind has been arrested for tax evasion?

Zeteo Eurisko said...

Sprittibee - I was raised in a non-denominational, evangelical Christian home school environment, and I urge you to rethink your stance on science. My parents were also committed to young-earth creationism, and I was educated by Answers in Genesis and Bob Jones University press texts. I have poured years of mental sweat and energy into the creation/evolution issue since I was a young teen. Please forgive my giving one piece of advice: don't limit your sources to creationists. Read what the other side has to say. You owe it to your children to investigate truth, no matter where it lies. Start with this post on my blog, where I lay out a few of my conclusions:

Evidences for Evolution

cindy said...

Well, Heather, you've got 'em coming out of the woodwork now! :) I just want to commend you for posting your research and for being brave enough to take the heat.

Personally, I would stake my life on my belief that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I would not die to defend my opinion of how God did it. 6 days or 6 trillion years, no matter how excellent our educations, it's one mystery that hasn't been revealed. My belief is that, yeah, He created it in 6 days but those 6 days are relative and are meaningless against our calendar/clock.

Corey - From what I understand, even the DNA between a tree and a human is not that huge a stretch as one would think. And it makes perfect sense that we'd share genetic similarities with the apes, especially when the naked eye can perceive there are similarities! Maybe God's genetic code is...Object Oriented? This object programs the eyes, these for the appendages... At any rate, with one Creator, it makes perfect sense that the code would be, by and large, the same throughout creation.

Daryl - don't come down so hard, man! Sprittibee has already admitted she's not a scientist and the whole Hovind/tax evasion thing's already been brought up. (yawn). Anyway, I do agree that it's plausible for the Big Bang to have occurred as taught by Evolutionists. The one thing they're missing is that it was set in motion by our Creator.

I think there is some truth in all theories/beleifs/religions, but not all are truth.

Not long ago, I was an atheist hell-bent on learning enough of the Bible to argue against any Christian concerned about my salvation. God pulled a fast one on me and revealed this truth: He is alive and at work and willing to reveal Himself to any who earnestly seek Him. He made Himself man - Jesus - to reveal Himself to us. Jesus allowed himself to be executed so that he could bear the full weight of the disobedience of man. The price has been paid - we now have the choice to enjoy spiritual life or to forsake it and die. There's nothing we have to do - in fact, nothing we can do, except claim this gift as our own - bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus.

If I'm wrong - big deal, I've lived my life in peace and serenity; you might call it blissful ignorance! If I'm right - Big Deal! I've gained life everlasting.

Hey, who took my ladder...this soapbox is high!

Anonymous said...

Hi Mommy!

Sprittibee said...

Martin - I'm really not sure I understand your argument. Are you arguing for natural selection, as in, macro-evolution... that it is possible to create new genetic material via adding energy to a living organism? Seems to me that it would only "cook the chicken". Of course, there's also the fruit fly story... the fruit fly grew some extra wings (using already present genes), but it was then not only sterile, but couldn't fly.

Corey - The bible says they "bring forth after their kind", therefore, only what can bring forth would be a kind. You can't really classify us with apes as a "Kind" if we CAN'T bring forth. Most of the animals you mentioned (while being of the same KIND) are sterile animals. That seems to be a real problem for natural selection.

Daryl:
You asked "Where did all that energy come from?"

A Creator.

"How did nothing become something and then explode?
Paul Davies’ answer is that it happened through quantum physics applied to cosmology. He says, ‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’18 This is very significant, as it shows the fallibility of theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists often urge what is in effect retreat to a ‘God of the gaps’ idea. God is invoked as necessary to create the initial particle and to ‘light the fuse’ as it were—thereafter the rest can evolve more or less by itself. However, Hawking says his new theory has no moment of creation and requires no Creator. Where does this leave theistic evolutionary compromise?

So this, more or less, is the current ‘big bang’ theory—that some 15 billion years ago, at a specific moment before which there was no before, the entire cosmos created itself by suddenly evolving out of nothing by means of a quantum fluctuation, first as a particle of space/time of zero dimensions and infinite heat,19 which proceeded in a few trillion-trillionths of a second to pass through an inflationary stage, and then through an incredibly hot ‘big bang’ stage, followed by universal expansion and cooling into its present form. The main rationale for this particular ‘big bang’ scenario is a set of mathematical equations deduced by human reason alone."

taken from AIG...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/bigbang.asp

Yes, I've heard about Kent Hovind's tax issues. Thankfully it doesn't have anything to do with his Science.

Zeteo - Cool graphic.

"Read what the other side has to say."

I do read many science articles and national geographic articles. I don't have the time you say you have put in to the topic, being a homeschool mom. However, I am very curious about your upbringing, your religious beliefs, your parents' religious beliefs, and what (if any) college you attended/attend. My kids are 9 and 7... so I'm not looking into that just yet... but it is good to be prepared.

I'll try and stop in to read your post after I get some sleep and we stop for lunch tomorrow.

Cindy - Hey girl. I am so upset that I can't post comments on your blog. I can't believe you have a dog. Holy cow. That sounds like a whole lot of work. My cat is lucky she behaves, because I'm fresh out of energy to deal with those kinds of messes. Go easy on the visitors. They mean well. I think they are trying to convert me to believing I might possibly be related to my cat. ;) What I haven't told them all yet is that I'm actually an alien from another planet (Saturn's 7th Ring - a really touristy town) and when my space-ship landed, I broke one of my antennae. The ship was repaired and one of my crew-members took off in it thinking I was dead. I was adopted by an earthling family and have been trying to call home all these years - to no avail. If only those red shoes on "The Wizard of Oz" really worked.

Daryl Cobranchi said...

Daryl:
You asked "Where did all that energy come from?"

A Creator.


You've changed the post, didn't you? Poor blogger etiquette.

In an earlier version you had the First Law of Thermodynamics stating that matter cannot be created or destroyed. (Was that you or Hovind who said that?) My comment implied that the energy released in an atomic or nuclear bomb (or a regular nuclear reactor for that matter) is generated by converting a small bit of matter into a large amount of energy. E=mc^2. The First Law states that dU = TdS + PdV. In English, that's the change in energy of a system is the sum of the temperatyre (in Kelvins) times the change in entropy plus the work done by that system (Pressure times the change in volume).

What you quoted as the First Law of Thermodynamics is a chemical law known as the Chemical Conservation of Mass. It is true only at the gross scale of chemical reactions. At the atomic level, it doesn't hold.

Daryl Cobranchi said...

My apologies-- I searched for the words "first" and "thermodynamics." You wrote, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" - 1st law of thermo-dynamics.

Please forgive my accusation that you doctored your post.

Zeteo Eurisko said...

>> I do read many science articles and national geographic articles.

The intention of my suggestion was that you expand your reading with respect to scientific rebuttals of creationist arguments. If you choose to believe in 6-day creationism, it must be stated (to the surprise of many) that such belief cannot be scientifically validated. A good start, though not the only source, is the Index of Creationist Claims. While it just scratches the surface, you will see there that each and every creationist claim of evidence against evolution/for creation has a scientific rebuttal. If one so chooses, one may take the position that AiG often falls back on when science seems to be pointing the wrong way: that they accept the Bible’s word over all statements of fallen man. However, this must be recognized as a faith-based – not science-based - position.

>> I don't have the time you say you have put in to the topic, being a homeschool mom.

As was the case for my parents when they home schooled me. I understand how much time/effort my mother put into homeschooling me, and I am thankful for her work. I do wish, however, that they had taken more time to examine their beliefs before teaching only one side of the creation/evolution issue. Teaching only out of creationist literature gives students the false impression that science is retreating before the logic of creationists, when in fact, quite the opposite is true. Creationism/ID is winning in the media through ceaseless press releases, but evolution triumphs when put to real scientific scrutiny. Finding the truth at the heart of such matters has become an obsession of mine, although I am both a full-time student and a full-time professional microprocessor architect. (Yes, that means I work nights/weekends)

>> However, I am very curious about your upbringing

Homeschooled grades 2-12, starting in 1987. Grew up in the beginnings of the home school movement. Closely associated with HSLDA and their personnel. Attended a church with like-minded individuals, 90% of whom also home schooled their kids. Both of my parents were college educated when they home schooled me.

>> your parents' religious beliefs

My parents are Biblical literalist, non-denominational, non-charismatic, evangelical Christians. They believe: (1) Bible is verbally inspired, inerrant in the original autographs. (2) Calvinism in most points (3, etc) All that follows (eg, young-earth creationism). Recently, in their early 50’s, both of them went to seminary for master’s degrees, and they are together serving as overseas missionaries. I shared their beliefs growing up.

>> your religious beliefs

I am an agnostic. The whole story is long, but if you’re interested in my philosophy, see my blog posts:
The Root of My Agnosticism
More on the Supernatural

>> what (if any) college you attended/attend

I started at a community college at age 16 studying Electrical/Computer Engineering curriculum. I have since completed BS and MS degrees in Computer Engineering. I should finish up my PhD in Fall ‘07. As I mentioned, I am also a full-time professional.

BTW, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you, and I assure you that I am not the kind of poster that resorts to flaming, as many do when talking religion/science issues.

Martin LaBar said...

Sorry to be unclear on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I was simply referring to your statement:

We aren’t getting better. acro-evolutionists say you can overcome the second law of thermo-dynamics by adding energy. Yet adding energy is destructive.

Adding energy isn't always destructive to the system you are adding it to. I gave examples in the first comment to this post, which wasn't clear, evidently.

As to adding new genes, I don't think there are any examples in nature where it can be demonstrated that a new gene has arisen, or an old gene has been modified to a new function, where it is impossible to rule out supernatural action. (I don't see how any experiment could do that.) But there are examples of genes that have apparently taken on new, beneficial functions over time, or where one gene seems to have been duplicated, and both copies come to have different beneficial functions. The hemoglobin family is one such example. God certainly could have done this by a miracle. He could also have done this by properties which He put in the biochemistry and genetics of living things.

Sprittibee said...

Daryl - You are forgiven. :)

Zeteo - I have thought a lot about your posts. I've been doing my homework online and reading your site and other places you have posted. Have your parents read your weblog? As far as the topic of this post directly, here are your answers:

1. I do read scientific rebuttals of creationist arguments. I also read scientific rebuttals of evolutionist arguments. You could spend your entire life doing both and still not have the "answers". Your brave (our rather, "proud") claim that my beliefs can not be scientifically validated shows that you have more desire plant a seed of doubt in my mind (satisfying your desire to draw me into unbelief) than to discuss the science. I don't think evolution OR creation can be proven. Both are taken with faith - either faith in God or faith in Chance. I am no stranger to Talk Origins. I also believe that the many Scientists you discredit who do NOT believe in evolution (whether Christians or not - there are many who aren't) have read much of the "rebuttals" you mention as well. Surely, being Scientists, they have at least as much knowlege as you do about the topic and yet have not changed their views. It is a grossly overlooked fact that it is split nearly 50/50 in the scientific community with evolution and those who are not in line with it. My job is not to PROVE Creation, but rather to weigh evidence added to my own experience and take a stand for myself (and my children) based on the side I believe to have the MOST correct answers. Evolution may be your choice, but it is not mine. Evolution does not answer the questions of origins (there is still no solid theory on where the matter, energy, time, morals, or emotional differences in mankind came from). More importantly to me, however, it does not answer the question of the meaning of life (if you subscribe to it, you have no HOPE, MEANING, PEACE, FUTURE). I have read all of your arguments as to the fact that you don't believe we DESERVE those things (so please don't waste the time of putting all of that philosophical stuff in here - being a homeschool blog, I don't think many of my readers care much about it or have the time for it). I took philosophy classes in college, too. I have read some of the books on your book list (if not entirely, at least in part). What you fail to understand is that even though we DO NOT DESERVE HOPE, MEANING, PEACE, or a FUTURE beyond this miserable speck of a life... THAT IS THE WHOLE JOY AND WONDER of the CHRISTIAN FAITH. The God of the BIBLE is the ONLY GOD in all of mankind's religions who EXPLAINS why a person is GIVEN these things. It is because HE LOVES US. GRACE. FORGIVENESS. HIS DESIRE FOR US. The big bang, 'Particles-to-People' evolution, "die-and-be-eaten-by-earthworms" is nothing compared to God's love and Jesus' sacrafice. Darwinists can not win. I can die like a Fox's Martyr and still live a happier, more meaningful, more peaceful life than an evolutionist with his "almighty theory" - and even in the face of fire, bullets, cancer, hardship, torture or sword... I can still have HOPE and JOY! Your "theory" can't shake a stick at that. Who cares if I'm wrong. I'd rather live my life happy and in blissful ignorance of deep scientific matters than spend all my best years fruitlessly searching for "knowledge" and "philisophical arguments", spitting out hateful and divisive arguments to anyone who would listen (like many adherents of evolution do at Talk Origins and elsewhere that I have read)... tearing down other people's faith in God. Misery loves company. The issue isn't 6-Day Creation, (as AIG so elegantly puts it.), as I don't believe Young Earth is a salvation issue. The posts I have done have explained MY OPINION and why I THINK 6-DAY BIBLICAL LITERISM matters to ME. I have friends and family who don't agree and are yet wonderfully REDEEMED Christians who are JUST AS SAVED AS I AM.

You said, "Teaching only out of creationist literature gives students the false impression that science is retreating before the logic of creationists, when in fact, quite the opposite is true. Creationism/ID is winning in the media through ceaseless press releases, but evolution triumphs when put to real scientific scrutiny."

I beg to differ. I hardly ever see ANY Creation-leaning arguments in mainstream news. YET SCHOOLS are filled with Darwin-preaching books, encyclopedias, textbooks and "Particles-to-People" preaching teachers! You can not prove what happened at the beginning of the world with SCIENCE (observable, remember???). Until the invention of a TIME MACHINE, "theory" and "hypothesis" is all evolutionists will have. This is not a win or loose argument. No one will win here. The only thing I'm interested in winning is SOULS.

I applaud your parents for homeschooling you in the face of opposition. I applaud them for giving you the obvious sharp critical thinking skills you have. I'm sorry that you have become obsessed with philosophy and scientific scrutiny (although I am aware of how common that is in the college years - I went through it myself). Thankfully, God can still use you in a mighty way (no matter how long it takes for you to discover the Truth), and Christianity (still) has nothing to fear from scrutiny. You were trained up in the way you should go, and I trust God's promise that you will return - stronger and better for your time away (able to reach other skeptics in a way most life-long, undoubting believers may not be able to). I just pray that you come back to him swiftly ... as I have many, many regrets for my own time away from him dabbling in every kind of sin imaginable and wish I could take back those lost years. Being trained at the "feet of Ken Ham", taught by devoted Christian parents, and loved by an awesome God will one day remind you of who you are... maybe when you look into your own son's eyes and see the great blessing and responsibility placed upon you... the love of God is endless (children show you more about God than a Grand Canyon full of theological books and essays ever could).

I appreciate you not resorting to flaming here, and I am glad that you came. Providence, it seems... because you are on my heart and in my prayers. Even my children are remembering you each night as they go to bed. Not only you, but your parents, too. May the Lord restore you and bless them. Your parents are much more dedicated than I am - missionary work is such hard work, and often so un-rewarded. Just know that you are in prayer custody, Zeteo. I hope you get your miracle (the one that stands between you and complete belief in the Bible)... but no matter how God choses to reveal himself, He will. My husband was 26 (like you) when he was baptized (I was 24) and only a year or so later was his faith made complete (he still had a few doubts). It is OK to have doubts. Just feed your "mustard seed plant" (with more than just Talk Origins and college textbooks) and watch it grow.

Martin - I agree that God can alter natural functions and laws which He set in place by miracles.

oku said...

No one has ever seen a star form even though every person on planet earth could own 2 Trillion stars for themselves (the spot getting brighter in the Crab Nebula cannot be proven to be a star birth). I'll cover more on this in Part 2 (not just stars but other evidences from space that the earth isn't as old as some scientists and Intelligent Design groups believe).

The Crab Nebula is not a forming star but a supernovae remnant, so quite the oppsite: a star at the end of its life. Stars do form for example in the Orion Nebula.

I am looking forward to your evidences that the universe isn't old. You may want to look here for an example that shows that the universe is indeed about 15 billion years old, and lots of other ressources.

oku said...

You can’t get past iron with fusion so where did all the elements come from?

This is wrong. True is that fusion to elements heavier than iron does not release energy, it consumes energy - which is why a nuclear bomb releases energy by fission, reversing the reaction.

Heavy elements are formed in supernovae, which release a lot of energy. Some of this energy goes into the fusion of heavy elements.

Sprittibee said...

Oku - I left you a note on your linked post that you referred me to.

Now off to check out your second post...

Sprittibee said...

Maybe I should re-state my quickly noted part about the supposed evolution of elements. I'll use Kent Hovind's own questions (as I looked them up for you since you know more about this than me):

1. Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

2. How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

3. Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

4. How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?

5. When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)?

6. When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included?

7. When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included?

8. Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information?

9. Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?


Explain to me how the elements evolved. I'd love to a testable, observable, real-life model of this.

A few of my own qestions based on your comment would be:

1. How do we know what elements are in a super novae?

2. How were a sample of these elements obtained?

3. If we add new elements to the chart occassionally, how do we know we have discovered them all?

4. If there are undiscovered elements and we have never been to a super novae to collect samples, how do we then know that they do not use elements that are not yet discovered in their supposed evolution?

5. If we are not using observable and testable factual real life evidence in our models and simulations, how then can we call them scientific?

6. If we start our research with a pre-disposed idea of the conclusion, is our data not then skewed to reflect that pre-disposed idea?

When you said you had a model showing the evolution of a star formation, you already assumed that stars evolved... even though there is no evidence (observable) that they have.

Didaskalos said...

Cindy quoted:

Personally, I would stake my life on my belief that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I would not die to defend my opinion of how God did it. 6 days or 6 trillion years, no matter how excellent our educations, it's one mystery that hasn't been revealed. My belief is that, yeah, He created it in 6 days but those 6 days are relative and are meaningless against our calendar/clock.


Extremely well said Cindy!

Sprittibee quoted:

Yes, I've heard about Kent Hovind's tax issues. Thankfully it doesn't have anything to do with his Science.


I agree that it does not speak to his science but it does speak to his character (as does his being charged with Assault and Battery against his secretary in 2002).

At the same time, his science credentials do speak to his science. His lacking any significant creditials as a scientific scholar does not make his positions incorrect but they do deserve scrutiny as his opinions represent little more than a layperson's opinon.

Most of us will never spend the amount of time that those in the scientific community spend on these topics so can be quite moved by simplistically made arguments like Kent Hovind likes to make.

It is a grossly overlooked fact that it is split nearly 50/50 in the scientific community with evolution and those who are not in line with it.

A '50/50 split' refers to naturalistic evolution but not young earth/old earth positions? There are plenty of scientists that believe "naturalistic evolution" has yet to be proven but an overwhelming majority (even Christian scientists) cannot deny the evidence of age.

A gallop poll in 1997 showed that only 5% of scientists held to a less than 10,000 year old universe while 40% held to millions of years with God guiding the process and 55% maintaining naturalistic evolution.

oku said...

Sprittibee, I am afraid to say that your questions show that you really need to catch up on a lot of subjects, here especially chemistry and physics. You wouldn't ask those questions otherwise. This is not meant to offend, really. I do have the impression that you are intelligent.

I really cannot go into detail for all of them, but they are all answered, and there is no mistery at all about them.

I'll answer these:

1. Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?


Actually, I explained that already. It's the supernovae, and this leads you to these questions:

1. How do we know what elements are in a super novae?

It's for example spectral analysis. Each element has a characteristic spectrum. That's how we know the composition of other stars, molecular clouds, and so on.

We also know how supernovae work by simulation in the computer. Comparing this with observations gives good results.

2. How were a sample of these elements obtained?

We do not really need to, see above. We do know the spectra of the elements because we can observe them right here on earth.

Actually, these questions can be more easily understood if you knew the answers to the other questions...

3. If we add new elements to the chart occassionally, how do we know we have discovered them all?

It is especially this question (but also others) that indicate a fundamental lack of understanding. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

In a nutshell: it is the number of protons in the nucleus that defines which element it is. We know the elements with nuclei that contain 1 to 100+ protons. There cannot be an element with a fractional number of protons.

Sprittibee said...

Didaskalos: I agree that Hovind's current (and previous) issues with the law are definately unfortunant for Young Earth Creationists. I do not know the reasons as to why some of the accusations have been made, nor the facts behind the case, but believe me - I am following the news and praying about it. I agree with Ken Ham in the sense that your conduct if you should be in the "limelight" should be that which would shed integrity over what you are teaching. I am not unable to see how silly this makes Kent Hovind's claims appear to evolutionists, and how regrettable it is for creationists (and those who adhere to YE). I also believe that we should not throw in the towel on everything we believe because of one man's problems, either. Many of Hovind's points are also agreed upon by Answers in Genesis, and I see no character issues surrounding those men.

"A gallop poll in 1997 showed that only 5% of scientists held to a less than 10,000 year old universe while 40% held to millions of years with God guiding the process and 55% maintaining naturalistic evolution."

Gallop polls also have unsuccessfully predicted that elections would be lost or won as well. You can't base your evidence for this on Gallop polls. My father is a scientist (bio-chemist/geologist) and I'm quite certain he was not asked his beliefs for this poll or he would have told me. This is a big topic of his that he enjoys discussing. My point is not to say I KNOW all the answers. I can still believe in God and not know if the earth is FOR CERTAIN 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000. The fact is that there is not going to be a CERTAIN answer on this matter until we can ASK Him ourselves.

I'm only stating what Kent's tapes and AIG have said that I tend to agree with. The fact remains that there is two sides to the argument on just about every issue.

Sprittibee said...

Oku,

You stated: "Sprittibee, I am afraid to say that your questions show that you really need to catch up on a lot of subjects, here especially chemistry and physics."

I would have to agree with you (seeing as how I stated in my previous comment to you already that you seem to know more than I do about the chemistry of stars).

However, you certainly had me doing my homework last night on the issue. I know more than I ever wanted to know about 'speed of light'/'cdk', 'redshifts', 'heavy elements', 'the Hubble constant', 'even distribution', 'Doppler shift', and 'cosminucleosynthesis'. I spent an entire evening's worth of computer time (from about 9pm until 2am) reading up on the internet from a countless amount of sources. Probably 80% of my "researching" came from atheistic/secular sources. I would say I went far and beyond what would be required of someone in being fair and open-minded. After reading last night, I can still say that we must agree to disagree.

The reasons are complex, but I'll lay them out here for you:

1. First of all, science in it's nature is never 'complete'. There can always be new discovery in every field and a small change in any principal or law would greatly change all of how we see the world. Just look at what they did to Galileo when he tried to say that the sun was the center of the universe/solar system - imprisoned him and ordered that his works (even those in the future) not be published. Just because an ID or Creationist viewpoint may not be popular doesn't mean that it is not correct. Science is learning new things every day and I have faith that no matter what is discovered in the end, my faith will not be shaken by it.

2. In a recent AIG article (May 2006), I read about a new theory that AIG is looking in to. It involves stellar formation, and would greatly change the variables in the time it takes light to reach the earth from distant stars if it were proven true. It relies on Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Here's a snip from the article, which I found very interesting:

"If the speed of light (c) has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory—one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (GR).8

When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.9 The equations of GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still."

It reminded me of these two verses in the bible:

2 Peter 3:8 -
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Psalm 104:2 -
He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Here's another snip:

"secular astronomers claim the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. They assume without any evidence at all that the galaxies go on forever, but that we can’t see them beyond a certain distance for whatever reason—perhaps because the light hasn’t reached us yet. But what if the reason we don’t see galaxies beyond a certain distance is because there are none beyond that distance. That’s at least as reasonable as any other explanation. And if true, it would mean that our portion of the galaxy is in a gravitational well—which causes time-dilation. This potentially would make starlight from the most distant regions of the universe arrive on Earth in only thousands of years Earth-time. See How can we see distant stars in a young universe?"

3. To believe in all the current and most up to date cosmic and stellar evolution models, one must STILL rely on faith to think that something sprang forth from nothing. And, one must deny the concept that creation displays the work of design. Not only that, but evolution has it's own light and time trouble ('The Horizon Problem'). So, the theory is far from perfected and will always be a theory - because it can not be proven by observation.

4. Lastly, the science is still not undisputed as to supernovae creating ALL the elements we see on earth. Even evolutionists agree that it is "difficult to progress"... "beyond lithium and even helium". Kent Hovind should have checked a little further into this issue, I agree. Even if there were a way to progress despite the lack of stable elements with masses of 5 and 8, it still is speculation because it can NOT be observed. I can make a model of Michael Jackson turning into a green alien on my computer through animation, but without SEEING it happen... it will never be proven as fact. It still is a theory until OBSERVED. And because of the time "stellar evolution and chemical evolution" supposedly takes to occur naturally, it never can be observed.

5. Modern physics is currently studying such mind-boggling theories as the possibility of electromagnetic interaction and other dimensionless constants varying with time. I ran across an article entitled, "Are the laws of nature changing with time?" on PhysicsWeb last night that really may shake up the entire 'big bang' crowd if proven to be true. If that is the case, then we will be arguing something entirely different tomorrow than we are today. Evolutionists can not say they have all the answers. That is absurd, scientifically speaking. Even in the Christian faith, while we believe that Jesus is the answer, there are still many questions that we will not have the answer to until we are at the feet of the Lord in heaven and can ask Him to his face.

6. Cosmic and stellar evolution is only one part of the evolution process that evolutionists must accept on current models. There is still plenty of evidence from other branches of science as well that would neatly fit in with a Young Earth. The next step of scrutiny would then be macro-evolution and there are plenty of biologists (as you admitted already) who disagree with jumps between species of different kinds.

I have said before, and I'll say again... I don't wish to turn this into a Talk Origins website. That is not my point in discussing my beliefs on my own blog - I'm not trying to start a war, here (and my main readers are not scientists, so why would it matter to you what I say to homeschoolers and my family?). I think I'm entitled to believe what I want, and you are as well. I'm not the one who sought you out looking to argue. I'm very comfortable in my faith in God and am not afraid of the fact that not everyone else shares it - although I do feel sad for those who don't.

I'm not posting anything false or misleading, and in the end, I will always fall back on the Bible as my guide - and God as my King. Fallible man is not able to refute my reasons for belief... even if you or I are wrong about the chemicals in the stars or the length of time starlight takes to reach the earth.

I'll post my second part of the saga soon (today we are off school because Monday and Tuesday are officially our weekends since Dad is home from work - and we are enjoying our time goofing off at home)... I'm sure I'll see you in the comment section of part 2.

oku said...

The next step of scrutiny would then be macro-evolution and there are plenty of biologists (as you admitted already) who disagree with jumps between species of different kinds.


I just noted this - I did not admit anything like that. Maybe another commenter did. I didn't say anything about biology (I am not a biologist), until now.

It is also terribly distorted - there are no 'jumps' between species. They evolve more or less continuously. Find a good book about evolution, and you will understand. For example:
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

Didaskalos said...

I think I'm entitled to believe what I want, and you are as well. I'm not the one who sought you out looking to argue.

If you will recall, this began because you decided to challenge Scribe at ICV regarding his apparent support for "the biggest lie of our time". After the response to your question on ICV, you moved this over to your blog using the title "Evolution and Emissions Debate".

You can't expect to support a scientific position that the lion's share of the scientific community dismisses as little more than a faith based position and not expect to be challenged on the science. This is especially true when your primary basis of support is an individual who is controversial at best and generally considered a joke in the scientific community because his science is clearly questionable.

You have to consider that you like Kent Hovind's material so much because you need for what Kent Hovind says to be true to support your presupposition that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old.

There are dozens and dozens of sites that will address Kent Hovind's material point by point to show how his "science" is simply lacking.

You are free to believe what you want of course but surely you don't think you are going to compel many who spend much time studying the sciences.

I spend my life swimming upstream so understand why you would considering your position of faith on this issue. 15 years ago, there were substantive questions to be raised about the age of the universe. There are still questions to be raised but there can be little doubt that there is ample scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old. If you want to defend a position of science, you will be left with taking a position that it really is that old or God created it "with the appearance" of age.

Believe me, I spent the better part of a decade trying to defend the young earth position and then eventually gave up as you simply will not be successful using science to prove a young universe.

Gallop polls also have unsuccessfully predicted that elections would be lost or won as well. You can't base your evidence for this on Gallop polls.

You can't have it both ways. You were trying to point out only a 50/50 acceptance of evolution in the scientific community. Are you basing this 50/50 split on your relationship with your father or outside polling measures?

The fact remains that in the scientific community, whether the scientist is a person of faith or not, it is a very very small minority who accepts the young universe position. If the fact that a large percentage don't blindly accept "naturalistic evolution" is note worthy, so is the fact that 95% don't accept that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

I can still believe in God and not know if the earth is FOR CERTAIN 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000. The fact is that there is not going to be a CERTAIN answer on this matter until we can ASK Him ourselves.

That was my point from the beginning that drew me into this "debate". If it would have started there, I would have felt no compulsion to respond.

Instead, you turned it into a "catalyst question" of Christianity.

What I don't like about Kent Hovind is that he puts one in a position that they can accept his dogmatic stances (KJV is the only acceptable version of scripture and the earth must be less than 10,000 years old) or you are taking a position against God's clear truth. His approach is exclusionary. That is why I believe he does as much harm as anyone in the Christian community when it comes to reaching out to people of intelligence. There is no reason science needs to be at odds with faith. It remains so because of people like Kent Hovind.

What I like about someone like Hugh Ross is that he doesn't make this a central issue of faith but rather seeks out a way to answer the skeptics with the language they would prefer to discuss (science and evidence). His appraoch is inclusive. The main controversy someone like Hugh Ross (or other Old Earther scientists) have is within the Christian community. How unfortunate considering the fact remains that there is two sides to the argument on just about every issue.

Sprittibee said...

Oku, pardon me for putting words in my mouth - it was Didaskalos who said,

"A '50/50 split' refers to naturalistic evolution"

I was not looking directly at your post when I wrote this.

What I meant to say was that there is a large percentage (50/50) that don't believe in macro-evolution's answers to how we got here.

You said:

"They evolve more or less continuously."

I agree that within species/kinds there is continual variation taking place. That is the beauty of God's awesome creation... variety of design. We are looking at the same feature of God's world and seeing it entirely different from eachother.

Sprittibee said...

Didaskalos:

I originally had no intention of "debating" a person on their own beliefs. I merely asked a question of Scribe in curiosity after reading his post on global warming if he believed in evolution (as I have explained in the comments section already) because I had just read the article: "Christian reluctance to jump on global warming bandwagon attributed to skepticism of evolution" - by a guest commentary to Answers in Genesis (Michael Oard). The debate I was referring to was not necessarily a personal one between Scribe himself but over the global warming issue and if our nation should go into a panic over it. Scribe or you (not sure which) began the first post which included me personally. I doubt any of this would have been posted (or at least been posted with names included and commenting involved) if he/or you (?) had answered my comment on his comments section. It really doesn't matter, though. I don't hold any grudges over anything and my opinion on this matter would have been posted at some point, most likely even without prodding... as I was reading articles on global warming anyway and have been interested in the frenzy over it.

I agree that Hovind has issues, and have not denied it. I checked Hovind's positions against AIG and the opinions I posted are ones that they seem to also hold.

The "lion's share" of the WORLD dismisses Christianity as fraud - the "opiate of the masses"... yet I still subscribe to it. How can that argument [that I should disregard my views of 6-Day Creation based on the fact that less than 10% of scientists agree with it] be valid in light of your/my position on faith in Jesus?

"What is right is right even if no one is doing it. What is wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it." - Unknown

I believe our discussion above was that less than 10% [of scientists] believe in Young Earth and less than 50% [of scientists] believe in Darwin's Macro-Evolution (as far as Scientists go). My point was that the polls may not be correct, ... but neither figures make any difference to me - as I have read enough on the topic to last me for quite a while over the past week and have discovered that there IS valid controversy and that Science, while advancing, still can change indefinately with new information. If the laws of physics are in question (as I mentioned I read about on a SECULAR Physics site), the dating methods and age of the universe according to evolution theory could also in question.

You said, "If you want to defend a position of science, you will be left with taking a position that it really is that old or God created it "with the appearance" of age."

Not necessarily true if constants are changing. The Hubbel constant has given different readings than they had previously. Einstein’s relativity theories and studies on distortion of time may change the way we view the speed of light - giving the appearance of millions of years only because of distance, and yet being "young light" because of a shorter traveling speed. There are many things we still do not know. I am just keeping an open mind until the Lord returns. Surely no one begrudges me this... especially not brothers and sisters in Christ (who not agree with my views).

You said, "Instead, you turned it into a "catalyst question" of Christianity."

I don't think I meant the same thing you surmised. In my original posts, although I did use the term "catalyst question", (catalyst meaning synonymously: agitator, enzyme, goad, iconoclast, impetus, impulse, incendiary, incentive, incitation, incitement, motivation, radical stimulus, reactant, reactionary, spark plug, spur, stimulant, synergist, wave maker - or in my thoughts, a question that gives rise to intense inward soul-searching)... I also said in the same paragraph that, "While your beliefs about it may not effect your salvation, it most certainly will affect your worldview... and your worldview is the window through which you evaluate all other thoughts."

I never have said (or believed) that 'I don't think you can go to heaven if you believe in evolution.' I have just stated why I feel it is important to me that I believe in 6-Day Creation. I never meant to attack anyone or even appear to. I sincerely appologize if you felt that you or Scribe, or anyone else who believes as you do were being attacked.

I agree that Hovind has some biases [towards evolutionists] that I don't subscribe to. I never said I agree with him on every issue, on the contrary, I said up front that I don't. You said that you feel "His approach is exclusionary." How do you view AIG, then? They also subscribe to the belief the Bible clearly points towards a literal Young Earth understanding (they don't think the KJV is the only version that leads to this belief). Here's a link to an article from their website that shares their stance and a quote from it:

"Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as ‘young Earthers.’ The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the ‘old Earthers’ (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many ‘conservative’ Christians) who appeal to what they call ‘science,’ versus the ‘young Earthers,’ who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed ‘scientific’ evidence for an old Earth.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator."

I agree with them wholeheartedly.

The way I see it is this:

A person has five options.

1. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on all counts and God does not exist (athiestic)

2. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on some counts and God does not exist or is not God of Bible (ID/athiestic/agnostic)

3. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on all counts and God set in motion (ID/Old Earth Creation)

4. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on some counts and God set in motion (ID/Old Earth Creation)

5. Believe based on faith that evolution is not true and God created in 6 days (Creationism)

There are 3 on that list that are Christian viewpoints. My view, quite obviously is #5. You can take your pick and we can still be friends regardless. :)

Didaskalos said...

I would contend there is some position between #4 and #5 on your list. There are those who believe in Creationism over a much longer period of time. I am a fan of both AIG and Reasons to Believe and still enjoy the differences they "debate". Not sure who is right but it is interesting nonetheless.

Using the term "evolution" is dangerous as I have tried to point out previously. Whether it is a misapplied term, micro-evolution has been observed. The question is did all things created evolve from some other "kind" to its present "kind". Many old-earthers such as Hugh Ross are very openly opposed to evolution.

Progressive Creationism is not equitable to God guiding evolution as ID supports. In my mind Progressive Creationism is a possibility. I also am a fan of AIG and they tend to be my basis of support if I am discussing this within Christian circles that are not concerned with the "lion's share" of science views.

I believe the bible to be authoritative and most would describe me as a literalist (but I believe that label is ripe with debate as well). Unlike you, from a very young age, I did not draw the obvious conclusion that "day" had to mean 24 hours (as we know 24 hours today). My father is a pastor, theologian and literalist that holds to 6, 24 hour periods (by earth's clocks). I was raised in this position but I can remember back to the age of 10 or so asking questions about how some things were possible.

How was there a "day" when the sun was not created until day 4? How did vegetation created on day 3 grow without the sun? How did Adam accomplish all that he accomplished (naming all of the animals and recovering from surgery to name a couple) in one day? Why did Genesis 2:4 refer to all of the creation event as a "day" if I must see the days in Genesis as 24 hour periods?

I also believe Hebrews 4:3 alludes to the day of rest (7th day of the creation account) which is still ongoing.

I have seen responses to each of these since but none that do not seem an equal philosophical stretch as Old Earthers are accused of making to support their day-age approach.

In the end, I think the issue is debatable and I am glad you see a clear interpretation to Genesis 1 but I do not believe I am watering down or contradicting scripture to interpret the text differently than you do.

I will continue to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit on this issue as I am sure you will. As you stated before, we cannot KNOW the truth until we have a chance to ask the all knowing Creator.

All I could ever ask is that you don't challenge those outside of the Church to deny scientific evidence of the earth or the universe’s age to "take the position the bible takes". My hope in this conversation was to demonstrate that the issue has room to be debatable and therefore rightly remains between a person and his Lord.

As you so eloquently pointed out before, there are other larger concerns. Poverty is my #1 issue so when you mentioned that, I am with you 100%. A big issue for me as well is getting back to a simple straightforward good news message. That was our calling. To show the world the love of Christ. It is not to convince them of the 6 literal days of creation (or the bible's position on homosexuality, abortion, alcohol, smoking, dancing, cursing, ...). These are issues I am comfortable leaving in the hands of the Holy Spirit after they have met the Loving savior I came to know and love. Dogmatic stances on these issues within a body of believers would never be my contention. Outside it is misplaced in my opinion.

If they never get past the first chapter of the book I believe to be God's word, they never have an opportunity to see the beauty of his plan.

This is just my humble opinion and I have said my piece over and over so I will let it be.

I thank God that there is someone out there putting forward such a positive message and unashamedly defending her faith.

In the end, I am happy for the opportunity to "debate" the issue with you and I wish you all the best. Even though I don't know you well, I will be sure to say a prayer for you and your family as the Holy Spirit prompts.

God Bless!!!

Joolya said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sprittibee said...

Didaskalos:

You said, "I would contend there is some position between #4 and #5 on your list."

Maybe so.

You said, "Using the term "evolution" is dangerous"

Yes, I really should clarify that I mean athiestic evolution or cosmic/macro whatever the case may be. In most cases in my post, I was referring to a belief that the universe began on it's own (spontaneously generated) or that creatures evolved from slime to all the forms we see today. I did not mean to say that variations (what most people call micro-evolution) do not exist anywhere in my post, because that is simply not true.

You said, "I also am a fan of AIG"

Great!

You said, "Why did Genesis 2:4 refer to all of the creation event as a "day" if I must see the days in Genesis as 24 hour periods?"

It seems this might be a bit out of context. At least the Bible I'm reading from (NIV, I think) says, "4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"... but in other versions, it does say "in the day". I am not sure that is the same word there, but when I read up on this, I came across an interesting article on the gap theory at AIG and they are much better at Hebrew translation than I am. Sorry, can't help you there.

You said, "I do not believe I am watering down or contradicting scripture to interpret the text differently than you do."

I agree that my interpretation is not the only interpretation. I also believe as we discussed before that Romans 14 is right (again, I'm a literalist).

Romans 14:4 - "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

You said, "As you stated before, we cannot KNOW the truth until we have a chance to ask the all knowing Creator."

I say, AMEN.

You said, "To show the world the love of Christ. It is not to convince them of the 6 literal days of creation"

I say, AMEN.

Concerning the church's stance on homosexuality, abortion, alcohol, smoking, dancing, cursing, ...

You said.."These are issues I am comfortable leaving in the hands of the Holy Spirit after they have met the Loving savior"

I agree. I think the position of the church should be known, but not ENFORCED on others before their conversion. However, as to the rules and laws of the land, there are some exceptions - ie: murder, rape, violent acts, kidnapping, molestation, etc. You have to draw a line to live in a society peacefully. Our views of ethics in America came from the Bible. While we may not be a "Christian Nation" anymore (sadly), I do see that there are a few "sins" that should still be kept illegal so that others are not harmed.

You said, "I thank God that there is someone out there putting forward such a positive message and unashamedly defending her faith."

Awww, shucks. That just made my day.

You said, "In the end, I am happy for the opportunity to "debate" the issue with you and I wish you all the best. Even though I don't know you well, I will be sure to say a prayer for you and your family as the Holy Spirit prompts. God Bless!!!"

It was a pleasure to "debate" with you as well. Thank you very much for the prayers, you were in mine last night as well. God bless to you and yours (and Scribe and his) also. Hope to see you around the blogosphere.

Sprittibee said...

NOTE to readers:

The post that was deleted has been moved to the Part 2 of this discussion. It was a duplicate comment. I only delete comments due to name-calling, rudeness, or downing other people. I had to delete two such comments from the Part 2 comments section. It's a shame that we all can't disagree and still get along. I'm leaving this post's comment section open in case Didaskalos has something else to say, and then I will be closing it to all comments - I think nearly 30 is enough (because I have a life, and wish to move on to other, more interesting topics!).

Have a super day!

Didaskalos said...

No more commments on this Post from me.

 

Disclosure

Some posts on this blog contain affiliate links or sponsored links. I receive a small commission whenever a product is purchased through an affiliate link. Sponsored links are paid for by a company who wishes to improve their Google ranking, but I always check to make sure these are reputable sites and never allow any links that are questionable to be placed.

The links in my "Sweet Linkage" section are either sponsored links or personal links that I find interesting (including the links to the blogs that both of my teen children run).

I occasionally run ads on my blog in exchange for money or traded advertising, or receive products in exchange for a review or giveaway posts. I also participate in campaigns by brands that offer to pay me to write about their products after using them. Any post that is sponsored will be noted as such. All opinions expressed on Sprittibee.com are my own, and any review, give-away, sponsored post, graphic ad, or product that I mention or link to are ones that I believe are reputable and worthy companies.

Stats

blog design:

blog archives