Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged
Stabroke News ^ | July 4th, 2007 | Roger Williams

Posted on 07/04/2007 5:43:27 PM PDT by balch3

Dear Editor,

Reading Kowlessar Misir's letter captioned "Science and Religion are mutually exclusive: belief is a matter of faith!" (07.06.30) is a tortuous journey. Throughout the letter, one senses the difficulty in conceptualizing the big picture, and also a desperate search for meaning. An indication of Misir's dilemma is the fact that, in the tight space of a single page, he asked 21 questions rather than exercise diligence in rationalizing their answers. The reason for this, sadly, is found in the very last line of his effort as he quotes Miller on Darwin, denying the existence of a soul. Could this intellectual panic be about Misir's infatuation with atheism and evolution? He is now engaged in the ultimate deception, making a case for a "God of diversity" while at the same time denying His (God's) existence. Remember Psalm 14:1 …

The available "scientific" evidence will add to his misery. He should recognize at once that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, Darwin and atheism than to believe in Jesus Christ!

In any belief system, it surely is a comfort to find that the "scientific" (however defined) basis upon which that system rests acts itself out with the reassuring consistency or probability of a "law". Likewise, it must surely portend disaster and crisis when the system has to be held up with the bandages of deception and denial. Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) adopts a view that is completely opposite to Misir's: "… science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. ... since (for) the same God who "authored" the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted." To believe any less of any belief system would be self-deluding indeed. Misir is fundamentally deficient in advocating that "These two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is never any convergence". He denies his own system, whatever that is, since he maintains that science cannot uphold it.

We should turn to Marilyn Adamson (Is there a God?) for a brief rebuttal of Misir's evolutionary concept that the "… world is a complex heterogeneous system and that evolved from a complex heterogeneous system". This idea of Misir's sounds impressive indeed until one carries the process to its absurdly infinite iteration. One must finally make a decision on where the first "complex" heterogeneous system came from. Complexity, by its very definition is ordered not chaotic, is multi-faceted, and reflects intelligence. Adamson offers six simple but compelling lower-order observations for the existence of the God of the Bible, and it is this level of abstraction in reasoning that Misir must aim at, rather than rhetorical thrust and parry. He may want, for example, to rationalize his concern with the validity of "philosophies that predate the common Biblical era" against the Christian position that the "Biblical era" begins, well, at the "beginning itself" per Genesis 1:1.

I sense that the most meaningful insight into Adamson's foresight is in her fifth point. Here, she maintains that "We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him." Misir is no different from billions of Christians in this regard, and here's the proof: after vowing to address "God" in a later treatment in as early as the second paragraph, he almost unconsciously refers to "God" no less than 15 times in the paragraphs thereafter. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob comforts him, and us, with the soothing words of Jeremiah 29:11-14. Misir has thereby found his answer as to why God gave him the "ability to intellectualize". To choose to seek God from a wide range of intellectual distractions is worship indeed, this with a peace that passes all understanding.

But I also sense that it is the higher-order arguments regarding Biblical creation/ evolution that Misir's attention is really focused on, since he says in concluding: "Scientific thought has provided the necessary tools of investigation that yielded knowledge and information, enabling us to make informed statements on the development of humankind." He however cites none of them, and I admire his caution, because evolution as a scientific principle has been all but disproved. A formidable body of evidence already exists in such works as Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2000. 338 pages) and Science & Christianity: Four Views (InterVarsity Press, 2000. 276 pages) http://www.reasons. org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml# book_reviews. There are others.

Wells, for one, carefully documents his thesis from the work of evolutionary biologists, explaining that the "icons" of evolution-considered to be the best evidence for evolution-are nothing more than scientific myths, in most cases.

The lack of experimental and observational support for evolution's so-called best evidence comes not from recent scientific advances, in most instances, but from long-acknowledged mainstream scientific literature. This lack of support prompts Wells to repeatedly question why textbooks consistently present these "icons" as evidence for evolution when evolutionary biologists understand that these "icons" are equivocal at best in their support for evolution.

He believes that the answer to this question stems from a deliberate effort by Darwinian ideologues to suppress scientific truth out of concern that without these widely known "icons" of evolution, public support for evolution will wane.

The evolutionary "icons" addressed by Wells include: 1) the Miller-Urey experiment; 2) the evolutionary "Tree of Life"; 3) the homology of vertebrate limbs; 4) Haeckel's drawings of vertebrate embryos; 5) Archaeopteryx as the missing link connecting birds to reptiles; 6) the peppered moth story; 7) beak evolution and speciation among Darwin's finches; 8) the laboratory-directed evolution of four-winged fruit flies; 9) equine evolution; and 10) human evolution.

In Misir's world of evolution and atheism, the scientific tools have been applied, and the concepts found wanting. Now what?

We conclude that it takes more "faith" to believe in a lie called "Darwinian evolution", and the tragedy of atheism, than to believe in Jesus Christ! Now, we should examine how the scientific tools validate intelligent design and, by inference, creation!

Yours faithfully,

Roger Williams


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; darwin; evolution; fsmdidit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last
incicively argued.
1 posted on 07/04/2007 5:43:31 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

2 posted on 07/04/2007 5:47:57 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Pray for the deliberately ignorant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Williams' thesis: evolution is false, because some creationist named Wells says it is, and that settles that.

How can the scientific community ever hope to withstand such a terrible attack?

3 posted on 07/04/2007 5:48:28 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

DATELINE: William Jennings Bryan announces he
is running for the 2008 Presidential election.


4 posted on 07/04/2007 5:53:27 PM PDT by maxsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: balch3

read later


5 posted on 07/04/2007 5:55:54 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The evolutionary "icons" addressed by Wells include: 1) the Miller-Urey experiment; 2) the evolutionary "Tree of Life"; 3) the homology of vertebrate limbs; 4) Haeckel's drawings of vertebrate embryos; 5) Archaeopteryx as the missing link connecting birds to reptiles; 6) the peppered moth story; 7) beak evolution and speciation among Darwin's finches; 8) the laboratory-directed evolution of four-winged fruit flies; 9) equine evolution; and 10) human evolution.

Nothing to see here. Move along!

These ten evolutionary "icons" have been the subject of enough misrepresentations, falsifications, quote mines, and outright lies by creationists to fill the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Short rebuttals for all of these "icons" (and a few hundred others) are found in the Index of Creationist Claims.

6 posted on 07/04/2007 5:59:45 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Evolution to higher organisms by “random mutation” is absolutely impossible. We have learned so much more about the nuts and bolts of genetics in the last 15 or so years, that only a rapid atheist can continue to believe that life is a mere chance event! For you die-hard Darwinists, read Michael Behe’s latest book: “The Edge of Evolution.” He’s a biochemist, and the book gets pretty technical at times, but if you want to see an unglossed analysis of the facts behind genetic mutation, read it!
7 posted on 07/04/2007 6:00:02 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( Common Descent, Yes. Random Chance, NO WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

“rapid” means “Rabid”


8 posted on 07/04/2007 6:02:15 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( Common Descent, Yes. Random Chance, NO WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
"Evolution to higher organisms by “random mutation” is absolutely impossible....read Michael Behe’s latest book"

Intelligent Design accepts macroevolution. In other words ID accepts that humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor.

Id that what you believe?
9 posted on 07/04/2007 6:04:22 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and cannot be proved using the scientific method. I have my own belief system that has been developed over years.
10 posted on 07/04/2007 6:05:18 PM PDT by mountainlyons (Hard core conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons
"Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics"

The earth is not a closed system.
11 posted on 07/04/2007 6:06:24 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
For you die-hard Darwinists, read Michael Behe’s latest book: “The Edge of Evolution.” He’s a biochemist, and the book gets pretty technical at times, but if you want to see an unglossed analysis of the facts behind genetic mutation, read it!

His book has been panned pretty seriously by scientists:

Miller drubs Behe in Nature.

Behe's Dreadful New Book: A Review of "The Edge of Evolution".

12 posted on 07/04/2007 6:06:46 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: maxsand
YESSSS! Finally a "true conservative!" What took him so FREAKING long?

/:-)
13 posted on 07/04/2007 6:09:06 PM PDT by TxCopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balch3; Dog Gone; Dark Wing
And for irrefutable proof that evolution is wrong, send just $20 in small unmarked bills to:

Carlo Ponzi
P.O. Box 666
So Long Sucker, Oklahoma

An autographed statuette of HIM will be included with every purchase.

14 posted on 07/04/2007 6:13:52 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt

Yeah, but not by random chance.


15 posted on 07/04/2007 6:17:48 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( Common Descent, Yes. Random Chance, NO WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Read it for yourself!


16 posted on 07/04/2007 6:18:27 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( Common Descent, Yes. Random Chance, NO WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

So what specific mechanism do you propose replaces random mutation to introduce variation.


17 posted on 07/04/2007 6:21:25 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Behe isn't widely respected like Dawkins.


18 posted on 07/04/2007 6:26:06 PM PDT by Hacksaw (Appalachian by the grace of God! Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ndt
A theory can be proven false/impossible without having a ready-made replacement. However, I believe there are some still undiscovered natural laws that govern the process. Some may call them the hands of God, so what? To my mind, every natural law is in accordance with God’s will.
19 posted on 07/04/2007 6:30:40 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( Common Descent, Yes. Random Chance, NO WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
"A theory can be proven false/impossible without having a ready-made replacement."

So what specific experiment or observation do you feel falsifies The ToE.
20 posted on 07/04/2007 6:33:53 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
For you die-hard Darwinists, read Michael Behe’s latest book: “The Edge of Evolution.”

Does he describe how grass and fruit trees were able to survive before there was a sun (Gen 1:12-16)?

21 posted on 07/04/2007 7:13:56 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: balch3
In other news...

The Flat Earth Society announced today that a majority of United Nations scientists now believe that the Earth really is flat.

22 posted on 07/04/2007 7:21:25 PM PDT by vox humana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

The Bible contains thirty or forty stories about miracles and most of those are paranormal kinds of things for which rational explanations probably exist. Evolution requires an endless series of probabilistic miracles and grotesque violations of the basic laws of mathematics and probability theory. God vs Charles Darwin is one of life’s easier choices.


23 posted on 07/04/2007 7:24:58 PM PDT by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Can you explain how a rock came to life?


24 posted on 07/04/2007 7:36:25 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
Evolution to higher organisms by “random mutation” is absolutely impossible.

I could not agree with you more. You'll note, I'm sure, that evolution "to higher organisms" doesn't take place solely by "random mutation." Certainly, I've never heard any scientists claim that.

25 posted on 07/04/2007 7:38:47 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Behe isn't widely respected like Dawkins.

Right. According to the BBC Dawkins is Britain's greatest public intellectual.
26 posted on 07/04/2007 7:39:13 PM PDT by caveat emptor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vox humana

Have you ever seen some life form mutate into something improved?


27 posted on 07/04/2007 7:43:16 PM PDT by omega4179 (El 43.o presidente de los Estados Unidos De Norteamérica Jorge W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Complexity, by its very definition is ordered not chaotic, is multi-faceted, and reflects intelligence.

This is a profession of faith. It is not supported by experience, but rather is contrary to experience. Far from being the product of intelligence, complexity necessarily must exist before intelligence. Omniscience is not a high degree of intelligence, but a different concept altogether.

28 posted on 07/04/2007 7:54:57 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics...

Prove that. But be careful you don't prove too much. If, for example, it were contrary to the second law for a human being to grow from a single cell, then it must follow that the law is no law at all, but a falsehood.

29 posted on 07/04/2007 8:14:03 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Shouldn’t this be in Breaking News?


30 posted on 07/04/2007 8:14:53 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The polar icecaps are melting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .on Mars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Have you ever seen some life form mutate into something improved?

Yes, all the time. Which is how I caught drug-resistant tuberculosis in the Soviet Union in 1990. Now out of curiosity, have you seen God breathe the breath of life into the nostrils of some formed dust?

31 posted on 07/04/2007 8:18:36 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Why must so many highly religious people always be in such conflict with Science? If you believe that God created the Universe, then everything around you, including you is the actual “Hand of God”. If you desire to know the will of God, wouldn’t it be better to study the “Handy work of God”, with the minds his hand gave us. Than to study a book assembled in Byblos from stories, from all over the middle-east, by primitive and superstitious men who believed the world was flat, and disease was caused by demons entering in through your mouth. Translated, only God knows how many times, by similarly primitive men, who believed leeches, and bleeding a sick person, would remove the bad humors that cause disease. A greater understanding of the mind of God, is more likely to be achieved by the scientist studying the beauty of God’s creation filled with Quarks and Quasars, than the distorted writings of primitive men, no matter how divinely inspired, groping for some understanding of the world around them and their existence?


32 posted on 07/04/2007 8:25:30 PM PDT by Eagle74 (From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“Miller drubs Behe in Nature.”
Behe’s Dreadful New Book: A Review of “The Edge of Evolution”.”

Miller? Fanatic for evolution. Review by another rabid evolutionist? Wow...sure bring alot to the table here /s.

Paul


33 posted on 07/04/2007 8:38:42 PM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution is YOUR religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
Does he describe how grass and fruit trees were able to survive before there was a sun (Gen 1:12-16)?

Genesis 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The sun is in the heaven(s) and this declaration pre-dates the verses you noted. Verse two of Genesis 1 says that And the earth was (word should actually be *became*) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (Deep what)

Something happened that cause this earth to become without form, and void, words that mean *waste*. This earth does exhibit the evidence that at some point in time there was cataclysmic destruction on this earth. Discovery channel has shows on all the time about super volcanoes, and there is evidence of meteorites hitting the earth. Something cataclysmic cause the death and destruction of the dinos all those millions of years ago.

Given what the evidence demonstrates I consider what Genesis 1:3-23 is describing would more accurately be an environmental clean-up given what verse 2 has to say.

Peter says IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Verse 6 Whereby the world that then *WAS*, being overflowed with water, perished:

IIPeter 2:7 But the heavens and earth which are *NOW*, by the same word are kept in store,.....

So even Peter knew around 2,000 years ago that this earth was very very very OLD.

34 posted on 07/04/2007 8:52:58 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74
You obviously havent read the book of Leviticus especially the parts about hygiene. The hygiene laws were centuries ahead of science that discovered germs. I guess the primitives just lucked up on those. Also, the Bible doesnt say the earth is flat, it makes reference to the four corners of the earth (ie north south east and west)in Revelations 7:1. Although is does specifically say that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)and hangs on nothing (Job 26:7). Be careful your biblical ignorance is showing.
35 posted on 07/04/2007 9:07:30 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (new poster, not enough time to think up a clever tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74
Why must so many highly religious people always be in such conflict with Science?.....

I have NO conflict with LITERAL science, but this evolution mysticism is a load of donkey dung. Did not happen the way the religion of evolutionists claim!! As it is Written we are all made in the image of the Heavenly Father, but not all minds are in tuned with Him. This present age is by design to give opportunity for all His children to be born of woman, into a flesh going to die and return to dust body. When the flesh dies, the soul, or as Genesis calls it *breath of life* returns to the Father that sent it. As also Written not all of those sons of God were willing to go through this flesh age and they along with that one who believed in himself so much (Satan) are the only ones yet judged with a death of their "soul" sentence.

Flesh man is not going to design any methods that will make this flesh body live into eternity.

36 posted on 07/04/2007 9:18:33 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts; Fiji Hill

The grass and trees were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Ever kept a plant out of the sun for one day? It will live. And no the days werent long periods of time. The verses are very clear with the inclusion of evening and morning were the (insert number) day.

2nd Peter 3:5 is talking about the flood in Noahs day. The next verse says “by which the world that then existed perished being flooded with water.” The Bible gives the account of the world flooded with water in Genesis.


37 posted on 07/04/2007 9:21:23 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (new poster, not enough time to think up a clever tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
The hygiene laws were centuries ahead of science that discovered germs.
Well, we need go no further then.

Put down that keyboard pronto and return poste haste to the Bible which must contain the answer(s) to your quest (IOW, why are you here? Simply to answer our questions ... or yours?)

38 posted on 07/04/2007 9:26:02 PM PDT by _Jim (Highly recommended book on the Kennedy assassination - Posner: "Case Closed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Can I get a cut?

Enough gullible sheep to go around.


39 posted on 07/04/2007 9:30:24 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3

WHAT I want to know is: which came first - the chicken or ‘the means by which it reproduces’ (classically put: ‘the egg’)?

Or was it ‘chickens and eggs’ simultaneously?

ANd then, what about us primates that ‘carry’ our young within ... did we come equipped with pre-birth embyros just waiting to be ‘birthed’?

An inquiring mind wants to know ...


40 posted on 07/04/2007 9:31:58 PM PDT by _Jim (Highly recommended book on the Kennedy assassination - Posner: "Case Closed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Can you explain how a rock came to life?
A 'dry rock' or a rock sitting in a pool of ... salted* water on the edge of a pool exposed to sunlight** and an 'atmosphere' of some kind***?

(* the 'Salts' to include a variety of elements and compounds)

(**sunlight possibly MUCH stronger than seen now including much higher UV and even IR values)

(*** higher concentrations of gases we now label as 'trace' amounts)

41 posted on 07/04/2007 9:39:43 PM PDT by _Jim (Highly recommended book on the Kennedy assassination - Posner: "Case Closed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
The grass and trees were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Ever kept a plant out of the sun for one day?
Hmmm ... I see a problem; these plants could possibly freeze, and since we actually have plants in the world today that can't survive below freezing temps without a sun to WARM things a bit this would seem to be a problem if true as stated ...
42 posted on 07/04/2007 9:43:29 PM PDT by _Jim (Highly recommended book on the Kennedy assassination - Posner: "Case Closed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74
A greater understanding of the mind of God, is more likely to be achieved by the scientist studying the beauty of God's creation
Go easy there ... mankind is likely to 'discover' how nature works and using those discovered laws and principles develop science and engineering disciplines and eventually build worldwide communications networks using computers and - and - ...

I seem to have lost that last thought ...

43 posted on 07/04/2007 9:58:16 PM PDT by _Jim (Highly recommended book on the Kennedy assassination - Posner: "Case Closed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
The grass and trees were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Ever kept a plant out of the sun for one day? It will live. And no the days werent long periods of time. The verses are very clear with the inclusion of evening and morning were the (insert number) day. 2nd Peter 3:5 is talking about the flood in Noahs day. The next verse says “by which the world that then existed perished being flooded with water.” The Bible gives the account of the world flooded with water in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The sun is in the heaven(s) so what is declared is the beginning without telling us the when. Isaiah 45:18 - For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens: God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it no *IN VAIN*, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Now in Genesis 1:2 we are told something happened to this earth to cause the earth to become *without form, and void* which is the very same Hebrew word as Isaiah uses. This is what Peter is describing when he said the world (age) that WAS and he also says the heavens were of OLD.

Peter already describes Noah's flood in the previous chapter (IIPeter 2:4-5, note 5 says And spared not the *OLD* (ancient) world,..." is speaking about the reason for Noah's flood, and in that flood not all perished. That word perished distinguishes the *AGE* being described.

Noah's flood was for a specific purpose as stated in Genesis 6:2 That the *sons of God* saw the daughters of men (Adam) that they were fair: and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made *man on the earth*, and it grieved Him at His heart. Genesis 6:9 These are the Generations of NOAH: Noah was a just, man and *perfect* in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Meaning Noah and his family did not partake with what is described in verse 2 of Genesis 6. So the flood would have been about where these that Genesis 6:2 described and would have covered their whole known earth.

45 posted on 07/04/2007 10:16:17 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Genesis 1:1 is not an act of creation. It is simply a prelude stating who, what, and when...not in that order of course...and isn't intended as being part of the chronology of creation.

It is an introduction, a literary device if you will, and nothing more.

Verse two, a continuation of the prelude or introduction, acknowledges the intent in verse one, and states their (the earth and the heavens) relative status, which at that point, is pretty much non existent.

Finally, here is Strongs definition for the so called mistranslation, controversy, of the word "was/became," in verse two:

1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):— beacon, X altogether, be(- come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

As you can see, although the word could be translated as "became," it doesn't imply a necessary transition, as from one state to another, or a pre history of sorts. The King James Version, which translated the word as "was," is in perfect alignment with the definitions available, and again, such a definition does not necessarily imply a transition.

Now, here's the rub. Even if you did translate it as "became," with the implication of a transition...the first instantiation which preceded this transition would be entirely irrelevant and meaningless from our perspective since the transition would have obliterated any evidence at all of the first instantiation, per the terms, without form or substance (void)

The argument, that this one single word, "became," is indicative of a pre history, evidenced by the fossil record so to speak, is an argument that is not very well thought out at all, since all that evidence *must* originate from the second instantiation.

And with that, you're back where you started, without accomplishing anything...

46 posted on 07/05/2007 12:29:40 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: csense
Genesis 1:1 is not an act of creation. It is simply a prelude stating who, what, and when...not in that order of course...and isn't intended as being part of the chronology of creation.

Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of what happened IN the beginning. The word Genesis means IN the beginning. The second verse establishes that something happened to that creation and what we are not told is the when of it. We are told in other places the why of verse 2 but never in the whole of the Bible does it say how long ago or in what year either the beginning was or when the rebellion took place. When did the souls get created? We are not told but we do know that the souls have a history before they were ever placed into these flesh bodies. Jeremiah was told and Paul says that before Jacob and Esau were ever born that God loved Jacob and He hated Esau.

The argument, that this one single word, "became," is indicative of a pre history, evidenced by the fossil record so to speak, is an argument that is not very well thought out at all, since all that evidence *must* originate from the second instantiation.

The fossil record is visual to be found evidence of an age prior to this one, the Bible tells us Satan rebelled and God threw him down, Paul speaks often and much about predestination. There had to be a pre this age for anyone since the creation of man in the flesh for that literal meaning of that word to be accurate.

Jeremiah is told about the destruction of this earth pre-flesh man and he was told to tell us that Jer.4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known ME. The are sottish (see what the Strong's says about that word sottish) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void: and the heavens, and they had no light. Uses the very same Hebrew words that Moses used in Genesis 1:2.

v. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

v25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all of the birds of the heavens were fled. Can't be Noah's flood because there were at least 8 survivors from that flood.

v26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the *CITIES* thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by His fierce anger.

We could not lug around a Book that accurately described what you call the art of creation.

47 posted on 07/05/2007 2:57:19 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3

Who needs the sun when you have the Glory of God. If you would get God out of your man- box, perhaps you could fathom. In fact, we will need no sun that damages skin because we will have the Glory of God, His warmth and His light. Please look into that. The sun and moon were put here for us. Plenty of plants survive the ultimate darkness of Barrow Alaska, BTW. And my poinsettias need super darkness to bloom.


48 posted on 07/05/2007 3:44:05 AM PDT by momincombatboots (World changing power in the blood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74
“...than the distorted writings of primitive men, no matter how divinely inspired, groping for some understanding of the world around them and their existence?”

You deny the very Power of God with this sentence.

49 posted on 07/05/2007 4:57:29 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

How about any of the above!


50 posted on 07/05/2007 5:54:50 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson