Pope: "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve"

There are 67 Comments

Steve Davis's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

and it is clear to me this is pointless because most of you accept an irrational premise.

Why do I say that? If you say the universe has apparent age, then you can't trust anything you see out in the universe. Nothing about it tells you age, distance, etc... As a result, there is no way to determine that the universe is expanding! Yet you all accept that measurement for some weird reason. If the universe has apparent age, then there is no science of astronomy. That is a fact.  Have a great day gentlemen.

Mark,

I want to thank you for your comments and interaction on science and creation related articles and posts. I've enjoyed reading you and have learned a great deal. There are facts in Genesis and there are assumptions that people make that are not found in Genesis, some things of great interest to us but apparently not for the author of Genesis and its original audience.

God created the universe in 6 days (whether 24 hour, framework, long ages, etc.), Adam and Eve, real people, real garden, real fall, etc. These are some of the incontrovertible truths found throughout Scripture. From that to insist that a YEC position is the only valid interpretation of Genesis goes beyond Scripture and involves postulating arguments like the appearance of age. It may make sense that if Adam was created mature then the universe was created with the appearance of age. It fits their system but it's not taught in the Bible.  I respect the YEC and its proponents but I disagree that this is THE biblical position and I'm not convinced by the arguments. I'm not going to get into whether there was animal death before the fall (why not?) or all the other questions often raised partly because I'm not sure the debate accomplishes much.  Yet I appreciate your insight and responses to questions raised.

Steve Davis 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark_Smith's picture

Thanks for your comments.

1) As for your link to AiG with Jason Lisle talking about the Big Bang. Jason here is talking about the "generic" definition of big bang to mean the "godless explanation" of how the universe came to be. From other AiG articles they accept a large degree of uniformitarianism in physics. They accept that you can measure distances in the universe, and that those distances are real. They certainly do not accept the "appearance of age" argument some here at SI have put forward. In fact Jason Lisle, fully believing that 13.6 billion years have transpired from what we see of the universe, proposed a way that could happen. I won't look for a link here but if you want search for "one way speed of light".

*I should put a caveat here. I always sensed a disagreement between Danny Faulkner and Jason Lisle at AiG over this issue. I think Jason was more like me, whereas Danny was more willing to accept an appearance of age argument. I could be wrong, just my observations. BTW, Jason Lisle has since left AiG.

2) As for appearance of age you will see here a lot of the arguments I have made ON THE AIG WEBSITE BY JASON LISLE!!!

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/did-god-creat...

3) Inflation- There are 2 experiments running in Antarctica seeking to find the B-mode polarization of Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The first group published earlier this year to much hype...too much hype. They have since backed off their claim to have shown inflation because they could not definitively rule out galactic dust. The thing is a second experiment is still taking data with a MUCH BETTER experimental design. The inside scoop says they are definitely finding the B-mode polarization signal and they can rule out galactic dust. I personally think it is highly likely that they will report finding the B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation. At that point debate over whether inflation happened will essentially be over.

***The thing is just because inflation happened doesn't mean that God didn't create the universe as God declared in Genesis 1. It could even be that it was done in a Young Earth scenario. BUT, if B-mode polarization is found inflation happened, and there is no reason to deny it.

Mark_Smith's picture

Just in case you didn't read my response to Brian McCrorie, here is Jason Lisle from AiG talking about how appearance of age is not likely the way to go:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/did-god-creat...

 

Also, here is Jason Lisle writing how 13 billion years of time could elapse in the universe but only 6000 here on earth:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-...

 

I put these links just to verify it is not just me saying these things.

Mark_Smith's picture

I FIRMLY believe in a young earth as Genesis presents things. David O nailed it when he said above that I let the natural evidence be what it is...

My intent with all of these Big Bang posts is to get people to not "knee jerk" reject the "Big Bang" if they understand the simple Big Bang theory. It is simple observation of the universe, and it is real.

The difficulty is the words "Big Bang" are used for a lot of things beyond the simple Big bang theory. I went to wikipedia and looked up "Big Bang". You will see in the first paragraph essentially what I have said...the Big bang is synonymous with the universe expanding. That is all it is. (BTW, for science issues wikipedia is generally a good reliable source of info since it is moderated by knowledgeable people) Note that after the first few sentences they talk about things beyond the simple Big Bang model like nucleosynthesis for example.

Mark_Smith's picture

Looking at the universe I see two possibilities for the age of the universe. First possibility, the universe and the earth are both old. Basically this would be standard science view (but I believe in God as Creator of course). The problem is the Bible seems to reject this view if Genesis is taken literally. I also firmly reject abiogenesis and evolution as the source of life on earth.

Second possibility, that something caused a relativistic effect where earth experienced about 6000 years on our clocks but the universe experienced 13 billion years. The problem with this view is the earth itself looks old.

I personally reject the appearance of age view. It could be right, I don't deny it as a possibility, but that presents other problems like "what is reality", "is God deceiving people with an apparent age", etc. I don't see this as the rational choice, but I don't deny God has the option to do it. I just don't think it is consistent with His character as presented in the Bible. But hey, I am a mere man.

Brian McCrorie's picture

Mark, you seem like a much more rational and generous fellow than I first discerned from your remarks like "putting my teacher hat on" and the like.  It appeared that you were talking down to the other guys and I didn't understand your point at partially defending the pope's comments.  I see now you were just trying to make a point about the definition of the Big Bang itself and some of the suspect theories used by YEC.  I totally am a Jason Lisle fan when it comes to astronomy--had the opportunity to spend some time with him back in January.  Your explanations are reasonable and I appreciate your validation of the authority of Scripture.

Brian McCrorie Indianapolis, IN www.bowingdown.com

Greg Long's picture

Mark, do you believe God was deceiving us when He created plants, trees, animals, and Adam & Eve with appearance of age?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Greg Long's picture

Someone brought up the resurrection of Jesus vs. science (and I agree with the response that it is apples and oranges), but to follow that line of thinking...

Mark, let's say that historians and scientists claimed that they have discovered the human remains of someone in a tomb in Jerusalem, and somehow by means of DNA testing (just play along with me here) they are able to identify the body as that of Jesus of Nazareth.

What you are saying about creation seems to be equivalent to saying, "You guys need to respect the theory that Jesus' body is in the tomb because science has proven that. Now, I personally believe Jesus rose again because I believe it by faith, but let's not confuse the two. Scientific evidence says his body has been found, and efforts to doubt that are just silly. But again I believe he rose again because the Bible says it."

Wouldn't it be appropriate for Christian historians and scientists to examine the evidence--in accordance with their presuppositions that it couldn't be the body of Jesus--and to postulate scientific theories and explanations that it isn't the body of Jesus? Ultimately, of course, we believe Jesus rose again because the Bible tells us, but either he rose again and his body is in heaven, or he didn't rise again and his human remains are still here on earth. You can't have it both ways. In the same way, either God created this entire universe in 7 days or he didn't. You can't have it both ways.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Greg Long hit the key point when he touched on presuppositions. All of this is about presuppositions, assumptions, and the world views from which they derive and into which they feed.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

DavidO's picture

Mark, I can't remember if I asked you this before, but couldn't there be another reason for the "appearance of age" thing than to deceive?  Couldn't it be so that we could understand the processes at work in the universe without having to, as a race, wait for millions of years to see the first instance of an occurrence like a supernova or begin to understand the "life cycle" of stars.  Couldn't the purpose be to give us a lab in which these things could be discovered in a mere 6000 years?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

DavidO wrote:

Mark, I can't remember if I asked you this before, but couldn't there be another reason for the "appearance of age" thing than to deceive?  Couldn't it be so that we could understand the processes at work in the universe without having to, as a race, wait for millions of years to see the first instance of an occurrence like a supernova or begin to understand the "life cycle" of stars.  Couldn't the purpose be to give us a lab in which these things could be discovered in a mere 6000 years?

Piggybacking on David's statement, is it really accurate to classify it as deception when we have an explanation provided in scripture?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Mark_Smith's picture

Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. That is observation. There is no presupposition other than believing what I sense and can measure with equipment is real.

The universe is expanding. That is observation.

Baryon acoustic oscillations (ok, a bit over your head in not being that knowledgeable about cosmology, but...). That is observation.

Even inflation, if confirmed by B-mode polarization, would be observation. No presupposition.

I don't need to stick my head in the proverbial sand and deny these things are real.

BUT...

if you deny that Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million ly away, what then? If you deny inflation (if measured), what then? You are denying the very physical laws you use to run this computer. Or to microwave your burrito.

 

Mark_Smith's picture

Do you all believe there are fossils in the ground that represent animals that never lived?

Would you accept fossils in the ground that represent animals that could have lived but didn't to show what life is like?

If you believe the universe has "appearance of age" then you are agreeing to those above statements. That is why I don't like it.

I said this before on another thread: It is one thing for Adam to have been made to look like he was 30. I have no problem with that. But what if his body bore the marks of living 30 years, like having a missing tooth, a few cavities, a healed broken arm from falling while rounding second base, chicken pox scars, etc. What if he had a wallet with family photos of a family that never existed. What then?

If you accept appearance of age you aren't just accepting age in the universe. You see galaxies merging that never really existed! You see supernova explosions of stars that never existed? Get the idea.

 

Mark_Smith's picture

You said you have a Bible verse that says the universe has appearance of age and hence isn't deceptive. Where are Type II supernovas defined in the bible? I can show you pictures of supernova remnants that are hundreds of thousands of years old. Did that star that exploded ever exist?

DavidO's picture

Mark, your point about scars, etc. with Adam is salient.  But . . .

What if the stars of an apparent supernova never existed?  Why is that such a huge problem?  That God may have created the heavenly bodies (along with the light between here and there so that we don't have to wait 2.5 million years to see them) in every stage of the natural process they would undergo according to the laws of the universe seems fundamentally different from a scar on Adam from the moment of creation.

Greg Long's picture

Mark, no one is denying the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million ly away. The question is whether that automatically means the universe is at least 2.5 million years old.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

You said you have a Bible verse that says the universe has appearance of age and hence isn't deceptive. Where are Type II supernovas defined in the bible? I can show you pictures of supernova remnants that are hundreds of thousands of years old. Did that star that exploded ever exist?

Mark,

Your own assertion proves my point. Can you declare with certainty that star ever existed? No. You were not there. You assume it existed based on your worldview and presuppositions, including uniformitarianism. On the other hand, I know with certainty from scripture that unifromitarianism is not a universal truth because God created. What is, and was, at one point was not; it suddenly came into being. Furthermore, I also know from scripture that all the physical universe will one day cease to exist again. The appearance of uniformitarianism does not prove anything beyond, perhaps, what is presently observable and is demonstrably a limited phenomenon that was not happening at one point in the past and will cease to happen some time in the future. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Mark_Smith's picture

How does one measure the Andromeda galaxy to be 2.5 million ly away? Do you know? I am not being critical, I am simply asking if you know.

 

Mark_Smith's picture

I agree believe it or not. If the universe you assert is reality, then outer space and the universe is a cartoon that means nothing. There is nothing to learn by studying it. Nothing you see represents something that really happened.

I assume that is ridiculous on its face.

alex o.'s picture

If Gen. 2.4-7 gives another version that should indicate to the interpreter metaphorical language in the poetic section of 1.1-2.3.

Moses does not claim authorship of Genesis but he did authenticate it. These texts were handed down as clay tablets from the internal evidence. Gen. 1.1-2.3 is unprecedented. It was written by God Himself and recorded for us. Later interpreters cannot just subject this poetic section to their own expectations by applying language rules to it which may not be warranted. I believe how God created the universe to be a mystery but it is certainly billions of tears old by the evidence. All truth is God's truth. If our measurements say the universe is "old" we should go with that try to figure out Gen. 1 from that point. To bring an early earth to Gen. 1 is a presuppositional bias in my book.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Actually, declaring Genesis 1-2 to be poetry is a presuppositional bias that does not jibe with the way the rest of scripture treats that particular portion of text. Instead, all of scripture treats Gen. 1-2 with the same literal interpretation that is used for the rest of the communication God has given us.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

alex o.'s picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Actually, declaring Genesis 1-2 to be poetry is a presuppositional bias that does not jibe with the way the rest of scripture treats that particular portion of text. Instead, all of scripture treats Gen. 1-2 with the same literal interpretation that is used for the rest of the communication God has given us.

Besides the evidence of metaphorical language of 1.1-2.3 from 2.4-7, the structure of this section clearly points to a poetical device. These two indications are about all one can say definitively. Later biblical literature conventions can not be applied to Gen. 1. What "rest of scripture" treats this particular text? None.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

alex o.'s picture

The fact that no biblical writer has referred to this section should give pause to modern interpreters. How God created the universe is a mystery. I, by faith, accept that He created it and also accept not now knowing the secret. The Early Earthers want to dogmatically make their teaching a tenet of orthodoxy. I say don't do such a misguided thing, its a trap that is sure to ship wreak someone's faith after they find out, by all credible accounts, that the earth is old.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

alex o. wrote:

The fact that no biblical writer has referred to this section should give pause to modern interpreters. How God created the universe is a mystery. I, by faith, accept that He created it and also accept not now knowing the secret. The Early Earthers want to dogmatically make their teaching a tenet of orthodoxy. I say don't do such a misguided thing, its a trap that is sure to ship wreak someone's faith after they find out, by all credible accounts, that the earth is old.

Did you miss all of the references to historic Adam in the rest of scripture, just for starters?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Greg Long's picture

Wow, that's a first. No biblical writers refer to Genesis 1? Well, if you're looking for a passage that says, "Genesis 1 says..." then you're right. But how about one of the most important passages in all of the Torah:

Ex 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. NIV

Or does that not count because it's still Moses? (Not sure why any truth in Scripture has to be verified by another author in Scripture for it to be true.)

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

alex o.'s picture

Greg Long wrote:

Wow, that's a first. No biblical writers refer to Genesis 1? Well, if you're looking for a passage that says, "Genesis 1 says..." then you're right. But how about one of the most important passages in all of the Torah:

Ex 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. NIV

Or does that not count because it's still Moses? (Not sure why any truth in Scripture has to be verified by another author in Scripture for it to be true.)

This text is God referencing what He Himself said. He is not stating the earth is 6000 years old but giving instructions about the Sabbath. I believe in a historic Adam.

Jesus says "in the beginning God made them male and female" but He never said the universe began 6000 years ago.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

alex o.'s picture

alex o. wrote:

The fact that no biblical writer has referred to this section should give pause to modern interpreters. How God created the universe is a mystery. I, by faith, accept that He created it and also accept not now knowing the secret. The Early Earthers want to dogmatically make their teaching a tenet of orthodoxy. I say don't do such a misguided thing, its a trap that is sure to ship wreak someone's faith after they find out, by all credible accounts, that the earth is old.

Correction: not Early Earther but Young Earther. I've made this mistake here before and didn't correct it. This forum is the only place I speak about Young Earth, but I think everyone  here knew what I was talking about. 

 

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Greg Long's picture

alex o. wrote:

 

Greg Long wrote:

 

Wow, that's a first. No biblical writers refer to Genesis 1? Well, if you're looking for a passage that says, "Genesis 1 says..." then you're right. But how about one of the most important passages in all of the Torah:

Ex 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. NIV

Or does that not count because it's still Moses? (Not sure why any truth in Scripture has to be verified by another author in Scripture for it to be true.)

 

 

This text is God referencing what He Himself said. He is not stating the earth is 6000 years old but giving instructions about the Sabbath. I believe in a historic Adam.

Jesus says "in the beginning God made them male and female" but He never said the universe began 6000 years ago.

Of course Ex. 20 doesn't mention 6000 years. But in it God clearly states that He created the entire universe in six (literal) days. Once you land on six literal days, as I believe Gen. 1 and Ex. 20 so clearly state, it becomes quite difficult to avoid a young earth conclusion.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

AndyE's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

I agree believe it or not. If the universe you assert is reality, then outer space and the universe is a cartoon that means nothing. There is nothing to learn by studying it. Nothing you see represents something that really happened.

I assume that is ridiculous on its face.

Mark, I sympathize with your position, I really do. It is one of the reasons why I have encouraged you to continue posting even when you get frustrated with some of us. Nevertheless, I think you are unduly concerned about the implications of creating a universe with appearance of age.  I understand what you are saying but it just doesn’t bother me like it bothers you. For at least two reasons:

God may have miraculously created the light of the universe so that we could see something that actually happened in the far universe. The very first thing God creates is light, even before anything else physically existed – what we would see if we could have seen those first rays of light? It’s sort of fascinating to me…but the fact of the matter is that if we believe God can speak and create light, then why couldn’t he do so in a way that would allow his creation to immediately see the stars and the other cosmological events that you speak of?

There are other miracles that demand a non-existent backstory – things that never existed – yet I doubt you have problems with those miracles. Think about when Jesus turned the water into wine – wine requires grapes that came from a seed, that grew, were harvested, processed, stored, aged, etc. I’m not a biologist but I suspect that a biologist might object to that wine created with an appearance of age as “nothing you see represents something that really happened.”The same could be said of the feeding of the 5000 with the loaves and fish.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Greg Long wrote:

 

alex o. wrote:

 

 

Greg Long wrote:

 

Wow, that's a first. No biblical writers refer to Genesis 1? Well, if you're looking for a passage that says, "Genesis 1 says..." then you're right. But how about one of the most important passages in all of the Torah:

Ex 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. NIV

Or does that not count because it's still Moses? (Not sure why any truth in Scripture has to be verified by another author in Scripture for it to be true.)

 

 

This text is God referencing what He Himself said. He is not stating the earth is 6000 years old but giving instructions about the Sabbath. I believe in a historic Adam.

Jesus says "in the beginning God made them male and female" but He never said the universe began 6000 years ago.

 

Of course Ex. 20 doesn't mention 6000 years. But in it God clearly states that He created the entire universe in six (literal) days. Once you land on six literal days, as I believe Gen. 1 and Ex. 20 so clearly state, it becomes quite difficult to avoid a young earth conclusion.

 

Frankly, Alex' mistaken assertion is even more basic than the age of the earth. He inaccurately claims the Bible never treats Gen 1-2 as anything other than figurative poetry. This is demonstrably false in the passage Greg points out. Throughout scripture, the account of Genesis 1-2 is treated every time as a literal, Divine narrative - not a figurative metaphor. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Pages