Why We Believe in Creation & Not Evolution

[Reg]

The reason I started this thread is to start another discussion for nolongerchristian and others to comment on. The other one is getting rather long and I didn't want this one buried.

I have a book with that title written by Fred John Meldau I purchased quite awhile ago. It is filled with hundreds of examples of the earth's many creatures.

Here is a noteworthy example:

The Enigma of the Sea horse

There are some very strange creatures in the sea. We have no idea of how many they are and what they are! Many live way down in the depths and never ever come near the surface. Some survive miles down in the water, Miles? You ask. Yes, in the Challenger Deep of the Marianas Trench in the north west Pacific, the water is 36, 197 feet deep. This is 12,065 yards or just under 7 miles. Can you imagine that? Seven miles of water straight down. And there are living creatures at a depth at which it would seem to be impossible to survive. The pressures are unbelievable.

Well, we aren’t going to talk about such creatures today. We would just like to draw your attention to the sea horse. You have undoubtedly seen them in an aquarium and parents delight in pointing them out to their children. They really are quite comical.

A bizarre creature which has the arching neck and head of a horse, the swelling chest of a pouter pigeon, the grasping tail of a monkey and the colour changing power of a chameleon. It has eyes that pivot independently, so that when one eye scans the surface, the other can be directed underwater. To top off this fantastic make-up the male is equipped with a kangaroo-style pouch from which the little ones are born.

The four inch long sea horse is the only fish that swims upright! It has a special “gas bladder” that enables it to keep its upright position. If the bladder is damaged and it loses even a very small amount of gas, it sinks to the bottom there to lie helpless until death overtakes it, or the bladder rapidly heals.

An amazing feature of the sea horse is that it is the male that “goes into labour and gives birth to its young. This very strange division of the sea horse’s reproductive functions are unparalleled in nature and are the peak of this tiny fish’s paradoxical make-up.

It is the female sea horse which provides the eggs. During the sexual approach, the female actively pursues the male, deposits her eggs in a pouch on her mate’s belly, and then swims away. In the pouch the eggs are nourished on the father’s blood for 45 days. After a series of parental convulsions with every muscle brought into play the pouch is emptied and the baby sea horses are born. How many? Anywhere from 300 to 600.

The sea horse is an enigma. What is its purpose? Where does it fit in the evolutionary concept of things? The answer here is that it doesn’t. Evolution can in no way explain the sea horse. Can those who preach the theory, which is all it is, of evolution answer why does it exist? What is its purpose? Did it ever have a purpose? What is the reason for the idiosyncratic reproduction processes? What about its manner of swimming? It’s the only sea creature which does this.

Really, the sea horse is in the same category as the platypus as far as evolution is concerned. An enigma that baffles and frustrates all the theories that try to account for it.

Does evolution then have a sense of humour. You would surely need one to believe that it has a sense of anything.


And here's the Duck-billed Platypus.

Creationism and the Platypus
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

My favourite is the Hummingbird. We have a feeder at our cottage and it always amazes me to observe them.
http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/hummingbirds.html

Another thing one has to consider is pollination by bees primarily.

Pollination process
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080529135655AAWhx6X

This article mentions this also.

Cooperation or Competition: Symbiosis vs. Evolution

Another remarkable form of symbiosis is the relationship between bees and plants.

While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Clearly, both life forms depend on each other for their existence.

In addition, the bee has to carry out pollination in a precisely specific way for the process to work. If the bee visited other species of flowers at random, pollination could not occur, since the pollen of one species of flower does not fertilize another species. Somehow the bee knows to visit only one plant species at a time and at the right season.

Everything in this symbiotic relationship has to be timed exactly right for it to work-and we can be thankful it does. We can enjoy delicious fruits thanks largely to the untiring work of these tiny creatures that unknowingly carry out exactly the right type of pollination that enables many fruits to develop.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html

[Willow]

Do we believe in evolution within a species?
I have to confess to believing in both creation and adaptive evolution.To me they don't contraindicate each other.

[Hope 98]

If believing in Evolution requires that I follow the theory to a conclusion that the whole universe is the result of some bizarre accident, I can't do it. I see too much evidence of intelligent design, through my generally unscientific way of thinking.

However, I can't follow a belief in creation to a universe only 6000-7000 years old that was created in 7 literal days of 24 hours each. I do have a somewhat logical mind sometimes.

But most important, I don't think it's critical to any other aspect of my faith to believe one way or another on this particular issue.

I believe the Bible was written about who and why rather than when and how. It makes a lot more sense to me that way, though it won't necessarily work for everyone.

[nolongerchristian]

I've known a lot of christians who accept evolution as the way in which God created everything...
Though I've also seen christians who argue against evolution as a way for God to have created because it would mean that God is never done creating...since evolution never ceases. Even now.


I just got done with an Environmental Class to become my unit's ECO or Environmental Compliance Officer...anyway, one of the guest speakers was an archeologist who showed us some slides with pictures of artifacts they dug up in my area that are from local natives from 10 to 12,000 years ago...



Concerning Reg's post, one great source of info I got was from a brilliant guy who goes by the username Thunderf00t on youtube.
He has a series specifically on creationism vs evolution. I can get you the link to the "play-all" button for his 26 part series....

Just be forwarned, it will take you a couple hours to go through everything he presents.
Also, put on your alligator skin because he gets a little feisty and throws a bit of insult into his verbage...though it is within context and usually in defense to the fundamentalist christians of youtube who attack him all the time.

[Spiny Norman]

I don't know any Christians who deny adaptive evolution. Humans have been utilising it (selective breeding) for thousands of years. The question of whether random mutation + natural selection is capable of generating all the diversity of body plans and "kinds" that we see is a whole other thing. I used to believe evolution was capable of that, but I don't any longer (as of a couple of years ago).

[nolongerchristian]

I don't know any Christians who deny adaptive evolution. Humans have been utilising it (selective breeding) for thousands of years. The question of whether random mutation + natural selection is capable of generating all the diversity of body plans and "kinds" that we see is a whole other thing. I used to believe evolution was capable of that, but I don't any longer (as of a couple of years ago).

Yep. The numbers of those who deny adaptive evolution are dwindling...

The "kinds" as you say is where the hang-up lies for most, though there are organizations that are starting to embrace this as well...(am I right by saying that the catholic church's official stance is in agreement with evolution?)

I don't really want to get into long-winded conversations here going back and forth arguing the points of ID vs Evolution...but can you point me to possible online resources that would show the evidences that you've found to dissuade you from the stickler?

[Reg]

Do we believe in evolution within a species?
I have to confess to believing in both creation and adaptive evolution.To me they don't contraindicate each other.
I for one do in the adaptiveness. But only within species.

[Reg]

If believing in Evolution requires that I follow the theory to a conclusion that the whole universe is the result of some bizarre accident, I can't do it. I see too much evidence of intelligent design, through my generally unscientific way of thinking.

However, I can't follow a belief in creation to a universe only 6000-7000 years old that was created in 7 literal days of 24 hours each. I do have a somewhat logical mind sometimes.

But most important, I don't think it's critical to any other aspect of my faith to believe one way or another on this particular issue.

I believe the Bible was written about who and why rather than when and how. It makes a lot more sense to me that way, though it won't necessarily work for everyone.
I'm with you on this Hope. Not to get into it here. But Google 'The Gap Theory'. It may give you some answers.

I've gotten into this with a Fundy. He takes the Bible too literally. It's like he fears to use his critical thinking process, like it will be a lack of faith to question what he's always been taught.


For example: Age of the Stars are Millions, Billions of years old.

He contends that all creation including the stars were made in a literal 6 day period approx 6,000 years ago.

Ge 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. [He made] the stars also.

In light (no pun intended) of this scripture I asked him how come we can see light from stars that are a lot older than that?

It takes a lot longer than 6,000 years for the light from them to even reach us. Many are way over 6,000 years. They are millions & billions of years old and yet we can see that light that is reaching us from them now, millions+ of years later. That means they must have existed that long.

"The remarkable array of galaxies is only revealed in close-ups of the picture, which also show countless foreground stars associated with NGC 300. While NGC 300 is just 7 million light-years away, the mean distance of the background galaxies is 8 billion light-years."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/eso_images_020813.html

That is proof that the universe is very old. The earth being part of that.

Here's a link that gives another explanation of this.

Did God Create Everything in Six 24-Hour Days?
http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/six24hrdays.htm

Keep your thinking cap Æon. ;)

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/SpiritOfTheWord/016DefinitionOfBibleTerms.htm

[riverdove]

I'm not a lot into this, but here's something from my dh who has a keen interest in this subject area.

To me the place to start in an understanding of creation is scripture, and John Walton, Old Testament prof. at Wheaton College, claims that Genesis is not about making things, but rather about bringing order out of disorder. He develops idea that bara' usually translated as "created," and only attributed to God, means to establish a role or function rather than make a physical thing. Then attempting to get a scientific theory of the how of origins, as opposed to why, out of Genesis is a mistake. You can find a talk by Walton at

http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/Sci_Sym.swf

If I understand Walton correctly, he rejects biological evolution because of its dependence on chance in the creative process, where Genesis is all about purpose and order. But the time scale etc. involved would not trouble him. The fact of an expanding universe converted Einstein from an atheist to a theist, although not an orthodox believer in any religion. Penzias and Wilson, who got a Nobel prize for detecting th cosmic background radiation,
agree that big bang model fits well with scripture.

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594

and here are a couple other short things with a few interesting details
related to their discovery.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Gap-Theory.htm

http://www.questioningchristian.org/2003/09/bird_droppings_.html

To me, it is very hard to understand where the universe comes from at all without a creator to start it off. A steady state universe, or even an oscillating universe with repeated big bangs, strikes me as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

My favorite site for a wide variety of thoughtful materials on evolution
and creation is

http://www.reasons.org/

[Reg]

I'm not a lot into this, but here's something from my dh who has a keen interest in this subject area.

To me the place to start in an understanding of creation is scripture, and John Walton, Old Testament prof. at Wheaton College, claims that Genesis is not about making things, but rather about bringing order out of disorder.......

and here are a couple other short things with a few interesting details
related to their discovery.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Gap-Theory.htm

To me, it is very hard to understand where the universe comes from at all without a creator to start it off. A steady state universe, or even an oscillating universe with repeated big bangs, strikes me as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Exellent links riverdove. As far as the Gap Theory goes, the link only touches on it. Like I said, Google 'The Gap Theory'. There is a lot about it that the link doesn't even touch. Specifically, what does vs 2 really means? Why did the earth become without form (tohu) and void (bohu)?

In verse 2 the word "was" [Heb: 'Hayah' = 'became'] also found in vs 9:15 & 19:26

The words "form & void" [Heb: 'Tohu & Bohu' = 'confusion & emptiness' ] also found in Isa 34:11 are the same Heb words 'Tohu & Bohu'. Literally it means the earth became an indistiguishable ruin.

The earth was reduced to a state of confusion & emptiness because of Satan's sin of rebellion against God (Ezek 28:15-17; Isa 14:12-15 ).

By observing the surfaces of the moon and the planets, they are literally pockmarked with craters. Is this the result of some cataclysmic war in the heavens? And then there's the asteroid belt. There seems to be a lot of tohu and bohu in the heavens.

The second law of thermodynamics alone is proof enough for a Creator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics and evolution
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html.

By simple observation alone in one's everyday life this can be noticed. Everything left on it's own will not improve but will eventually breakdown, & decompose into simplier compounds. (ei: Cars rust, dead bodies turn to dust. ) Things wear out unless maintained. This law points to the fact that the Universe is runnng down, like a wound watch. The theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are at complete opposite ends of the scale. Note that one is a theory and the other is a law.

[Maggy]

Why would God play tricks and plant 3.5 billion-year-old fossils in Archean rocks in Western Australia if the world is only 6,000 years old? Do you think He is trying to trick the heathens?

[Maggy]

I just found this article, maybe it will help.

Six Thousand Years
The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?

The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is older than 6,000 years old.

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 yers old. Here's why:

How do we get fossils?

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:

When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.

Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31 NASB)

God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died after God created Adam, and after the fall.



http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

So I guess God must have planted those 3.5 billion-year-old fossils to trick the pagans and heathens?

I don't know what to believe anymore.

[Anna Marta]

I am no science major so this is not an area I have delved into other than to be interested in archeology. That being said, it is my understanding that the dating of fossils to be millions of years old is based on circular thinking, not on facts, because there is no exact means of dating such things. One has to begin with "their own belief system" in order to establish a dating system.

AM

[Hope 98]

I am no science major so this is not an area I have delved into other than to be interested in archeology. That being said, it is my understanding that the dating of fossils to be millions of years old is based on circular thinking, not on facts, because there is no exact means of dating such things. One has to begin with "their own belief system" in order to establish a dating system.

AM

The same thing is true when one looks for proof of God.

[Spiny Norman]

So I guess God must have planted those 3.5 billion-year-old fossils to trick the pagans and heathens?
The fossils are a fact (they can be observed). The age of the fossils is a conclusion reached after applying geological theories ... quite a different matter.

I don't know what to believe anymore.
God is the only reliable source when it comes to creation ... He was there.

[Maggy]

The fossils are a fact (they can be observed). The age of the fossils is a conclusion reached after applying geological theories ... quite a different matter.

God is the only reliable source when it comes to creation ... He was there.

How do we know that God had anything to do with the Bible? I have a lot of doubts after leaving my church.

[Maggy]

Someone just sent this to me in an email. How would you reply to this email if you were me?

There has been one reoccuring claim by Christians regarding the bible; I have heard it from nearly every Christian who corresponds with me. It is the statement that the bible-- being a perfect book, written by forty writers all inspired by God-- has remained unchanged for thousands of years. This claim, when made by by a layman, shows his ignorance of the subject, and when made a religious authority, is dishonest and misleading.

The fact that the books of the bible, both the Old and New Testament, have undergone change throughout the centuries, is undeniable. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution-- some that are claimed by scholars to be even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern bibles.

But what I shall bring to light is the history of "The Bible", as a finished, completed work. Has the bible always been as it is now?

In the first place, which bible are we talking about? Throughout history, there have been literally thousands of translations. I am in possession of nearly twenty myself.

Most Christians seem to think that the bible (as it is now, with its sixty-six or so books, divided into chapters and verses) has existed for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bible that most Christians are familiar with is a fairly recent contrivance. The religious term "canon" refers to the divinity of a specific set of writings. Just which books are canonical and which are not has been the subject of debate among Judeo-Christian leaders for the last two thousand years. The Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the bible until as late as 1647, at the Assembly of Westminster.

New Testament Books which are now accepted by Christians, but which were for a time rejected, are Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the New Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

Books accepted as canonical by some Jews, and for most part by the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, but rejected by the Protestants, are Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom, Song of the Three Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Maccabees.

The only books of the bible which are accepted as divine by all Jews and all varieties of Christians are the first five books of the Old Testament: the Pentateuch.

There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

What we know as the "canonized" bible was not assembled in anything like it's present form until the 3rd century by a council of bishops (although it was still debated for centuries after). They chose which books should be included in the bible, which books were inspired by God, by vote, just as we might vote on a law. (Can you imagine that some books missed out on being The Word of God by one vote?) Were they any more qualified to judge which books were divine than anyone living today? Is their judgement and knowledge any better than ours?

What ever happened to the Gospels according to Thomas, Jade, James, Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of the Preaching of Peter, of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Ignatius, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus and of Marcion? They were all not considered inspired (or inspired enough). They did not get voted in. There were also the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla, and many others. If the bishops at the Council of Laodicea in 365 had voted differently, millions of Christians would have believed differently. The vote of the one is the belief of all the others.

There is one important question for you to consider: why are we bound by their opinion?

What we have come to know as the bible was not in a solid form until the Gutenberg printing press was invented in the 15th century. Before that, the bible was copied by hand, onto scrolls and parchments, which could be easily altered to fit the needs of those in power. It was malleable, easily altered-- no one could hinder the early Church from adding or subtracting verses at their will. No one will ever know just how much of the biblical text was alterned, deleted, and rewritten while it was in handwritten form.

For your education on this subject I have included Chapter Three of The Bible by John E. Remsburg. (The copyright on this book is expired, and the book in its entirety can be purchased on CD-ROM from www.bank-of-wisdom.com).

Chapter Three: FORMATION OF THE CANON

Second in interest and importance only to the origin of the individual books composing the Bible are the facts relating to the manner in which these books were collected into one great volume and declared canonical or authoritative. The formation of the canon required centuries of time to complete.

The Jewish Canon

The Jewish canon, it is claimed, was chiefly the work of Ezra, completed by Nehemiah. "All antiquity," says Dr. Adam Clarke, "is nearly unanimous in giving Ezra the honor of collecting the different writings of Moses and the prophets and reducing them into the form in which they are now found in the Bible."

This opinion, shared alike by Jews and Christians, is simply a tradition. There is no conclusive evidence that Ezra founded the canon of the Old Testament. Nehemiah could not have completed it, because a part of the books were written after his time. There is no proof that all the books of the Old Testament existed in a collected form before the beginning of the Christian era. There is no proof that even the Law and the Prophets existed in such a form before the Maocabean period. The Rev. Frederick Myers, an able authority on the Bible, makes this candid admission: "By whom the books of the Old Testament were collected into one volume, and by what authority made canonical, we do not know." (Catholic Thoughts on the Bible, p. 56).

Another prevalent belief is that all of the Jewish scriptures were lost during the captivity, and that Ezra was divinely inspired to rewrite them. Irenaeus says: "God . . . inspired Esdras, the priest of the tribe of Levi, to compose anew all the discourses of the ancient prophets, and to restore to the people the laws given them by Moses" ("Ecclesiastical History," Book V., chap. viii).

This is a myth. The books of the Old Testament which were written before the captivity were not lost. Many books, it is true, were written after the captivity, but these books were not reproductions of Iost writings. They were original compositions, or compilations of documents which had not been lost.

If Ezra was inspired, as claimed, to rewrite the Hebrew scriptures, he did not complete his task, for the books that were really lost have never been restored, and the Old Testament is but a part of the Hebrew scriptures that once existed. St. Chrysostom says: "The Jews having been at some time careless, and at others profane, they suffered some of the sacred books to be lost through their carelessness, and have burnt and destroyed others." The list of books given in the preceding chapter, under the head of "Lost Books cited by writers of the Bible," would nearly all be deemed canonical were they extant. Referring to these books, the Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his "Introduction to Matthew," says: "The Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of Jasher, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer, and several others, are referred to in the Old Testament, manifestly as of equal authority with the book which refers to them, and as fuller in point of information. Yet these are to all appearances irrecoverably lost." God's revelation in its entirety, then, no longer exists.

The ten Hebrew tribes which formed the kingdom of Israel, and whose remnants were afterwards called Samaritans, accepted only the first six books of the Old Testament. The other Jews generally accepted the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and, in a less degree, the Hagiographa as canonical. Some of them also attached more or less importance to the Apocryphal books.



Continued

[Maggy]

Here is the rest of that article.

The Christian Canon

Respecting the formation of the New Testament canon, the Rev. Dr. Roswell D. Hitchcock says: "The new book of records was, like the old, set down by eye-witnesses of and actors in its scenes, closely after their occurrence; its successive portions were cautiously scrutinized and clearly distinguished as entitled to reception; when the record, properly so-called, was completed, the new canon was closed" ("Analysis of the Bible," p. 1149).

"This process was rapid and decisive; it had in all probability become substantially complete before the death of John, the last of the apostles." (Ibid, p. 1158).

That these statements, popularly supposed to be true, are wholly untrue will be demonstrated by the facts presented in this and succeeding chapters. The Christian canon was not completed before the death of the last apostle. The New Testament did not exist in the time of the apostles. It did not exist in the time of the Apostolic Fathers. It was not in existence in the middle of the second century.

There was no New Testament in the time of Papias. Dr. Samuel Davidson, the highest Christian authority on the canon, says: "Papias (150 A.D.) knew nothing, so far as we can learn, of a New Testament canon." ("Canon of the Bible," p. 123).

Justin Martyr knew nothing of a New Testament canon. I quote again from Dr. Davidson: "Justin Martyr's canon (150 A-D.), so far as divine authority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament." (Ibid, p. 129).

For nearly two centuries after the beginning of the Christian era, the Old Testament-- the Old Testament alone constituted the Christian canon. No other books were called scripture; no other books were considered inspired; no other books were deemed canonical.

Founding of the Canon

To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding the Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of founding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to make such a collection, and he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for its books.

Dr. Davidson says: "The conception of canonicity and inspiration attaching to New Testament books did not exist till the time of Irenaeus" ("Canon," p. 163).

At the close of the second century the Christian world was divided into a hundred different sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great Catholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the largest and most intluential of all the Christian churches. "It is a matter of necessity," says Irenaeus, "that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority." (Heresies, Book 3).

In connection with this work Irenaeus made a collection of books for use in the church. His collection comprised the following: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and Revelation-- twenty books in all.

In the work of establishing the Roman Catholic church and the New Testament canon Irenaeus was succeeded, early in the third century, by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. They adopted the list of books made by him. The books adopted by these Fathers were selected from a large number of Christian writings then extant-- forty or more gospels, nearly as many Acts of Apostles, a score of Revelations, and a hundred epistles. Each church had one or more books which were used in that church. No divine authority, however, was ascribed to any of them.

Why did the Fathers choose these particular books? Above all, why did they choose four gospels instead of one? We never see four biographies of Washington, of Cromwell, or of Napoleon, bound in one volume; yet here we have four different biographies of Jesus in one book. Irenaeus says it is because "there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds." Instead of this artificial reason he could have given a natural, a rational, and a truthful reason. While primitive Christians, as we have seen, were divided into many sects, the principal sects may be grouped into three divisions:

1) The Petrine churches, comprising the church of Rome and other churches which recognized Peter as the chief of the apostles and the visible head of the church on earth;

2) The Pauline sects, which accepted Paul as the true exponent of Christianity;

3) The Johannine or Eastern churches, which regarded John as their founder. A collection of books to be acceptable to all of these churches must contain the favorite books of each.

The First Gospel, written about the time this church union movement was inaugurated, was adopted by the Petrine churches. The Second Gospel was also highly valued by the church of Rome. The Third Gospel, a revised and enlarged edition of the Pauline Gospel of Marcion, had become the standard authority of Pauline Christians. The Fourth Gospel, which had superseded other and older gospels, was generally read in the Johannine churches. The Acts of the Apostles, written for the purpose of healing the dissensions that had arisen between the followers of Peter and Paul, was acceptable to both Petrines and Paulines. The Epistles of Paul were of course received by the Pauline churches, while the First Epistle of John was generally received by the Eastern churches. The collection would not be complete without a Revelation, and the Revelation of John was selected.

The work instituted by Irenaeus was successful. The three divisions of Christendom were united, and the Catholic church was established. But this cementing, although it held for centuries, did not last, as was hoped, for all time. The seams gave way, the divisions separated, and to-day stand out as distinctly as they did in the second century; the Roman Catholic church representing the Petrine, the Greek church the Johannine, and the Protestant churches to a great extent the Pauline Christians of that early age. But while the church separated, each retained all of the sixty-six canonical books, save Revelation, which for a time was rejected by the Greek church.

The New Testament originally contained but twenty books. To First Peter, Second John, and the Shepherd of Hermas Irenaeus attached some importance, but did not place them in his canon. Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Third John, and Jude he ignored. Tertullian placed in an appendix Hebrews, First Peter, Second John, Jude, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Clement of Alexandria classed as having inferior authority, Hebrews, Second John, Jude, First and Second Epistles of Clement (of Rome), Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Revelation of Peter.

Regarding the competency of the founders of the New Testament canon, Davidson says: "Of the three fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Irenaeus was credulous and blundering, Tertullian passionate and one-sided, and Clement of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics." (Canon, p. 165). "The three Fathers of whom we are speaking had neither the ability nor the inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an apostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity was seriously contemplated." (Ibid, p. 156).

Completion of the Canon

The Christian canon, including the New Testament canon, assumed something like its present form under the labors of Augustine and Jerome toward the close of the fourth century. St. Augustine’s canon contained all of the books now contained in the Old and New Testaments, excepting Lamentations, which was excluded. It contained, in addition to these, the apocryphal pieces belonging to Daniel, and the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and First and Second Maccabees.

St. Jerome's canon contained Lamentations, which Augustine's canon excluded, and omitted Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and First and Second Maccabees, which Augustine's included. Roman Catholics accept the canon of Augustine, including Lamentations; Protestants, generally, accept the canon of Jerome.

While Jerome included in his canon all the books of the New Testament, he admitted that Philemon, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation were of doubtful authority.

Referring to the work of Augustine and Jerome, Davidson, says: "Both were unfitted for the critical examination of such a topic." ("Canon", p. 200).

Christian Councils

Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted upon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This council rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's list, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded Revelation.

Various councils, following this, adopted canonical lists. One council would admit certain books and the next council would reject them. The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which admitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations.



Continued

[Maggy]

Here is more of that article.

The actions of none of these councils were unanimous or decisive. The list of books adopted was adopted simply by a majority vote. A large minority of every council refused to accept the list of the majority. Some advocated the admission of books that were rejected; others opposed the admission of books that were accepted. As late as the seventh century (629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople, many different canonical lists were presented for ratification.

The damaging facts that I have adduced concerning the formation of the Christian canon are admitted in a large degree by one of the most orthodox of authorities, McClintock and Strong's "Cyclopedia of Biblical and Ecclesiastical Literature."

Dr. McClintock says: "The New Testament canon presents a remarkable analogy to the canon of the Old Testament. The beginnings of both are obscure... The history of the canon may be divided into three periods. The first, extending to 170, includes the era of circulation and gradual collection of the apostolic writings. The second is closed in 303, separating the sacred from other ecclesiastical writings. The third may be defined by the third Council of Carthage, 397 A.C., in which a catalogue of the books of the Scriptures was formally ratified by conciliar authority. The first is characteristically a period of tradition, the second of speculation, and the third of authority, and we may trace the features of the successive ages in the course of the history of the canon. But however all this may have been, the complete canon of the New Testament, as we now have it, was ratified by the third Council of Carthage, 397 A.C., from which time it was generally accepted by the Latin church, some of the books remaining in doubt and disputed."

Concerning the work of these councils, William Penn writes as follows: "I say how do they know that these men discerned true from spurious? Now, sure it is, that some of the Scriptures taken in by one council were rejected by another for apocryphal, and that which was left out by the former for apocryphal was taken in by the latter for canonical." (Penn's Works, Vol. I, p. 302).

In regard to the character of these councils, Dean Milman writes: "It might have been supposed that nowhere would Christianity appear in such commanding majesty as in a council... History shows the melancholy reverse. Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and if we look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the councils of the church. It is in general a fierce collision of two rival factions, neither of which will yield, each of which is solemnly pledged against conviction." (History of Latin Christianity, Vol. I., p. 226).

The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons, no two of which are alike, were fixed by modern councils. The Council of Trent (1645-1563) determined the Roman Catholic canon. While a majority were in favor of the canon of Augustine they were not agreed in regard to the character and classification of the books. There were four parties. The first advocated two divisions of the books, one to comprise the acknowledged books, the other the disputed books. The second party proposed three divisions-- the acknowledged books, the disputed books of the New Testament, and the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The third party desired the list of books to be named without determining their authority. The fourth party demanded that all the books, acknowledged, disputed, and apocryphal, be declared canonical. This party triumphed.

At a council of the Greek church held in Jerusalem in 1672, this church, which had always refused to accept Revelation, finally placed it in the canon. The Greek canon contains several apocryphal books not contained in the Roman Catholic canon.

Both divisions of the Protestant church, German and English, declared against the authority of the Apocryphal books. The Westminster Assembly (1647) formally adopted the list of books contained in our Authorized Version of the Bible.

Ancient Christian Scholars

Most Christians believe that all of the books of the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all Christians. And yet, how far from this is the truth! In every age of the church there have been Christians, eminent for their piety and learning, who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted as canonical books not contained in the Bible.

Not one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of these books.

Late in the second century Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a contemporary of Irenaus, was deputed to make a list of the books belonging to the Old Testament. His list omitted Esther and Lamentations. The Muratori canon, which is supposed to belong to the third century, omitted Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Third John. The Apostolic canon omitted Revelation, and included First and Second Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions.

Of Origen, the great Christian Father of the third century, "Chambers' Encyclopedia" says: "Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Epistle of James, of Jude, of the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas." In addition to the apocryphal books named, Origen also accepted as authoritative the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of Peter.

The Rev. Jeremiah Jones, a leading authority on the canon, says: "Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the primitive writers were wont to approve and cite books which now all men know to be apocryphal." (Canon, p. 4).

Theodoret says that as late as the fifth century many churches used the Gospel of Tatian instead of the canonical Gospels. Gregory the Great, at the beginning of the seventh, and Alfric, at the close of the tenth century, accepted as canonical Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans.

Early in the fourth century the celebrated church historian, Eusebius, gave a list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the New Testament. The disputed books-- books which some accepted and others rejected-- were Hebrews, James, Second and Third John, Jude, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter.

Athanasius rejected Esther, and Epiphanius accepted the Epistle of Jeremiah. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Gregory, Bishop of Constantinople, both rejected Revelation. Chrysostom, one of the greatest of church divines, and who gave to the sacred book of Christians its name, omitted ten books from his canon-- First and Second Chronicles, Esther, Job, and Lamentations, five books in the Old Testament; and Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation, five books in the New Testament.

Protestant Scholars

Many Protestant scholars have questioned or denied the correctness of the Protestant canon. John Calvin, founder of Presbyterianism, doubted Second and Third John and Revelation. Erasmus doubted Hebrews, Second and Third John, and Revelation. Davidson thinks that Esther should be excluded from the canon, Eichorn rejected Daniel and Jonah in the Old Testament, and Second Timothy and Titus in the New.

Dr. Whiston excluded the Song of Solomon, and accepted as canonical more than twenty books not found in the Bible. He says: "Can anyone be so weak as to imagine Mark, and Luke, and James, and Jude, who were none of them more than companions of the Apostles, to be our sacred and unerring guides, while Barnabas, Thaddeus, Clement, Timothy, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who were equally companions of the same Apostles, to be of no authority at all?" (Exact Time, p. 28).

The Rev. James Martineau, of England, says: "If we could recover the Gospel of the Hebrews, and that of the Egyptians, it would be difficult to give a reason why they should not form a part of the New Testament; and an epistle by Clement, the fellow laborer of Paul, which has as good a claim to stand there as the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of Luke." (Rationale of Religious Enquiry).

Archbishop Wake pronounces the writings of the Apostolic Fathers "inspired," and says that they contain "an authoritative declaration of the Gospel of Christ" (Apostolic Fathers).

The Church of Latter Day Saints, numbering one half million adherents, and including some able Bible scholars, believe that the modern Book of Mormon is a part of God’s Word, equal in authority and importance to the Pentateuch or the Four Gospels.



Continued

[Maggy]

Here is the final part of the article. It wouldn't fit in one post for some reason.

Martin Luther

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.

Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist." In his "Bondage of the Will," he severely criticises the book.

He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: "The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible." (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).

He rejected Hebrews: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle." (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).

He rejected the Epistle of James: "St. James' Epistle is truly an epistle of straw." (Preface to Edition of 1524).

He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture." (Standing Preface).

He rejected Revelation. He says: "I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit." (Preface to Edition of 1622).

What do you make of it? How would you reply to the person who sent me this?

[nolongerchristian]

I am no science major so this is not an area I have delved into other than to be interested in archeology. That being said, it is my understanding that the dating of fossils to be millions of years old is based on circular thinking, not on facts, because there is no exact means of dating such things. One has to begin with "their own belief system" in order to establish a dating system.

AM

What reasoning are you referring to as circular and what do you mean when you say there are no "exact" means of dating such things?

[nolongerchristian]

So I guess God must have planted those 3.5 billion-year-old fossils to trick the pagans and heathens?


Leave the old fossils alone and think about the star light that we can see with our plain eyes....so many light-years away that we should not be able to see them for another few million years at least if we are only sitting at 6 to 10 thousand years young...

[nolongerchristian]

The fossils are a fact (they can be observed). The age of the fossils is a conclusion reached after applying geological theories ... quite a different matter.


God is the only reliable source when it comes to creation ... He was there.


How is God a reliable source when we were not there to observe him observing / creating it? All we can hope for is the remains of things to study...and the way we do this is through observation by way of naturalistic scientific method.

There are many stories of various deities creating the world in their own fashion....so again we are left with which personal subjectively acceptable deity we choose...vs the commonly accepted (by almost everyone regardless of religious preference) scientific means of study...

[nolongerchristian]

What do you make of it? How would you reply to the person who sent me this?



I would have to know in what context it was sent...

But if it was sent to me to show how many changes today's bible had to go through in order to be what it is today...this in itself would not disprove God or christianity...however, one thing that comes to mind is the idea that God is not the author of confusion.....where that leaves all this, I haven't a clue.

[Willow]

Leave the old fossils alone and think about the star light that we can see with our plain eyes....so many light-years away that we should not be able to see them for another few million years at least if we are only sitting at 6 to 10 thousand years young...

WOW! Now that's a logical thought! I still maintain that taking this in consideration does not have to be a threat to anyone's faith. I just don't see why this excludes the possibility of a creator or vice versa.

[nolongerchristian]

I still maintain that taking this in consideration does not have to be a threat to anyone's faith. I just don't see why this excludes the possibility of a creator or vice versa.


I completely agree with you. Accepting evolutionary processes does not preclude God in and of itself...
There are many christians who accept evolution as the means by which God created...

[Anna Marta]

What reasoning are you referring to as circular and what do you mean when you say there are no "exact" means of dating such things?

The present methods of dating things, according to my understanding which I admit is limited, is not as accurate as they would like us to believe. For example, it is possible for samples to be dated completely differently when examined by different persons.

The theory of evolution's dating system is circular - because evolutionary scientists have changed the dates to fit their theory, if it does not seem plausible that a change could have taken place in X period of time, then it is decided that it must have taken a longer period for this to have happened... hence there is no basis other than their opinion for how old something "must be" in order for it to have evolved to a certain level.

I remember being exposed to the airplane theory. How many years would it take for all the various parts of an airplane to line up together and create a plane that we regularly use today without a plan, without an assembler? Chaos does not create order, however order can disintergrate into chaos.

Evolution vs. Creation is a hot topic for many people. I understand people's interest in their relationship, but I do not base my faith on this.

I care about people's hearts and their well being and every person's need to be loved and valued so they can understand that their life has meaning and purpose. The most essential and important questions asked since the beginning of time have had to do with "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" What is going to happen to me after death?" THOSE are the issues of the heart I care deeply about.

I ask myself often what is the purpose of science wanting to prolong life to over 100 plus IF there is no purpose or value for that life? What are they going to do with all these old people if there is no "love" available to care for their hearts? Love is the essence of life not pure science. What good is life without someone to care about what happens to me next or if I don't care about what happens to someone else?

AM

[Spiny Norman]

Big bang theory has its own starlight problem, and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them to "solve it" by means of a theoretical (inherently unobservable) inflation of the universe at greater than the speed of light. Scripture talks about God "stretching out the heavens" (in several places actually) and He castigates Job with "Were you there? No? Then shut up Job, you goose ..." (well, words to that effect). :) So Scripture alludes to exactly that process taking place. If you do a thorough search for alternatives to the standard model of physics, you'll be amazed at just how many physicists suspect that the standard model is wrong, and that our understanding of the universe would be enhanced if we jetisoned some of the long held assumptions (n.b. assumptions, not "facts") and replaced them with alternative assumptions. Search for Carmeli, for example, who was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics in Israel, and examine some of his work ... there are physicists today who are building on that work to come up with alternative models.

[Maggy]

Is it possible that God caused the Big Bang and the Bible writers didn't know about it?

[Anna Marta]

Is it possible that God caused the Big Bang and the Bible writers didn't know about it?

There you go again Maggy with a jewel of a statement!

It IS possible that God has caused a lot of things that no one knows about. It is also possible that He has not caused a lot of things He gets blamed for.

Sometimes I have to laugh. Just because someone somewhere with some kind of degree decides something "is or is not" possible we are quick to accept the theory. Much of what we are discussing in this thread was totally unobserveable, yet we write about what we think or some scientist says as if it is true and are willing to stake budding relationships and friendships on it.

The bible, btw, is the only manuscript in the world that has been written so close to the actual events. Is it considered to be more accurate therefore than other manuscripts many of which there is only 1 copy surviving, yet we do not question those others as we do the bibilical manuscripts.

The reason IMHO for this is our human need to be "top dog" and not have to answer to or acknowledge a supernatural Creator God.

[Spiny Norman]

I remembered the guy's name: Prof. John Hartnett (I think that's right).

[nolongerchristian]

There you go again Maggy with a jewel of a statement!





Why is the mainstream christian world fighting against evolution so hard?

Everyone here seems not to have problems with it...

I can only guess that they feel threatened...though I can't quite understand why.




Thank you for your earlier send in PM. I'll definitely check out what you suggested. You made a lot of sense....though I say that grudgingly. ;)

[Hope 98]

Why is the mainstream christian world fighting against evolution so hard?



I don't understand why some fight against evolution so hard. Most of the arguments I hear from the most adamant creationist shoot themselves in the foot.

I wasn't there when the universe began, and I don't think we'll be able to prove one way or another.

I know someone who thinks that if we'd just stop viewing science as oppositional to God, we may find more similarities than differences in our thinking. May be true.

[Maggy]

I can only guess that they feel threatened...though I can't quite understand why.

Could it be because most religions are driven by fear and guilt? My church taught us the fear of sin, the fear of the devil, the fear of God, fear of groups that didn't believe the way we did, etc. I can see where that caused me to feel threatened by anything that didn't follow my pastor's Bible-based doctrines. Then when I got out of there I felt threatened by everything!!! Nothing fit into my "Jesus is gonna make everything alright" box anymore. I was banished from the God people and forced to roam the wilderness of "the world" (which was a place that we were told we would be destroyed by the devil in if we ever left the church).

[nolongerchristian]

Could it be because most religions are driven by fear and guilt?

Could be.

[Reg]

Checking in. :)

WOW, this sure has taken off in a direction I hadn't intended to begin with. I started out with what we can observe in the natural world here. The hundreds of examples that can only be explained by an Supremely Intelligent Creator. The odds of the randomness of this happening is astronomical. It actually takes more faith to believe in the standard evolutionary process over countless millions/billions of years than in does to believe in Intelligent Design.

The Creator has His fingerprints all over His creation. The book I originally posted was "Why We Believe in Creation & Not Evolution". The book doesn't get into the origins of the universe where we are going now. That's very heady stuff. I was hoping we would stay with what we know about and can observe. If we continually look at what we know, that's really enough to convince a person with an open mind there has to be intelligence behind it. For a lot of us, the discipline of meditation as a spiritual exercise is a difficult thing to do in this fast-paced world we live in. We simply don't or aren't given enough time to process. To process all the info that is thrown our way takes time away from distractions if it is going to be done successfully.

I'm very fortunate to be able to do that. One of my terrific blessings is our cottage in Muskoka. It's like a little piece of paradise. I can THINK there in ways that are difficult to do elsewhere. I remember sitting down by the dock in the early morning one day with the sun just coming up and the water was like glass and looking at it and asking myself why does it seem so peaceful? Why do people want to be or live near the water? The cottage just wouldn't have the same appeal it does if it was located in the woods. Why not? What is it about water that makes it so appealing?

I then started thinking about water itself. What is it really? How come it has that affect on me/us it does?

I couldn't help but compare it the God's Holy Spirit that is talked about as living water. When I looked at all the scriptures about water and how it's described as how to understand the Holy Spirit, it started making sense. There's more I could write about that but you get the idea.

So that's the kind of meditation I'm talking about. Not some sort of new age kind. Just simply thinking deeply about what we observe and asking ourselves questions about what we see.

As it says in Rom 1:20 we should be able to come to the conclusion that there is an Intelligent Creator behind it all if we do that.

Romans 1:20 (New International Version)

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Lastly, in regards to the big bang theory. Where did all that stuff come from originally to go BANG? :confused:

[Hope 98]

Checking in. :)

Lastly, in regards to the big bang theory. Where did all that stuff come from originally to go BANG? :confused:

Funny thing is that when I think of "Big Bang Theory", I go straight to "God said 'Let there be light' and there was..." It seems to me that a big bang would go along with that kind of event.

And I see the evidence of intelligent design in everything. However, it's hard for me to see for myself whether that is the chicken or the egg of my faith/theology. I don't remember a "blank slate" stage of development.

[Anna Marta]

Why is the mainstream christian world fighting against evolution so hard?

Everyone here seems not to have problems with it...

I can only guess that they feel threatened...though I can't quite understand why.




Thank you for your earlier send in PM. I'll definitely check out what you suggested. You made a lot of sense....though I say that grudgingly. ;)

I can't help but comment. It appears to me that it is not those who believe in a Creator who are fighting hard against evolutionary theory, but the exact opposite.

Why is it necessary for schools, universities and the higher atmosphere of the academic world to:


try to legislate against the teaching of a Creator (ID) in schools?
expose professors and teachers who espouse a form of ID to a kind of academic apatheid?
assume they area correct based on the observations and conclusions of a disillusioned former theology student, who lost his faith on a trip to a distant island, after reading a book written by an atheist and who then needed to substantiate his position by purporting that the world evolved and a Creator was not necessary?
bury or disregard statements made by1. a Nobel prize winner who admitted that evolutionary theory is not supportable, however the only other answer is that of a Creator and that is completely unacceptable. 2. Darwin himself who admitted his theory was doubtful in his last published book?

I think the question could be also be asked in the reverse, who is threatened and therefore on the offensive while others have been forced into a defensive position?

I am not against science or theories as long as they do not deliberately set out to destroy the faith of people, which is what evolutionary theory, by defnition, does. Those who support and teach this kind of atheistic science have no idea of the impact of it on the lives of young people. I don't understand why it is so necessary to remove the hope for eternal life and the essence of a Loving Father Creator from the world.

We talk about crises of faith a lot on our forum. I have been with young people who experience a crisis of LIFE because this kind of teaching goes against an essential need of the human soul, to be loved, have value and meaning in life and to be cared about. The impact of removing a loving Creator God from this world leaves a person wide open for the hopelessness and dispair of a life without meaning and value.

The essential questions raised in the study of philosophy all have to do with meaning, origin and value of human life. Who am I? Where do I come from? What is the purpose and meaning of my life?

Evolution answers these questions with hopelessness. You came from no where. You were a biological happening formed by the result of some sexual (or biological) act. If you are lucky you happened to come into life of a caring human being... if unlucky well, that's too bad because you are alone in this world except for the help of some human being who just might take pity on you. Your life has basically no meaning or purpose except for what you can accomplish to create world peace of make the world an easier place to live in.

A Creator answers these questions with hope. You came into existance because God wanted you and cares about you. Regardless of what another human being says or does to you, God will never leave you alone in your suffering or dispair. You have meaning because you are loved even if you do not feel loved. You have purpose and your life can produce things with eternal consequence for yourself and others. Even though this earth is a hard place to live filled with suffering and dispair God has a plan for you. You are so precious to Him that He wants you to have a perfect eternal life together with him someday where you will finally understand perfectly all the answers to your questions.

Is one truth and the other fantasy? Regardless of others want to believe, I would choose the 2nd option and live in hope instead of in a cold world of facts whose only hope for a future is to rot in the ground extinct for evermore. Spreading love. meaning, purpose and hope for an eternal future is not such a bad thing when you come to think of it.

AM

[Reg]

All I can say about these creatures is fascinating.

Spiders, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=99

Spider Defenses (This is good)
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/sp-defen.htm

Spider
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider

The Trap Door Spider
Trapdoor spiders build a door with their webs and attach a web hinge to them so that they may close them and remain concealed until prey comes along. Did this happen by chance, and how did it get to be a trait of all trapdoor spiders?
http://tolweb.org/tree/ToLimages/bothrio.150a.jpg

Twig-lining in a trapdoor spider
http://www.european-arachnology.org/proceedings/15th/605-608_Haupt.pdf

[riverdove]

Reg, I agree--the creator-designer is a powerful evidence. The human heart for example. It makes me wonder what keeps it going for so long without me having to "recharge or change the battery." God can create something out of nothing, but something cannot come from nothing.

[ellie0204]

Did we even have to name this topic?
:confused:

[Anna Marta]

Did we even have to name this topic?
:confused:

Dear ellie0204 (http://www.christianrecovery.com/vb/member.php?u=2774)

Welcome to the forum! Always nice to have a new person join the crowd here. Hope we can be of mutual help to each other when it comes to spiritual abuse issues. Maybe you could start a thread and introduce yourself and tell us a little about youself. I see your signature includes an advertisement. (Reactions to this may be influenced by the experiences of some people who have been defrauded by Christian business people and lump them in with problem churches.)

Could you help me to understand what you mean by your question above? There are many issues that those of us who have experienced being abused by Christians need to struggle with.

There is more than one of us here that has nearly, if not completely, lost faith and trust in the God we were indoctrinated with. The road back to faith can be a long and rocky one during which every part of our personal theology may need to be examined and tested out on others with whom we hope we can feel safe.

I am off to the states tomorrow morning, but will try to check in when I can from my daughter's house while I am away. Have a great Christmas.
Love
Anna Marta

[Maggy]

Debt Christian Solutions

Debt-ChristianSolutions can help get you out of debt and return you to a simpler lifestyle... the life of joy and service that God and His Son intended for us all


What's with the spam message?

[Reg]

Looks like a spammer Maggy and AM.

Let's get back to the topic.....

If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with-in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another. (Species are fixed)

But let's look at the flying squirrel. How many times do you think it took for him to get the nack? He had to get it right the first time or GAME OVER. :(

How many squirrels died jumping out of trees before some of them found out that they were lucky enough to have mutant extra skin to let them glide? :eek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel

[nolongerchristian]

If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with-in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another. (Species are fixed)

But let's look at the flying squirrel. How many times do you think it took for him to get the nack? He had to get it right the first time or GAME OVER. :(

How many squirrels died jumping out of trees before some of them found out that they were lucky enough to have mutant extra skin to let them glide? :eek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel



Hmm...
I've no doubt that for every question you pose, there is an answer...
Also, for every reference you give from the ID standpoint, there exists a naturalistic rebuttal...

I'll be honest, though. I am extremely ignorant concerning evolution and pretty much anything science related...
So I make a pretty poor arguer on this type of thread.

All I know is that almost universally evolution is an accepted truth...whether that be TRUTH or "truth" ....well, I guess this is what the debate against it by the general christian world is about....


...I almost tend to think that this particular topic isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things...
For a christian...I just don't understand the huge importance that seems to be placed on ID over evolution...which really could be explained from the angle of God as the first cause as others have stated here...

Elsewhere lots of folks seem to argue against evolution so strongly that it seems the very fabric of their faith woud be ripped in two if they lost the debate...
I just don't get the hostility...

[Reg]

Hmm...
I've no doubt that for every question you pose, there is an answer...
Also, for every reference you give from the ID standpoint, there exists a naturalistic rebuttal...

I'll be honest, though. I am extremely ignorant concerning evolution and pretty much anything science related...
So I make a pretty poor arguer on this type of thread.

All I know is that almost universally evolution is an accepted truth...whether that be TRUTH or "truth" ....well, I guess this is what the debate against it by the general christian world is about....


...I almost tend to think that this particular topic isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things...
For a christian...I just don't understand the huge importance that seems to be placed on ID over evolution...which really could be explained from the angle of God as the first cause as others have stated here...

Elsewhere lots of folks seem to argue against evolution so strongly that it seems the very fabric of their faith woud be ripped in two if they lost the debate...
I just don't get the hostility...
No hostility here. I realize that there is always a rebuttal. People will believe what they want to believe in no matter what.

I just look around at all the evidence of Intelligence in the natural world and the only conclusion I'm left with is, there is a Creator with supreme Intelligence who made it all. I don't pretend to know what all the great minds in the world know as they continue to defend their positions. As far as how he did it and how long He took to get it to where He wanted it I'll leave that to those superior minds who continue to speculate and debate this.

Of course the bottom line is the evolutionists try to explain that everything that exits came about by random chance over countless eons of time without a Creator. They have to believe in the odds game over intelligence. To even give in to one iota of intelligence would force them to believe in a Creator. Something they avoid like the plague.

Again, Romans 1:20-21 (New International Version)

20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is the real bottom line. Either you believe it or not. That's the luxury we have as free moral agents. All the decisions we make have consequences. Some good some bad.

[omar alvarez]

Funny thing is that when I think of "Big Bang Theory", I go straight to "God said 'Let there be light' and there was..." It seems to me that a big bang would go along with that kind of event.

And I see the evidence of intelligent design in everything. However, it's hard for me to see for myself whether that is the chicken or the egg of my faith/theology. I don't remember a "blank slate" stage of development.

[Anna Marta]

...I almost tend to think that this particular topic isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things...
For a christian...I just don't understand the huge importance that seems to be placed on ID over evolution...which really could be explained from the angle of God as the first cause as others have stated here...

I just don't get the hostility...

This topic us of great importance in the grand scheme of things for several reasons:

Evolution by definition is atheistic and denies the existence of God - "period -the end".

There can be no compromise with ID because the words "Intelligent and Design" refer to a PERSON who could only be THE Creator and since evolution is based on atheism ID is simpy unthinkable! :eek:

The grand scheme importance has nothing to do with the scientific questions of how the universe came into being. The fact of a Creator is of vital importance for personal reasons for each individual that (respectfully)you don't seem to have grasped yet.

There is consolation and security in knowing that your life is of great value and precious to "at least one person" in the universe, especially when it feels like the world doesn't care or is against you! There is a hope in being able to communicate with the One who planned your existance and cares about you. The idea that man is nothing special, he/she is part of the animal kingdom and of no eternal significance produces hopelessness and a sense of isolation and loneliness that is painful.

I guess if one has never felt such a thing or met anyone who was in that place it is hard to comprehend.

The most important thing in the world has nothing to do with science, it has to do with meaning, purpose, love and eternity. At death, the concern is deeply personal and private - what will happen to me?
AM

[Willow]

Evolution by definition is atheistic and denies the existence of God - "period -the end".

But why? I don't understand why it has to be either or and exclusive of each other. I don't have a particular interest in how God created the universe. I might have come from the rib of adam or the offspring of a monkey. Either way... I'm here and I do believe in a creator and a grand design. My father is a good example of a medically educated person who believes in both evolution and creation. I used to argue and argue with him that he can't believe in evolution because it's morally wrong. At some point I quit fighting him and quit straining that particular gnat. I don't really give a rats ass how god did it at this point in my life. I'm too busy living life to argue about why I'm here.

[Hope 98]

Evolution by definition is atheistic and denies the existence of God - "period -the end".
AM

I don't remember what I was taught about evolution way back in school, except that it was a theory, and a theory - by definition - is unproven. If I remember correctly, we weren't required to believe it, only to know it as a widely held school of thought.

I never heard it defined as atheistic, or it simply didn't stick.

Maybe that's why I don't understand why the creation/evolution argument is such a hot button. Neither the 7-day creation, nor any other theory of the origin of the universe can be conclusively proven.

We will each need to make a choice about the assumptions that become the basis of our belief system.

[Reg]

Postzygotic Barriers prevent breeding of one species with another species.


Heredity - Speciation: Selection against migrant pathogens:

Obviously, the importance of this barrier is greater when the other types of isolation, that is, habitat preference, sexual preference, postzygotic barriers ...
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n5/full/6800890a.html


Below is a fascinating discussion between Charles Darwin & Thomas Henry Huxley addressing Huxley's objection to natural selection titled:

"Notes on the causes of cross and hybrid sterility"
From The Correspondence of Charles Darwin


In December 1862, as Darwin reviewed his experiments on heterostyly, and discussed blending inheritance and the causes of variation with Hooker (see letters to J. D. Hooker, 24th [November 1862], [after 26] November [1862], and 12th [December 1862], and letters from J. D. Hooker, [15th and] 20th November [1862] and 26th November 1862), he once more ventured to disclose his private views on the origin of cross and hybrid sterility. In a letter dated 12th [December 1862], he told Hooker:

"By the way my notions on hybridity are becoming considerably altered by my dimorphic work: I am now strongly inclined to believe that sterility is at first a selected quality to keep incipient species distinct.

Even Darwin at this point came to see this fact.
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/darwhook.htm

This is a good discussion about the various views within the Christian community......

Christian Views of Science and Earth History
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/viewscie.html

Just as it says in Genesis 1...

<>Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

[Willow]

I don't remember what I was taught about evolution way back in school, except that it was a theory, and a theory - by definition - is unproven. If I remember correctly, we weren't required to believe it, only to know it as a widely held school of thought.

I never heard it defined as atheistic, or it simply didn't stick.

Maybe that's why I don't understand why the creation/evolution argument is such a hot button. Neither the 7-day creation, nor any other theory of the origin of the universe can be conclusively proven.

We will each need to make a choice about the assumptions that become the basis of our belief system.

Personally... It improved my relationship with my dad significantly when I let go of the urge to convince him that my beliefs were right and his were wrong.

[Anna Marta]

Check this article out on Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1098831/For-Christmas-week-asked-eminent-scientists-possible-reconcile-reason-religious-faith.html

[Reg]

Check this article out on Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1098831/For-Christmas-week-asked-eminent-scientists-possible-reconcile-reason-religious-faith.html
Great article AM.

Thanks.

[JaniceB]

Okay, I was going to stay out of this one but I've changed my mind.

I'm one of those who believes in both. There is lots of scientific evidence to indicate that evolution did occur. I don't take the Bible literally so that works for me. Creation didn't have to happen in six days.

Now as a statistician I can't just believe in evolution. Evolution without any direction from a Higher Power would involve gillions of coincidences. Coincidences happen but not randomly and they occur rarely. Just two coincidences happening in close proximity are enough to make me look closer at my data for some kind of causation. It just doesn't make logical sense to believe that there is no one and nothing out there guiding the whole process.

[Reg]

Who Created God?

The skeptic asks of Christians, ‘If God created the universe, then who created God?’ {21} But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

A more sophisticated questioner might ask, ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ The following reasoning stands up to scrutiny:

òEverything which has a beginning has a cause {22}
òThe universe has a beginning
òTherefore the universe has a cause

It is important to stress the words ’ which has a beginning.‘ The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so does not need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So, time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, He is the creator of time. Therefore, He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so He has no beginning in time. Therefore, He does not have, or need to have, a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, or entropy {23} is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy and reached what is known as ‘heat death.’ For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down. {24}

{The amount of available energy in the universe is always decreasing, clear evidence that it had a beginnning.}

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies it in their heart. All science, history, and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. {25} Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence, a logical absurdity.

In Summary

ò The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

ò It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

ò The universe therefore requires a cause, just as #Ge 1:1 and #Ro 1:20 teach.

ò God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Therefore, He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause. {26}

Whichever way you look at it—the evidence from the Bible, the incredibly complex, organized information in living things, or the origin of the universe—belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator God, as revealed in the Bible, not only makes sense, but is the only viable explanation.

21} This section is based upon J. Sarfati, ‘If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?’ CEN Technical Journal, 1998, 12( 1):20-22.

22} Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But here the word refers to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made.

23} Entropy is a measure of disorder, or of the decrease in usable energy.

24} Oscillating (yoyo) universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But the laws of thermodynamics undercut that argument—as each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past. Also, there is far too little mass to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, and no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch.’

25} Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing, but this is not so. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing.’ Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or a cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it would not have any properties until it actually came into existence.

[Reg]

Someone just sent this to me in an email. How would you reply to this email if you were me?
Maggy,

Going over this again I saw your question. Like NLC said,"I would have to know in what context it was sent...

But if it was sent to me to show how many changes today's bible had to go through in order to be what it is today...this in itself would not disprove God or christianity...however, one thing that comes to mind is the idea that God is not the author of confusion.....where that leaves all this, I haven't a clue."

Similarly, the facts are correct as far as I know. Didn't have the time to check it all out. The process of Canonization has to be studied to understand how we got the Bible in the form it is today.

Without painstakingly going over all of the info sent you I would simply answer it this way.....

Personally, I believe in a Creator God who made the Universe. This being the case, if indeed He did, than I'm sure He would know how to write a book.

[dougjb]

Hi everyone,
I have read quite a bit on the ongoing discussion surrounding the evolution verse creation issue. Maybe I missed something over the years, but I have not seen a lot of discussion, as a starting point, of one's assumptions regarding the issue. I am specifically thinking, at this point, whether one assumes an open or closed view of the universe. The question is whether God is bound within the confines of the created universe and thus subject to things like time and space or does God exist outside the bounds of the created universe even though there is an intimate interaction with it? It may have a bearing on conclusions. Just a thought I had.

dougjb
some food for thought

[Jerry]

That brings me to another question.Scientists say the universe is expanding.Hmmmmmmm,,,,,,,consider the speed of light.Then consider the speed that matter can travel through space at it's optimum.This points to Scientists flawed logic.The universe expanding ???? there is no way they can know that.The human life span is very short,too short........If the expansion of the universe was to slow and then reverse itself ,,,,,,it would collapse on us long before we could observe the phenomena ;) ......The best we can surmise with observation it that at one time the universe was expanding and likely is still expanding....................Just a thought,,,,,has nothing to do with the price of rice :D

Love Jerry

[Willow]

Oh SHIT... not this topic again??? LOL
If ya'll keep talking about evolution/creation, I think I should be allowed to talk about politics here too. ;)

[Hope 98]

I don't know quite how to express what is going through my mind - but I'm going to try...

Whether we were created or evolved is pretty nearly irrelevant if one doesn't experience the presence of God in the trials of life.

We can't really prove either creation or evolution. At some level, we choose our presumptions. Arguments on either side seem to eventually come down to calling the opposition stupid.

My personal conclusion is that the Creation/Evolution debate is a failure as an evangelistic tool.

Just my humble onion.
Your mileage may vary.

[JaniceB]

I don't know quite how to express what is going through my mind - but I'm going to try...

Whether we were created or evolved is pretty nearly irrelevant if one doesn't experience the presence of God in the trials of life.

We can't really prove either creation or evolution. At some level, we choose our presumptions. Arguments on either side seem to eventually come down to calling the opposition stupid.

My personal conclusion is that the Creation/Evolution debate is a failure as an evangelistic tool.

Just my humble onion.
Your mileage may vary.

Amen!

[outcast]

Do we believe in evolution within a species?
I have to confess to believing in both creation and adaptive evolution.To me they don't contraindicate each other.


I agree with willow here and furthermore have always asked the question - can't god allow a species to evolve because he knows it needs to in order to survive? Can't he use this process to reflect his wisdom and ingenuity?

I have found that this thought scares the majority of christians who claim to only believe in creationism.

I also agree with Hope. I think that this type of debate is pretty pointless since neither side can be proven and since one side will never convice the other. I don't think we will honestly understand how God did everything until He shows us in heaven one day. Until then, I'd rather focus on more substantial things.