Why not deep time?

[tabibito]

P.S. And here's the coup de grace for you guys: Jesus of Nazareth was born of Mary, a human woman. This means in His physical body He took on the evolutionary history of Earth and the Cosmos.

Ponder THAT for awhile.

If he became a human, Mary's ovum wouldn't have played a part in the actual conception - she would only have been the surrogate mother.
If an ovum had been used in the conception of Jesus, he would have been the product of God and human, a demi-god.

[klaus54]

I'm sure that Jorge doesn't see his interpretation as making God a deceiver. And if the issue were only "apparent age", he might have an argument. We see biblical examples of "apparent age", such as Jesus' first recorded miracle, the turning of ordinary well water to well-aged wine in John 2. (Though if Jorge is as fundamentalistic as he appears, he might think this is fresh grape juice! )

Unfortunately for Jorge, the record of nature not only gives evidence of apparent age, it also gives evidence of apparent history. For example, look at the Hawaiian Island and Emperor Seamount chain. This is a chain of volcanic islands in the Pacific Ocean; the islands become progressively older as one goes west. it is consistent with a "hot spot" under the present-day active volcano in Hawaii and with the satellite-measured westward motion of the Pacific Plate. In other words, this island chain is giving us a detailed picture of earth history. (BTW, this also shows the lie of the YEC claim that "historical science" should be dismissed because it cannot be repeated. This is an example of the same experiment being repeated many times in history.).

While YECs may be able to argue that apparent age does not make God a deceiver, it is much harder to argue that apparent history in the record of nature does not make God a deceiver.

Exactly! That's why I always say Deep Time and History. Multiple episodes such as stars in various stages of their lives and orogenic regions in various states of erosion age totally trashes not only Deep Time, otherwise it DOES make a YEC God a deceiver.

K54

[klaus54]

If he became a human, Mary's ovum wouldn't have played a part in the actual conception - she would only have been the surrogate mother.
If an ovum had been used in the conception of Jesus, he would have been the product of God and human, a demi-god.

I don't agree with you at all on this. And using "demi-god" as a scare term doesn't bother me. If He was a "demi-god", who cares? I think He WASN'T, in fact:

The whole theological idea is the MYSTERY that He was ALL man and ALL God.

That's the way I've always seen it myself and heard it expounded by Pastors and theologians.

Why don't we see if Jorge or another strident YEC agrees with you?

I doubt it.

My very common notion solves a lot of theological issues with Christianity and evolution. I'm doing this for the benefit of the YECs and their concept that Man was created specially and in a state of "perfection" and that sin "ruined" that.

Anyone else from a Christian background agree the one of Mary's ova was not miraculously fertilized?

I know, I know, this sounds VERY STUPID TO A SKEPTIC, but this post is aimed at Christians who believe in the Virgin Birth.

K54

[tabibito]

I don't agree with you at all on this. And using "demi-god" as a scare term doesn't bother me. If He was a "demi-god", who cares? I think He WASN'T, in fact:

If he was a demi-god, that would make the scriptural record inaccurate - that record makes it plain that he wasn't a demi-god.

That's the way I've always seen it myself and heard it expounded by Pastors and theologians.

What say the scriptures themselves? What passages of scripture are cited in support of the precept?

Why don't we see if Jorge or another strident YEC agrees with you?

I don't consider that likely.

I know, I know, this sounds VERY STUPID TO A SKEPTIC, but this post is aimed at Christians who believe in the Virgin Birth.

That wouldn't exclude me.

[klaus54]

If he was a demi-god, that would make the scriptural record inaccurate - that record makes it plain that he wasn't a demi-god.

What say the scriptures themselves? What passages of scripture are cited in support of the precept?

I don't consider that likely.

That wouldn't exclude me.

The Scripture doesn't say He wasn't a demi-god either. Using that as a discussion-stopper doesn't do it for me. Does Scripture ever use that term for anything?

In any case, I don't know nor care because...

The Virgin Birth is a certainly one of the top two miracles of Christianity. Why would God use a woman to deliver a baby naturally it weren't from a fertilized ovum?

(Also see P.S. -- even if this isn't true, it doesn't matter to me. Why? Because I don't know, and you don't know, and nobody else knows -- and it certainly isn't scientific -- like any miracle isn't.)

Anyway, this discussion has evolved into Scholasticism. How many Cherubim do YOU think can dance on the head of 10-penny nail?



K54

P.S. Regardless of whether His haplotype was Mary's is inconsequential to the theological notion of Him being totally human -- physical flaws, eating, pooping, peeing, and having vestigial structures and all as products of evolution.

My point is YECs or OECs don't need to be "afraid" of an evolutionary history of the human carcass.

[tabibito]

The Scripture doesn't say He wasn't a demi-god either. Using that as a discussion-stopper doesn't do it for me. Does Scripture ever use that term for anything?

If the scripture says that something was made of gold, there is no need to also declare that it was not made of wood.
When the scripture says that the Word became God, there is no need to also declare that the Word did not father the child in question. Nor is there need to declare that God, or the Father did not father the child in question. The first excludes any possibility of the other options occurring.

[Jorge]

Quick question for you, Jorge. Do you believe that if the Woman and Man (Ish and Ishah) had not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that YOU would have been born?

I read the rest of your post (below) and must say that your "Christian" theology is freaking 'scary'. Wherever you received it, be sure to get your money back. Truthfully, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

As for your question, my existence was certain before the foundation of the world. Your premise (if Adam and Eve had not eaten ...) is silly because they DID eat of it and this was something that God knew before the creation and God had His plan for our redemption before the creation. All of this that I'm saying may be found in the Bible, if you would just look.

I say this in response to your bellyaching about suffering in Nature. Pain is a USEFUL part of Nature. It's a warning and defense mechanism.

Spoken like a true cult-"Christian". Pain and the accompanying suffering and death were never meant to be a part of God's creation. God declared His creation "very good". What kind of God would declare pain, suffering and death as "very good"? Oh wait ... silly question ... the Evolutionist's "god" would do that.

What would Earth be like without pain? For one, there'd be a LOT of amputees.

Brrrrrrrr ... whatever your beliefs may be, they are NOT orthodox Christianity.

If you say bacteria and fungi are a result of the Fall, then how would nutrients be recycled through the biosphere?

You're thinking like a brainwashed parrot. And when did I say that "bacteria and fungi are a result of the Fall"? Show me the post or stop assigning to me things that I never said. Just like others here at TWeb, you people have a very bad habit of doing that.

If people never died, and yet reproduced, would Earth be able to hold all of them?

You think that maybe, just maybe, God had that "problem" under control?

You YEC Garden of Eden/Fall fantasyists have NO IDEA how to explain any of this.

Yeah ... sure ... believe as you wish.

You imagine a cosmos where nature and human can't exist.

K54

P.S. And here's the coup de grace for you guys: Jesus of Nazareth was born of Mary, a human woman. This means in His physical body He took on the evolutionary history of Earth and the Cosmos.

Ponder THAT for awhile.

Okay ... in the meantime, allow me to give you a number:

1-800-GET-HELP ... that's ... 1-800-438-4357.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'm sure that Jorge doesn't see his interpretation as making God a deceiver. And if the issue were only "apparent age", he might have an argument. We see biblical examples of "apparent age", such as Jesus' first recorded miracle, the turning of ordinary well water to well-aged wine in John 2. (Though if Jorge is as fundamentalistic as he appears, he might think this is fresh grape juice!)

As the Creator of space-time itself, God is able to do anything (that is non-contradictory). Also, my God is no deceiver (I cannot speak about yours). We may think that He is deceiving us in certain things but that is simply an illusion caused by our ignorance. A certain brand of people that hold the "truths" of science on a higher pedestal than the Truths given to us by God Himself often say many of the things that we find posted here on TWeb. Oh well ... be sure to read below ...

Unfortunately for Jorge, the record of nature not only gives evidence of apparent age, it also gives evidence of apparent history. For example, look at the Hawaiian Island and Emperor Seamount chain. This is a chain of volcanic islands in the Pacific Ocean; the islands become progressively older as one goes west. it is consistent with a "hot spot" under the present-day active volcano in Hawaii and with the satellite-measured westward motion of the Pacific Plate. In other words, this island chain is giving us a detailed picture of earth history. (BTW, this also shows the lie of the YEC claim that "historical science" should be dismissed because it cannot be repeated. This is an example of the same experiment being repeated many times in history.).

Above you will note EXHIBIT 1 of what I had said previously.

On your comment "the lie of the YEC claim that historical science ...", it is sadly obvious from your comment that you do not understand in the least the concepts of origins (or historical) science versus that of operational science.

While YECs may be able to argue that apparent age does not make God a deceiver, it is much harder to argue that apparent history in the record of nature does not make God a deceiver.

That might be true except for the fact that both the age and the history are defined by people like yourself - people that are employing faulty assumptions, presuppositions, ideologies and 'science'. There's not much left after that. I'll use your own example with the Hawaiian islands to illustrate the error of your ways.

We observe and measure today. Employing unrestrained Uniformitarianism (part of an ideology/worldview) you then extrapolate/project those observations and measurements into an unbounded past. Result (not surprisingly - in fact, predictably): "millions of years".

I make the same observations and measurements as you do but I do not extrapolate/project those observations and measurements into an unbounded past. Why? My worldview is different: GOD - via His account (Special Revelation) - has placed an historical boundary on the past. You people do not obey that boundary - you transgress it without giving it a second thought because you hold your natural observations of the General Revelation above the revealed Truths of the Special Revelation.

Making it even simpler for you people: suppose that you time-traveled back to one hour after God had created Adam in the Garden. You would be surrounded by all sorts of mature vegetation, e.g., trees, etc. God directly tells you: "I created all of this within the last few days." That would be His Special Revelation to you.

You - "the big-honcho scientist" - very thoroughly and professionally observe and make measurements of everything that surrounds you - the General Revelation. You accurately measure the 60-foot oak trees (as an example), its rate of growth to the 7th decimal place, and other things. After you are finished you "scientifically" conclude that your surroundings must be "at least 50 +/- 20 years old with a p-value of 0.001". So, did God "lie/deceive"? Were your measurements and other work "wrong"? The answer to both questions is "NO!"

Yet, you are certainly able to declare (by decree) that the Special Revelation is "wrong" and that your "scientific conclusion" must be correct. After all, you trust your results because you yourself performed the observations, measurements and calculations. And let's not forget, your work was then peer-reviewed by a group including some Noble-laureates and published in a prestigious "scientific" journal! You certainly don't need additional 'proof' beyond that and anyone doubting your results must be "anti-science" or a "religious fanatic".

Is any of this getting across? Meditate on all that for a while and do try again.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

On your comment "the lie of the YEC claim that historical science ...", it is sadly obvious from your comment that you do not understand in the least the concepts of origins (or historical) science versus that of operational science.

...

We observe and measure today. Employing unrestrained Uniformitarianism (part of an ideology/worldview) you then extrapolate/project those observations and measurements into an unbounded past. Result (not surprisingly - in fact, predictably): "millions of years".

I've asked several times about this, but this seems like an appropriate place to try again - you accept some extrapolation into the past, but say there's a limit. Where does that limit reside, and what evidence is there that it exists?

[klaus54]

If the scripture says that something was made of gold, there is no need to also declare that it was not made of wood.
When the scripture says that the Word became God, there is no need to also declare that the Word did not father the child in question. Nor is there need to declare that God, or the Father did not father the child in question. The first excludes any possibility of the other options occurring.

Ok, ok --- there's no sense arguing with you about this. I disagree with you and the scare term "demi-god". So be it.

The Virgin Birth is a miracle -- pure and simple. Jesus of Nazareth was a natural man -- pure and simple. Natural men carry the evolutionary history of life in their bodies. Vestigial structures, inefficient wrists, flat snouts ofttimes leaving little room for third molars, getting hungry and needing to eat, peeing, pooping. feeling pain, inefficient s-shaped spine poorly retrofit for bipedalism, etc., etc.

So what I said about Jesus and evolution remains true regardless of whether or not he was a "demi-god" and haploid from Mary's ovum.

You missed the point entirely and went off on a tangent not apropos this thread.

I said my piece, and if you want to doubt the evolutionary nature (or "pseudo-evolutionary" if you like) of Jesus the Nazarene's body -- go right ahead -- but few people will agree.

The Incarnation is consistent with evolution if Jesus had a normal human body.

The only way around that theologically is if you're a Docetist -- which I doubt you are.

k54

[klaus54]

As the Creator of space-time itself, God is able to do anything (that is non-contradictory). Also, my God is no deceiver (I cannot speak about yours). We may think that He is deceiving us in certain things but that is simply an illusion caused by our ignorance. A certain brand of people that hold the "truths" of science on a higher pedestal than the Truths given to us by God Himself often say many of the things that we find posted here on TWeb. Oh well ... be sure to read below ...


...
Jorge

So even if Earth and Cosmos have false history (and they DO have overwhelming evidence of this) then God is not a deceiver since God is not a deceiver and Creation occurred as per Jorgian YEC Bible interpretation, and that's that.

Great logic there, Kiddo.

What's the sense of arguing with someone who spins like a neutron star, committing petitio principii 30 times a second?

K54

P.S. I guess Siccar Point is just an illusion?

SiccarPoint_Unconformityannot.jpg

[klaus54]

I read the rest of your post (below) and must say that your "Christian" theology is freaking 'scary'. Wherever you received it, be sure to get your money back. Truthfully, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

As for your question, my existence was certain before the foundation of the world. Your premise (if Adam and Eve had not eaten ...) is silly because they DID eat of it and this was something that God knew before the creation and God had His plan for our redemption before the creation. All of this that I'm saying may be found in the Bible, if you would just look.



Spoken like a true cult-"Christian". Pain and the accompanying suffering and death were never meant to be a part of God's creation. God declared His creation "very good". What kind of God would declare pain, suffering and death as "very good"? Oh wait ... silly question ... the Evolutionist's "god" would do that.



Brrrrrrrr ... whatever your beliefs may be, they are NOT orthodox Christianity.




You're thinking like a brainwashed parrot. And when did I say that "bacteria and fungi are a result of the Fall"? Show me the post or stop assigning to me things that I never said. Just like others here at TWeb, you people have a very bad habit of doing that.



You think that maybe, just maybe, God had that "problem" under control?



Yeah ... sure ... believe as you wish.



Okay ... in the meantime, allow me to give you a number:

1-800-GET-HELP ... that's ... 1-800-438-4357.

Jorge

So no answer -- got it.

I can't figure out your theology since you don't give answers.

So you tacitly assume that YHWH Elohim knew in advance that Ishah would eat the fruit.

So Ish and Ishah had no choice.

Great theology.

I'll have to hand it to you, you are the champion of non-answers.

K54

P.S. Bacteria and fungi are a major cause of infections. Death and decay in your theology are part of the Fall. There's no need to quote you on that point, Doofus, since that's standard YEC "theology".

[klaus54]

I read the rest of your post (below) and must say that your "Christian" theology is freaking 'scary'. Wherever you received it, be sure to get your money back. Truthfully, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

As for your question, my existence was certain before the foundation of the world. Your premise (if Adam and Eve had not eaten ...) is silly because they DID eat of it and this was something that God knew before the creation and God had His plan for our redemption before the creation. All of this that I'm saying may be found in the Bible, if you would just look.



Spoken like a true cult-"Christian". Pain and the accompanying suffering and death were never meant to be a part of God's creation. God declared His creation "very good". What kind of God would declare pain, suffering and death as "very good"? Oh wait ... silly question ... the Evolutionist's "god" would do that.



Brrrrrrrr ... whatever your beliefs may be, they are NOT orthodox Christianity.




You're thinking like a brainwashed parrot. And when did I say that "bacteria and fungi are a result of the Fall"? Show me the post or stop assigning to me things that I never said. Just like others here at TWeb, you people have a very bad habit of doing that.



You think that maybe, just maybe, God had that "problem" under control?



Yeah ... sure ... believe as you wish.



Okay ... in the meantime, allow me to give you a number:

1-800-GET-HELP ... that's ... 1-800-438-4357.

Jorge

Jesus of Nazareth in His human body took on the evolutionary history of all humans. Pure and simple. What's so hard for you to understand?

Do think he just appeared to be human? You realize that's a heresy?

Man, you're as dense as uranium.

K54

[klaus54]

I've asked several times about this, but this seems like an appropriate place to try again - you accept some extrapolation into the past, but say there's a limit. Where does that limit reside, and what evidence is there that it exists?

Jorge can't articulate that limit since there isn't one.

It's the same YEC trick of accepting microevolution and rejecting macroevolution. There is no functional difference.

There is no functional difference between "operational" science and "historical" science since physical records are preserved in the rocks, in the stars, and in the genomes.

When Jorge has no answer (which is 99% of the time), he simply spins and flings poo.

K54

[tabibito]

The Incarnation is consistent with evolution if Jesus had a normal human body.

Agreed - also off topic, I also consider that likely with regard to Adam.

The only way around that theologically is if you're a Docetist -- which I doubt you are.

Read the definition. Sent cold shivers up my spine.