My problem with Ross and others is that "biologically" assuming a creator with the power of God, knowing symbiotic relationships and the creation narrative and plain biology, for me the 6 days or six short periods of time seems clear in the genesis narrative. But my quesiton to those who support longer time values is this:

How does a full biosphere set in place or spoken in place by almighty God not completley collapse if it didn't start out fully robust. In other words why does God need thousands or millions of years to create what His own narrative implies was a short time?

How does the biosphere not collapse unless and if it is all woven together fully functional and working. Pollinators, grass eaters, worms, marine and aquatic, etc. all contribute to the health and operation of the biosphere as set forth in Scripture.

The jungle without symbiotic relationships completely goes down for the count. It seems the creation event began, life was installed and it continues this day. When God said it was good, he was talking about the whole of creation. He was speaking of a fully robust creation event. 

Its functionality was put into operation immediately as opposed to some who infer long periods of time.

So I reject anything that looks like evolution biologically, and I find YEC's and OE both being gravitational on some of those issues and inference. 
The creation event requires even by biologic standards a younger short period of time? Your thoughts?

Views: 44

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, a younger more short period of time than that which Hugh Ross and his research suggests...

Agreed!!! You see if DNA existed prior to the first biologic-- thenI don't see why God himself the repository for all DNA information spoke into existence the biosphere... why is Hugh as much as I like him assume there was some sort of long term event for God to inculcate life on the planet. Why do most major sciences assume that life went from cell to elephant? What if life was all in together in a very short time period. Wether 24 hours or slightly longer but life cannot exist without there being symbiotic relationships driving all life. I think the secular approach does not want to credit, or conceive that the designer inculcated all life. It happened all together.. I just have a problem rectifying strait forward biologic science knowledge as requiring 1,000's of years of vertcle change in kinds to produce the original fauna and flora.

Amen. Good thoughts. We just simply accept that Jesus in a few seconds made enough bread to feed more than 5000 people, and along with the bread, fish also.

We accept this because it is the revelation of God in the simple language of Scripture - repeated by Moses in his record of the Ten Commandments (The BIBLE does indeed identify them as "ten commandments" (Deut. 4:13) - which were written by the finger of God (Ex. 31:8; 32:15-16; 34:1; Deut. 9:10). Those words written by God's own finger say that everything was created in SIX DAYS. In those tablets, written by God HIMSELF, He is the one who uses the word day, and He makes it quite clear that He created EVERY SINGLE THING THAT EXISTS in six days.

That means that Lions were created in those six days. The entire biosphere of Genesis 1-2 - all of it was created in those six days. So also the Bear and the Ox and the Serpent - all of these that now exist were created within the six days. All of the creatures that will exist in the future, in the peaceable kingdom are the same creatures that were created in those same six days (Isa. 65:25).

He could have done it in 6 years, or 600,000 years, or even in six seconds, or in a single command of a nano second - but the BIBLE says, and God Himself says that He did it all in just six days.

Six days. That's the longest time I would give it for the Earth to continue to be hospitable to any life outdoors if:

...if any one of the basic parts of its life-support system suddenly ceased to exist.

I see six basic parts: fauna, flora, land, surface water, open air, day-night.

So DNA is just one of multiple members of the finer half of the irreducible complexity of a completed living Earth.

So the long-ages model is, at the very least, unnecessary.

But God is not about a pointless abundance of unnecessary time. His point is for the good of living creatures, not for the...whatever...of pre-living ones.

There is no point for their 'becoming' alive through some 'graciously' slow, 'gentle' process of prey-predation. Much less is there point for such a 'Gentle-Giant' process that begins with crushed rock, some lightning, and, eventually, some H2o. God is eternal, not dull-witted. Evolutionism is just matter reified in the image of sometimes-progressing fallen humans.

Larry: "Hey, I just learned to do something!"

Moe: "Oh, yeah?! Here's something!" (bonks Larry on the head with a brick)

Curly: "Hey, you just learned something, too!"

Moe: "Shaddap." (Larry feels superior, ala learns to feel empowered, hence is emotionally rewarded for his behavior)

Carl Sagan: "And that's how life began, and evolved."

Hugh Ross: "But actually God created and assembled the parts. And, eventually, God zapped some genuine humanity into a randomly selected troop of already-evolved-into all-but-human humans. And, some unspecified time after that, God rescued one of the resulting human tribes from the baddest such tribe, put one of those humans in the position of leader, and dictated to that leader a bunch of words for him to write down for everyone. So that leader wrote down those words exactly as God dictated to him. And humans finally learned from those words to do science right. So now we finally know what those words mean: exactly what we have already discovered by doing good science. The only shortfall is that many of us have not honored God for it."

So I reject anything that looks like evolution biologically, and I find YEC's and OE both being gravitational on some of those issues and inference. 
The creation event requires even by biologic standards a younger short period of time? Your thoughts?

Younger short, yes.

The Day Two (portion of the) account does not include a "God saw that it was good."

Various ideas have been forwarded to explain why.

The idea I espouse is that the water cycle is the issue here. That cycle only began to be formed with the introduction of light in Day One, part two. Only with the instantiation of Earth's binary surface was that cycle completed in terms of water actually cycling.

...so, the water cycle, in terms merely of water and other non-living things, is part of the life-support system which is the completed living planet. (I go into this further in Jim's thread about the canopy model: http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/canopy-theory-or-...)

The creation of the planet in its initial state doesn't get a 'good'---nor does the 'heavens' in its own terms. And if, as many believe, v. 5a is of God acting instead of observing, then even then there is no 'good', but only for the introduction of light prior to that dividing action. (Causing the planet to rotate would be only the beginning part of a final actual cycling of water.)

Daniel in  your mind as a YEC what does "and God said it was good" infer?  What is the IT. what does the actual language in context refer to?  IMHO, isn't this referring to Is creative work, like a carpenter admiring his house he finally finishes???  Yet my friends here take this one statement way beyond it and apply "dogma" abut the animal kingdom, no death before the fall, and other things, and constantly produce this little phrase as  a basis for these inferences. I know your a YEC, I am a Hybrid, but none the less the scripture itself and the narrative to me is clear as to what is being said n context to the creation?  Your thoughts friend? The question for YECS to answer and give actual evidences from nature is this:

Is the created sytematics of biologic observation we now observe on this planet, the original creative and sustaining design that God employed in the beginning?  IF GOD rested from these works, there is an implication here of total completion? THe symbiotic relationships we now observe, and nature requires in order to survive, must of have been employed "in the beginning"?  I see no other way for life to not have failed without this design? 

Your thoughts?  I only throw this in becasue the Creation was perfect YEC inclination, I agree with.  God said it was good and that implies perfect in his eyes, but to then infer that nature could not employ the same sytematics and landscape responses in the past as today fails to have an adequate explanation form scripture or observable evidences in nature itself. When did the butterfly begin its migrations, or Great whites, or hummingbirds, or other birds, when did these designed cycles begin?  

Lou asks:

Is the created sytematics of biologic observation we now observe on this planet, the original creative and sustaining design that God employed in the beginning?

YES. We believe that this present world that we NOW OBSERVE is indeed the original creative and sustaining design that God employed in the beginning. . .

BUT THERE ARE SOME SOME DIFFERENCES - as is clear from Scripture.

Something went wrong in chapter three . . .

ALL ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THIS. Something went wrong in chapter three.

DO WE ALL AGREE ABOUT THIS OR NOT?

God describes the changes in His addresses to the Serpent, and to Adam, and to Eve (Gen. 3:14-28).

Also Peter plainly declares that the world that NOW IS has changed and it is different from the world that wars created in the beginning. He declares that it is a mistake to think that "all things continue as from the beginning of creation" (2 Pet. 3:4).

ALL ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT PETER'S Words are inspired. Do we agree that he is explaining here how it is wrong to think that everything now is exactly the same as it was in the Beginning?

THE INSPIRED APOSTLE IN INSPIRED SCRIPTURE says plainly that those who imagine that every thing is "the same" are "DELIBERATELY" overlooking "this FACT:"

"that the heavens were of old, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

The Earth that "then was" PERISHED - was wiped out and destroyed, and now

by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

SO, Scripture is clear that in some sense the present earth is not the same. THAT does not imply a "new creation" - but it simply accepts the fact that God clearly describes two judgments (the Fall and the Flood) that resulted in radical alteration of the original creation. THE CHANGE took place by judgment - not by creation.

The design of symbiotic relationships, migratory behaviors, predation, camouflage, flight/fight instincts, man's capacities to adapt, skin colors, hair types, ALL of these were part of the design of God in the original creation.

ALL of the complete biosphere - that now is, all of it was IN THE ORIGINAL CREATION - but first the very good world was judged (Gen. 3:14-24), and then the "world that then was p e r i s h e d , being overflowed with water." DO WE Believe that or not?

Do we believe the words of God in Gen. 3:14-24 and 2 Peter 3:3-7? Yes or No?

Your thoughts? 

Lou Hamby said:

Is the created sytematics of biologic observation we now observe on this planet, the original creative and sustaining design that God employed in the beginning?

I presume you are including such things as predation, disease, and death.

I would like to say that the answer you are looking for from me is one in which I see the issue as simply as you see it. I don't.

I do not think that the issue is one of a construct the necessary (and basic) purpose of which includes predation, disease, and death.

"includes" is the operative term here.

I think of the issue as a matter of economy. When you, as a happy person, build a house, or make some clothes for yourself, you are not doing this with a purpose to allow for, nor to avoid, radical calamities to your happy produce and your use of it.

Moreover, in a physical world that you design so that it is perfectly balanced in an immortal way, you do not set out to ensure that such a world shall become flawed by some externally adverse agent. All you are doing to making that world as a flawless economy.

It's like those clothes that you make for yourself. They can be perfect as clothes. But they can be perfect as clothes only if they are not also being designed to serve as pullet proof armor.

Imagine if you had to wear nothing but bullet proof armor, and this all of the time, so that you never wear any actual clothes-as-clothes.

Of course, you could still were actual clothes underneath the armor.

But that would not be wearing clothes for the perfect benefit of clothes. Instead, you would be wearing the clothes under the armor, and you are not ever to remove even one bit of the armor, not even for a moment. So your clothes may help buffer you from the armor. But your clothes are never perfect as their own main purpose, since you cannot remove any of the armor, EVER.

So, tell me: which is the sole original purpose: (a) life, (b) defense from predation.

?

Obviously, if there is no life, there can be neither predation nor defense from predators.

But the issue must at least begin (if not also implicitly end) with the question of whether creaturely life is logically possible without predation, disease, and death.

And if you get bogged down with that question, just remember the difference between creatures and God. God, but not creatures, is un-injure-able.

A creature may be made perfectly functioning. And even a world full of creatures may, it seems, be made to perfectly function in terms of the perfect functioning of each individual creature.

But perfect function for a creature in no way logically precludes the potential for injury. This does not imply that injury already is present. Nor does it imply that perfect function is not perfect function. It just means that (by way of simple example) as long as you do not trip on your own feet, you cannot be injured thereby.

The question is whence the miscalculation in the first place. I say it is in the most free creature willfully doing something that is, in fact, self-injurious. That's when the original perfect functioning of not only that creature, but of the whole ecology, begins a systemic set of progressive miscalculations. Each organism then partly causes certain kinds of further injuries both to itself and to the whole ecology, whether it intends to or not.

But it's not a single smooth decline. This is because the original perfect ecology included, or else was made up of, many many cycles, and cycles-with-cycles. That's the creaturely organism: a set of cycles.

And some of these cycles are about the intake of things that the organism breaks down, and then uses. It uses the results to continue micro-physically maintaining itself as distinct from its environment.

But when both the organism and its environment are damaged, they are imperfectly harmonious with each other (disharmony added to a whole lot of original harmony). The balance is off, and accidents happen. Loss happens, and this on all levels.

The sheer dynamic complexity of the original system is one in which purely beneficial things are built or maintained. But when that system is injured, then even those originally purely beneficial cycles become partly adverse. So, for example, this is how cancer happens: One or more of the maintenance subsystems of the animal organism is itself imbalanced in certain ways, so that they over-do their jobs. Disease is imbalance. Injury is the causing of imbalance.

But all the main cycles still cycle, as well as most of the sub-cycles. Hence predation, and the furtherance of certain kinds of imbalance, until the ecology itself finds a new, non-original balance that includes predation, which then drives the biological analogies to bullet proof armor, and various other modes of self-preservation against adversaries.

Brother Daniel:

I am a little confused at your response?  Some of it assumes things I did not even mention or imply?  Some of it implies "I" made this or that, when it is God that made all things.  MY first question you did not answer?

My question:
Daniel in  your mind as a YEC what does "and God said it was good" infer?  What is the IT. what does the actual language in context refer to?  IMHO, isn't this referring to Is creative work, like a carpenter admiring his house he finally finishes??? 

This question is about GOd's Work not mine, It's not about what you assume, its about what we know and observe in nature?  It fully implies that GOD is the designer, creator, implementor, and sustainer of all life?  


Your question:
So, tell me: which is the sole original purpose: (a) life, (b) defense from predation.

                               ?

My answer:

All of the above...  You assume an A or B answer and you cannot, because it is not an A or B observation?  So it misses the point all together? 

Gods purposes are above anything that man could ever conceive.  Do you honesty believe that the design of an omnipotent God does not take into account all imbalance, predation, death, the fall, the flood, etc?  

6,000 years later and what ever catastrophic affects of extinction, catastrophe, life still goes on, cycles as it was put into place, reproduces as it was designed, and life again goes on.  Butterflies still migrate, etc?  Life as set forth originally is totally observable today and has not changed one iota, as God has distinctly designed life to accommodate.  This "is' what we observe.  But my question is, what we observe today...is it a result of GOd's original and mighty works in the beginning?  

If it isn't, then who is responsible for our observed evidences and sytematics of biological life we all observe? 

You assume fallacy that predation, death, or other such intrinsic observables known through out your 6,000 year history is somehow an imbalance?  It's that if you say so but, the facts don't support your supposition?  When God told Adam he shall surely die?  Death was mentioned already in the garden? What has Adams death to do with the rest of the world outside the garden full of plants and animals living as GOD had spoken them into existence?

Again how do you take "and God said it was good", and imply some dogma to that statement that is irrelevant to Gods creative genius?  How do you or I an ant tell God he was wrong, or that his design is flawed?  God said it was Good, so good that he rested.

Lou Hamby said:

I am a little confused at your response?  Some of it assumes things I did not even mention or imply?

I'm sorry. Your questions and statements confuse me as well, then.


Some of it implies "I" made this or that, when it is God that made all things.  

I'm sorry. I thought that what I meant by that was obvious. I was there just assuming that the kind of answer you wanted was just the kind that I thought would benefit from a little second-person singular analogy. It was just like you had done in the latter-most part of your first question that you have now assumed that I did not answer at all:


IMHO, isn't this referring to Is creative work, like a carpenter admiring his house he finally finishes??? 

I was just putting you in the position of a 'carpenter', as it were, of the whole natural world. I was implying that I think that you should put yourself in God's shoes, so to speak. You seem inclined to do just that with your carpenter analogy. I think it is a good analogy, except for the radical difference in product. A house is not very dynamic.



This question is about GOd's Work not mine, It's not about what you assume, its about what we know and observe in nature?

And one of the basics of the natural world is a geophysical life-support system, the actual cycling of water and its processes of temperature exchange. That system perfectly matches the fact that there is no "God saw that it was good" for the Day Two portion of the Genesis 1 account. That is, the water cycle, in terms of water actually cycling, was not complete until the surface of the planet was made into the land-water binary exchange driver. The Earth was spinning at last by the latter part of Day One, but there was no "God saw that it was good" there either.

Light was "good": because light is its own complete good for life. But a water cycle is a complex system, unlike light getting onto the Earth's surface.

For there to be water cycle, the Earth needs (1) a day-night cycle, (2) an open-air atmosphere, and (3) the land/seas. That's five names that God gave (vv. 5, 8, 10), and the account does not report that God gave names to anything else.


which is the sole original purpose: (a) life, (b) defense from predation?

All of the above...  You assume an A or B answer and you cannot, because it is not an A or B observation?  So it misses the point all together? 

Are you saying that present state of the natural world is in every way the same as that which existed of it at any and all points in the past?

Gods purposes are above anything that man could ever conceive.  Do you honesty believe that the design of an omnipotent God does not take into account all imbalance, predation, death, the fall, the flood, etc?  

I think that God foreknew every kind of imbalance that was possible. But are you saying that God's original state of the completed natural world was a state that included animal death? Is that logically necessary? No? Then on what basis are you claiming (are you claiming?) that that original completed state included animal death? Surely you admit that that natural world was not exempt from injury? You or I can die, and our human death is an injury, yes? On what natural physical living basis is death among non-human animals not an injury?



But my question is, what we observe today...is it a result of GOd's original and mighty works in the beginning?  

In my view, it is a yes-and-no answer: In a certain sense, yes. But in another sense, no. I see no reason to presume that a simplistic answer is correct. You want for an "all of the above" answer to which came first: life or death. But it seems to me that you want for even that answer to be an entirely simplistic answer. The question is whether animal death is necessary for the natural ecology to be an ecology?


You assume fallacy that predation, death, or other such intrinsic observables known through out your 6,000 year history is somehow an imbalance?  It's that if you say so but, the facts don't support your supposition?  When God told Adam he shall surely die?  Death was mentioned already in the garden?

Are you taking for granted that the flesh-body of Adam, despite that it can die and can be injured, is incapable of sensing that adverse potential unless Adam first sees some other flesh bodies actual dying, or at least sees the resulting rotting corpses?

All God said was that Adam's body and brain would never suffer malfunction and decay as long as Adam did not eat of the forbidden fruit.



Lou Hamby said:

Death was mentioned already in the garden? What has Adams death to do with the rest of the world outside the garden full of plants and animals living as GOD had spoken them into existence?
No animal life wants to die. This includes flesh-and-blood humans. Humans are not the only fauna kind that does not want to die.
Yet what we all observe today of the natural world includes humans' natural death and biological decay and disease.
Genesis 1 does NOT mention death or its possibility.
Only in Genesis 2 is such a thing first mentioned, and this only in regard to humans.
And Genesis 2 is about an active relationship between God and humans.
Genesis 1, on the other hand is, on its explicit level, nothing more nor less than the total natural world. Genesis 1 goes into life, and states that flauna (animals) eats fauna (plants). Yet it does not once mention that animals eat other animals.
Moreover, Genesis 1 specifies that humans eat plants, but does not mention that humans may eat animals.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service