Re: TOE or TSD: that is the question! (was Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle)

JimA responds [interspersed]:

Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Thanks for these thoughts. But where do you stand with respect to the
> body of information newly revealed within Genesis 1:1? Here we find a
> set of numerical absolutes (and other) distilled from just 7 Hebrew
> words.

If you are talking about the constants, I just note that they might be
more accurately rendered, and why aren't they?

> Don't you regard this as something remarkable - and to be properly
> accounted for (as far as we are able) in our Christian walk?

Remarkable - I'll give you that. Connecting it to my walk takes a
construction of assumptions and interpretations that fail the inspection
standards in my view.

> Is it likely that He who speaks thus would choose evolution as His
> means of creating?

My answer is, Yes. Why not? Can you describe a suitable alternative
"actual" means of creating?
[quoting now from one of my earlier posts]
What might be your image of what happened in that man-creation event?

Thinking out loud for just a moment about what the actual process might
have looked like...

Might it have been a simple wasn't-there-a-moment-ago-but-is-now event?

Was there a flash? Or a Bang, considering the energy of formation
seemingly involved?

Or did an amorphous clay shape rise from the earth in response to unseen
influence, taking shape over seconds and then transforming into the
finished creation?

Or might there have been a slightly longer process, minutes of dust
gathering (atomic or suitable raw molecular ensembles), swirling,
coalescing, and settling into the shape and function of the finished
creation?

Perhaps it started with something more organic, nurtured, sculpted in
substance, complexity and function, layer by layer over a few hours,
until the final creation resulted?

Or could the right stuff have been put into creation's chemical retort
with just the right starting and sustaining conditions (creating an
attractor in complexity terms), so that only the additional ingredient
of time (days, years, centuries, or millenia - what's the real
difference?) was required to move from there to "ooze", and then on to
the desired result?

Which of these is wrong? Or right? Why might one think so? If these all
feel wrong, what scenario did you have in mind? What assumptions
underlie your choice or lack thereof among these options?

For me, the evolutionary process seems elegant, simple in essence but
incredibly fruitful, and for certain awe inspiring. It doesn't even
necessarily rule out a literal Adam and Eve, some feeling that the
"breath of God" created the essential self- and God-aware human being at
some point in the flow of man-evolution. It certainly does NOT rule out
God!!

At the end of the day, at the very least it doesn't seem right to just
say, "I'm not sure how He did do it, but I'm absolutely sure that He
didn't do it that way!"

> - and equivocation as His method of communicating with us?

...and what you suggest is evidently free of equivocation?

>
> Regards,
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com <http://www.otherbiblecode.com>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Armstrong <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:30 PM
> Subject: Re: TOE or TSD: that is the question! (was Genesis 1:1 -
> a standing miracle)
>
> Vernon -
> If we accept that the universe, and the Earth in particular, is
> the handwork of the Creator, then it perhaps it might at least be
> argued that it is unlikely tool of satanic deception.
> Consider the many passages of Scripture that deal with the hymns
> of praise that nature speaks in its silence. I rather doubt that
> the nature of nature is to be double-tongued.
>
> That handwork has some things powerful things to say about its
> creator. I submit that Creation speaks those things constantly and
> consistently over time. Though we may nuance the interpretations
> over time, the voice perseveres nontheless, speaking the same
> universal timeless language undeterred, always calling us to
> convergence on a more refined and more complete (though never
> truly comprehensive) understanding of its substance and message.
>
> The latter statements cannot be made about the thoughts,
> traditions, and writings of human kind. Culture, trend, agenda,
> belief, history and tradition are among the many factors that
> shape the ideas that are held and expressed at any given time and
> all you have to do is look at the diversity of world religions to
> observe that the range of ways to perceive, approach and express
> understanding of the transcendant creator far, FAR exceeds any
> range of interpretations of what nature has to say about its
> history, processes, and creator.
>
> In short I would suggest you have given satan too much credit, and
> done it in an area where your case is the weakest.
>
> Regards - Jim Armstrong
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>> Glenn,
>>
>> Thanks for these geological 'proofs' of an old earth and
>> evolution. But, as a Christian, I suggest your approach to these
>> matters has been lax and far too simplistic. Let me explain: you
>> should have learned from the Book of Job (1:6-12; 2:1-7), from
>> the events leading up to the death of Ahab, King of Israel
>> (1Kings 22), and from Paul's words of warning (Eph. 6: 10-18)
>> that we live our earthly lives against a backdrop of considerable
>> supernatural activity. In the wisdom of God, the deceiver - and
>> enemy of our souls - Satan, is sometimes allowed to exercise
>> considerable power on earth (such as providing those _decoys_ you
>> have listed). Now it should be clear to all believers of the
>> Gospel that evolution sits _extremely awkwardly_ with the
>> Scriptures, and there can be little doubt that all attempts to
>> harmonise the two have resulted in serious distortions of the
>> Word of God - something that the Apostle Peter expressly warns
>> against (2Pet.3:15-16). Undoubtedly, this situation - and the
>> confusion it has engendered - represent a coup for Satan! It also
>> explains why this 'Theory' is different from _all others_ in
>> that, when challenged, its adherents tend to become testy and
>> hostile, and those unable to accept it are subjected to duress of
>> one kind or another.
>>
>> Glenn, I put it to you that 'Theory of Evolution' is better
>> described as the 'Theory of Satanic Deception'.
>>
>> Vernon
>>
>> www.otherbiblecode.com <http://www.otherbiblecode.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Glenn Morton <mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net>
>> To: 'Vernon Jenkins' <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> ;
>> 'Don Winterstein' <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; 'Walter
>> Hicks' <mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>> Cc: 'asa' <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle
>>
>>
>>
>> DW : Overwhelming scientific evidence compels us to
>> conclude the world is much older than 10,000 years.
>>
>> VJ: If the evidence is indeed as rock-solid as you
>> suggest then why do many reputable scientists continue to
>> think otherwise?
>>
>> Vernon, I guess it is time to point you to some web
>> pages which show pictures of Geology. If the earth is
>> less than 10 kyr, then the geologic column must be
>> deposited quite rapidly or created in place. That means
>> you have either a God who makes up animals who never
>> lived and thus is deceptive, or you have to beleive in a
>> global flood. There are lots of problems with that. We
>> can't post pictures to this list so I will point you to
>> my web page on geology which has links to lots of
>> pictures in geology which show exactly why the geology
>> was not deposited in one year. The site is
>> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm
>>
>> The reasons for this included
>>
>> burrows in all levels of the geologic column,
>>
>> dried out mudcracks and desert deposits on all levels of
>> the geologic column,
>>
>> foot prints and trails on all levels of the geologic column,
>>
>> erosion of very hard rocks (like 35 km of hard igneous
>> rock eroded in Scotland).
>>
>> buried river channels
>>
>> buried canyons
>>
>> plants growing in many levels of the geologic column
>>
>> too many animals for a single biosphere to have been
>> killed in a flood
>>
>> evidence of normal activities, like animals going to the
>> bathroom over a long period of time--otherwise you have
>> to assume they all took a dump at once.
>>
>> Take a look and explain the geology, Vernon. this is the
>> stuff which the YEC leadership never wants the laity to
>> see. And there are pictures for it all. The reason why
>> people still believe in a young earth is because they
>> won't look at geology.
>>
Received on Sat Jul 31 17:56:23 2004