Creation model

[juliod]

OK, so I'm trying to get a grip on the Theory of Creation. (Not easy, even the people who claim it exists won't tell me anything about it.)

The question for this thread is how many species were there on the earth at each phase of history? The only figures I have are those of Woodmorappe (8000 species on the ark) and estimates of the number of species alive today (which I will call ">1 million").

So Bishop Ussher gives as this chronology (which isn't a theory, but is as close as I have come up with yet):

4004 BC Creation

2348 BC Flood

1491 BC Exodus

What I want to do is get some idea of the number of species at each stage:

4004 BC: ?

2348 BC and immediately after: ~8000

Present: > 1 million.

Now, it's important to note that there is no mention of massive speciation anywhere in recorded history. So I am assuming that the million+ species alive today evolved rapidly after 2348. Let's say one full millenium just as a round figure.

Also note that I am only considering the 1 million most conspicuous species. It is a real problem of determining how many there are because there are so many species of insect that we don't know about. They say there may be 30 million total species, mostly beetles.

So one question is, how many species were originally created? Just the 8000 on the ark? Or where there more? How many?

This is what I have so far:

Date Event # species
4004 Creation ?

2350 Flood ~8000

1350 hyper-evo >1 million

present >1 million

DanZ

[YEC]

here's a hint concerning parables...

EZE 17:2 "Son of man, set forth an <b>allegory</b> and tell the house of Israel a <b>parable.

In the above verse presented in Ezekiel the bible lets us know a parable is following.

Even Jesus told parables:

MAT 13:3 Then he told them many things in <b>parables</b>, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed.

Once again scriptures tells us so.

No where in the bible is the accounts of Genesis..any of them...presented as a parable.

No where does the bible call or even consider the accounts of Genesis a parable.

Instead the accounts of Genesis are presented as literal historical truth by Jesus, Paul, Peter and other New Testament figures.

In other words, there is no biblical reason to believe that Genesis is a parable.

THE TRUTH:
Genesis is believed to be a parable by the Theo-Evos because their fervent faith in evolutionism demands it to be. Scripture is changed and ignored because of their interpretation of science.

Then again we all know that the distorted views of the Theo-Evos were predicted long ago

2PE 3:5 But they <b>deliberately forget </b>that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

2PE 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

The Theo-Evos deliberatly have forgotten about the flood of Noah and turned it into a simple ....parable. Is Jesus next?

[Gollum]

Genesis is believed to be a parable by the Theo-Evos because their fervent faith in evolutionism demands it to be.

Actually, speaking in my capacity as an Evo (I don't know what a Theo-Evo is so maybe I'm one of those too) I do not believe Genesis to be a parable. I do believe it to be an account based on the oral traditions of that part of the world and written centuries (or millennia in the case of Genesis) after the events it recounts. As such it is probably subject to the same problems that all verbal traditions have ... specifically exaggeration, selective memory of events and interpretations of historical events in a light that was relevant to the times and people of the day.

None of this arises out of my "fervent faith in evolution". I believe evolution for much the same reason that I believe that gravity works or atoms are real. The evidence is too overwhelming to be denied. It may come as a shock but I'm not aware of any evolutionists who "demand" that Genesis is a parable. For the most part, they regard Genesis (or any other part of the bible) to be irrelevant to the discussion.

I am of course aware that those of faith regard the bible as the revealed word of God and insist that God ensured that his words were correctly and accurately recorded. There's where the true believer and the rest of us part ways. I cannot "prove" that the bible isn't the revealed word of God and the believer can't "prove" that it is (other than by quoting the bible which is a somewhat circular argument.)

[Jose]

I am of course aware that those of faith regard the bible as the revealed word of God and insist that God ensured that his words were correctly and accurately recorded. There's where the true believer and the rest of us part ways. I cannot "prove" that the bible isn't the revealed word of God and the believer can't "prove" that it is (other than by quoting the bible which is a somewhat circular argument.)

An interesting point, Gollum. Quoting the bible provides no proof about how we should interpret the bible. Even within the description of the bible being the revealed word of god, we still find variation in the extent to which we should consider the text to be a literal description of the history of the earth.

Cosmogeny itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach us this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer… The sacred book…does not…teach how heaven was made, but how one goes to heaven.

I have a hard time reading these words, and thinking that the speaker is making this statement because he demands that evolution is true, so he is changing the bible. Rather, he recognizes that god was smart enough to present his words to us in terms we could understand some two millenia ago--but in stories whose deepest meaning is not on the surface. Genesis is not a scientific treatise.

But maybe the Pope is one of these misguided Theo-Evos we hear about, who has trod upon the slippery slope that starts with acceptance of evolution as a mere scientific finding, and leads inexorably to the loss of faith. Gosh--that poor, misguided Pope, who has abandoned his faith because of science. It's odd...somehow, I've always seem him as a rather religious kind of guy, rather than some devil spawned by the teaching of evolution.

But I digress. The topic of this thread is not the validity of a literal interpretation of some portion of the bible. The topic is whether young-earth creationists actually have a theory, based on their creationism, that explains (or even tries for a simple description of) the things we actually find when we study the earth. What is that theory?

[rjw]

Gidday YEC,

EZE 17:2 "Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell the house of Israel a parable.

In the above verse presented in Ezekiel the bible lets us know a parable is following.

Yes, and there are places in the Bible where we are not told that a parable is following. Do you accept everything in the Bible literally when we are not told that a parable is following?

Even Jesus told parables:

MAT 13:3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed.

Who denied this? So what is your point? Really this is a red-herring in the context of this debate, isn’t it! Look up the definition of “red-herring”.

Instead the accounts of Genesis are presented as literal historical truth by Jesus, Paul, Peter and other New Testament figures.

Given that these people lived in a culture that is very alien to ours and had no sense of science, history, technology, philosophy, theology (as we understand these words), why should they not consider Genesis literal? As an example, the ancient Babylonians considered “The Epic of Gilgamesh” to be literal. Therefore you believe it – literally? Or do you now make excuses for not believing it literally?

Genesis is believed to be a parable by the Theo-Evos because their fervent faith in evolutionism demands it to be. Scripture is changed and ignored because of their interpretation of science.

I doubt if most Theo-Evos believe Genesis to be a parable. Some might. Do you have figures to support your claim for “the Theo-Evos”? Or is this just hubris from you? Do you even know what a parable is?

And the problem is, whether you like it or not, you also have to interpret both scripture and science. And if science clashes with your religious beliefs, you change science. And it is a moot point that you have “changed” scripture in such a manner that a clash is inevitable.

Then again we all know that the distorted views of the Theo-Evos were predicted long ago

2PE 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

2PE 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

In order to demonstrate prediction, you have to be able to argue that Peter was implying the Theo-Evos when he wrote these words.

Can you demonstrate this or are you just pulling text way out of context in order to make a point?

Regards, Roland

[YEC]

If you evos want to consider Genesis as allegorical or a parable..have at it.

But, prior to doing so SHOW me where scripture says so or indicates that it is.

You see folks, I have presented scripture (lots of it) that shows Genesis was to be taken as literal....(and had been taken as literal)

So claim away. Presents your (allegorical)facts..or lack of facts.

Untill you can, your post are considered as mere rhetoric...much like the T.O.E.

[micatala]

YEC Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you evos want to consider Genesis as allegorical or a parable..have at it.

But, prior to doing so SHOW me where scripture says so or indicates that it is.

You see folks, I have presented scripture (lots of it) that shows Genesis was to be taken as literal....(and had been taken as literal)

So claim away. Presents your (allegorical)facts..or lack of facts.

Untill you can, your post are considered as mere rhetoric...much like the T.O.E.

I'm not sure if I qualify as an evo or theo-evo, but couple of comments.

Just because scripture says or does not say something should be taken allegorically does not, in my book, settle the issue. Neither does the fact that some people, biblical figures or not, interpreted the text in a certain way mean that that's the way we should all read it. This merely reflects their interpretation or opinion regarding the text. In Jesus' case, it may reflect that He is addressing a particular audience in the way He thinks is best, a way that they will understand, and not necessarily that He thinks everyone take the message in the same way. It may simply reflect that He understands that the audience He was addressing would have taken scripture literally, not that He himself does.

I think there is precedence for this. Consider Jesus' teaching on marriage. On the one hand, God (and this includes Jesus, in my book) allowed the Israelites to divorce. On the other hand, Jesus told the people of His time that God only allowed this because of the nature of the Israelites hearts at that point in time.

With regards to Genesis 1, I think there is ample indication that the text could or even should be taken allegorically even within the text itself. Consider verse 27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Now, as most Christians I think would agree, God is a spiritual being. Given this, what does it mean for God to create man in his image? Does this verse imply that God is corporeal, and that He is of both genders?

Consider verses 14-19. I have seen analysis based on the original languages that when God said "Let there be light" this did not mean that the lights were created at that time, but only that they became visible from the earth at that time. In creating the stars, it is said that the stars " . . . separate the light from the darkness?" What could this possibly mean literally?

I have already addressed elsewhere the Hebrew notion of the dome of the sky (sometimes referred to as the firmament) which "separates the waters above from the waters below." This does correspond "literally" to the Hebrew conception of the world, but it does not literally correspond to reality. How can we take this except as allegory?

A literal reading of Genesis 2 would, it seems to me, clearly imply that man was created before any "shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth . . ," which is contrary to Genesis 1. Yes, you could make the additional assumption that there is a "jump" in time between verse 6 and 7 (backward, one assumes), but there is certainly nothing in the text, only a presupposition that Genesis 1 must be taken literally and everything else interpreted to be consistent with this that would indicate this.

I have indicated in another thread that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Cardinal Bellarmine, and others in the 16th and 17th century took passages like Joshua 10 and Psalm 93 literally to mean that the earth did not move and the sun did. Why should we take these allegorically and not Genesis 1 and 2? There is certainly nothing in the text that would help make the distinction. I don't believe you responded to any of my points in the other thread, and I would be interested in how you would reconcile the literal interpretation that the earth does not move, with our present day understanding that it does.

Consider Genesis 2:17. God says that if the man eats from the tree of knowledge " . . . when you eat of it, you will surely die." It is hard to read this literally and not conclude that God means that Adam and Eve will die at the time that they eat of the fruit. Christians commonly interpret this allegorically to mean that man will become subject to death after that time, and many would read it to mean spiritual death, and not physical death.

Consider Genesis 1:4. What does it mean literally to say that God "separated the light from the darkness?"

In Genesis 1:9, what does it mean literally to say that the water be gathered to "one place?" It is hard to think of the current configuration of the seas, or even past geological configurations, to be "one place?"

Yes, you might argue that I am being "overly literal" but this is partly my point. Where do you draw the line? You seem to claim that it is self-evident, but you haven't responded to the difficulties in deciding what is really "self-evident."

[micatala]

Here is my previous post from another thread, referred to above

micatala
Newbie
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Total posts: 7
Gender: Unknown
Usergroups: None

68.96 tokens
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:12 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few Luther quotes.

"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Luther is referring to Joshua, chapter 10.


Not on the subject of Copernicus, but a quote on the age of the world.

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."

Regarding the inspiration of scripture:
"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]....
This is not really on the subject, but does speak to the issue that not everyone agrees with what should be and what should not be included in scripture.

A quote from Calvin
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" He is citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis

and from the same
"We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
-- Melanchthon, emphasizing Ecclesiastes 1:4-5


Some of the quotes Luther and others cited or may have cited are:
Ps 19:4-5 where the heavens are described as a tent and the sun "a champion rejoicing to run his course." According to the Hebrew view of the universe, the sky was a solid dome under which the planets including the sun moved around the fixed earth. My understanding from a variety fo sources is that they believed in a flat earth, which most Christians later replaced with a fixed but spherical earth at the center of the "sphere of stars." (See Kuhn, for example) This belief was influenced by Aristotle and also the dominant Ptolemaic astronomical system. It is worth noting Genesis 1:6, where God talks about establishing the expanse of sky between the "waters above and the waters below," the former being the source of rain.

Matthew 5:45 " He causes his sun to rise on the evel and the good . . ."

Ps. 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved". This idea occurs in a number of other passages.

Ps. 104:19 "The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down."

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north . . ."

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Tell me, if you understand."

"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."
-- 2 Kings 20:11

Many years later, of course, we have the more famous events surrounding Galileo.

"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616

Quotes from Cardinal Bellarmine, who communicated the decree personally to Galileo, can be found in "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana.


Now, I am not saying that any of these individuals should be deprecated for their quotes or for not accepting the Copernican system. I am also not saying that there understanding of scripture were necessary. Obviously, we have all made our peace with Copernicus and I am certainly not throwing away my bible because of what other people believed it said. My only point is that many people in Copernicus' day and for 100 year or more afterwards believed that Copernicanism was unscriptural.

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

Consider John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

It seems to me a reasonable implication of this is that God cares not at all whether we believe in evolution or not. How our flesh got here is not important. What is important is our spiritual being, and it is to this aspect of ourselves that Jesus addresses us. When we are "created in his image," I think this can only mean His spiritual image, as God is spirit.

Personally, I find the idea that God used evolutionary processes in creating life incredibly inspirational. It draws me closer to God, not further away.

I know you may not find all this very satisfying. I am not too interested in worrying about persuading people to my point of view. I am interested in persuading Christians not to have fights about things that are not really worth fighting about.

Again, I would appreciate a response from YEC.

[rjw]

If you evos want to consider Genesis as allegorical or a parable..have at it.

But, prior to doing so SHOW me where scripture says so or indicates that it is.

You see folks, I have presented scripture (lots of it) that shows Genesis was to be taken as literal....(and had been taken as literal)

So claim away. Presents your (allegorical)facts..or lack of facts.

Untill you can, your post are considered as mere rhetoric...much like the T.O.E.

Gidday YEC,

In my last posting I asked you a question with respect to your use of 2 Peter. I asked:-

“ In order to demonstrate prediction, you have to be able to argue that Peter was implying the Theo-Evos when he wrote these words.

Can you demonstrate this or are you just pulling text way out of context in order to make a point?
”

I think this question also applies to how you are handling many of us in this thread.

The issue is not necessarily that we consider Gen 1 to be allegorical or a parable. Of course people probably understood Gen 1 to be factual, just as people considered “The Epic of Gilgamesh” to be factual. The issue is, (on the assumption that it was considered to be factual) - given the nature of our culture, can we legitimately regard Gen. 1 to be factual now?

So YEC, should we consider “The Epic” to be factual in all its details, just as we must Gen 1? Or do you get very choosy as to what you are prepared to accept – without offering any reason for this?

I suspect you understand this issue very well – hence your need to pull some of us, at least, out of context – and not just the author of 2 Peter.

Tch!


Regards, Roland

[YEC]

It's very apparent that evo-minded individuals are what Peter is referring to.

He may not call them evos in black and white...but they sure do fit the bill

[YEC]

micatala:
A literal reading of Genesis 2 would, it seems to me, clearly imply that man was created before any "shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth . . ," which is contrary to Genesis 1. Yes, you could make the additional assumption that there is a "jump" in time between verse 6 and 7 (backward, one assumes), but there is certainly nothing in the text, only a presupposition that Genesis 1 must be taken literally and everything else interpreted to be consistent with this that would indicate this.

It's tough to answer your long post due to the tremoundous amount of strawman like arguments you present.

For example..the bible does not say what you claim it to say concerning the plants.
I think you ought to actually read it instead of using the typical cut and paste post.

It's quite apparent that the trees and shrubs were made prior to the creation of Adam.


By the way, I'm still waiting for the reference that tells us Genesis was a parable.