But, what about the future? This is an area that is not often addressed in the creation/evolution dialogue, but it poses some pretty sticky problems for the theistic evolutionist who wishes to be consistent in his interpretation of Scripture. Following are a few passages and ideas which need to be addressed:
1 Corinthians 15:51–53. If God needed millions of years to ‘create’ our first human bodies, which were already ravaged by disease and death, how will He be able to give us new, incorruptible bodies ‘in the twinkling of an eye’ when Christ returns?
Acts 3:21 refers to a future time when everything will be restored. For the theistic evolutionist (or the closely related ‘long-age creationist’) this should logically mean a restoration back to billions of years of death and suffering. The Bible in fact indicates that all things will be restored to a situation in which death (the ‘last enemy’—1 Corinthians 15:26) shall be no more. Why? Because there will be ‘no more curse’ (Revelation 22:3).
Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:13–14. These passages refer to a future time of cataclysmic changes in the heavens. Stars falling from the sky, and the heavens rolling up, do not sound like slow processes needing millions of years. Long-agers insist that it had to take 15 billion years for the light from the most distant objects to reach us here on earth. Obviously, it will not take 15 billion years for the heavens to ‘roll together as a scroll.’ So perhaps we’ve not yet fully understood the mechanics of starlight and time, and that 15 billion year figure needs several zeros lopped off.
2 Peter 3:6–12 also poses a number of ‘future’ problems for theistic evolutionists. We know that the waters of the biblical Flood increased for at least 150 days (Genesis 7:24). Clearly, these Flood days must have been literal, 24-hour periods (though undoubtedly they seemed longer to Noah et al!)
So, the first problem is this: How long will the future destruction of the heavens and earth by fire last? Millions of years? Do you believe that this refers to the theory that the universe will slowly contract under its own gravity (the ‘big crunch’) until a new big bang occurs? Verse 10 says ‘the heavens shall pass away with a great noise.’ Once again, that sounds rather sudden and final. The ‘heavens’ here means the visible universe.
Then there’s verse eight, ‘One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.’ If each ‘day’ of Genesis chapter one lasted millions of years, and the ‘day’ here is literally a thousand years long, all language loses its meaning! Obviously, the best way to understand this verse is in the context of God’s patience. It has nothing to do with the actual length of biblical days, but stresses that God is outside of time. A day is not equal to a thousand years—it is (to God) like a thousand years—and vice versa, a thousand years is like one day to God.
2 Peter 3:13. Now we turn to the ‘new heavens and a new earth.’ If God needed billions of years to create the first heavens and earth, how long will it take to make new ones? What will believers who have been saved and have received new bodies be doing all that time? Hopefully not listening to harp music! Are you impressed by a God who needs zillions of years to get the job done?
Finally, there is at least one more problem. If God used evolution in the past, will He still use it in the future? When he re-creates the bodies of the redeemed through evolutionary processes, will we look like those almond-eyed, spindly-legged creatures of the movies and TV? Let’s hope not!
We must be consistent when we ‘interpret’ the Scriptures. If God created everything in six days in the past, as a plain reading of the Genesis account would demand, He’ll have no problem re-creating it all quickly in the future, as a plain reading of the passages cited above would imply. If He created Adam in a fraction of a day, and Eve out of Adam, He’ll have no problem granting new bodies ‘in the twinkling of an eye’ in the future. If death entered the world on a specific day in the past, it can be abolished within a day in the future.
When it comes to origins, ‘Father God plus Mother Nature’ equals an illegitimate child—theistic evolution. There are many aspects of God’s Word which make it clear that you can’t have it both ways.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/theistic_evolution.asp
2 comments:
You're living in a bubble Joe. You can't just interpet the bible in a bubble.
Here is one of my many favorite quotes:
"Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion."
- Lemuel K. Washburn -
When I read this quote, I am not just thinking about you... I am thinking about all the religions of the world. People are very protective of their religion... so much so that they will kill the truth if they need to.
Joe, why don't you do some research on the science behind Radiometric dating before you discredit it. Here is one place to get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Radiometric dating is reliable because the decay rate of radioactive isotopes are very, very constant and predictable.
God is behind nature... if these things exist and show millions of years of decay, then you can't just disregard it and say it means nothing. Expecially without reading all the research itself otherwise you are doing nothing more than this quote suggests.
Here's a quote...
"Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their evolutionary theory."
- Joseph C. Sirianni -
I'm not religious at all in the sense of the Pharisee and Sadducee's which is follow these "set of rules" and you will be saved.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27
And I have done countless research on evolutionists dating methods and on the age of the earth, especially carbon 14 dating and radio isotopes. I found nothing but flaws, inconsistency and circular reasoning amongst Evolutionists. Carbon dating is only good for thousands of years not millions. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating. The evolutionists' flaw in most of there dating methods is that they assume that decay rates and the atmosphere in which we live in now has always been the same, a "constant" so to speak. This is not true, they do not acknowledge the global flood of Genesis which would of changed things drastically. It's like walking into the bathroom and saying because the tub is leaking water at 1 drop per minute we can tell by all the water in the tub how old it is, all along while neglecting the note I left on the mirror that says "hey I walked in earlier and turned on the faucet at full blast for an hour and then shut it back off again"
And your Geologic Column which is the primary use of dating for evolutionists are nothing but presumed ages made up by them.
I believe deeper rocks are older but not by millions and millions of years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/circular.asp
In addition their methods can't even tell the correct date of known rocks, how can they be trusted to give us an age of unknown rocks?
In an experiment, they submitted live shells to be dated by these various methods and they turned out be something in the thousands of years old. How can that be, they were still alive?
"The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field" -CSE
Thanks for your comments
Post a Comment