a question on erosion

[littlebillie]

Biblically, why is there erosion? What kind of change is it, and is it supported by Scripture?

 

Obviously, as a religous evolutionist, I see similarities - both involve change affecting God's Creation. And while the results of some erosions are obvious, we may never seem them in action. So I'm interested in the Creationist view - why, what, how? That sort of thing.

 

And in a similar vein, since we can measure half lives, and have observed the conversion of elements as a result thereof, what does this mean?

 

Again, I'm looking fr the Creationist take on it all.

 

Thanks for any thoughts!

[ASM7]

littlebillie

 

If you believe in creation, then your belief is based on faith. Faith in the Creator. So, instead of asking those who believe, why not ask the Creator himself. The answer may not be the one you were looking for, but it will be the correct one. I believe that science is the progression of man's knowledge of God's work. There is a joke that I feel like fits here:

A group of scientists were talking about all that they knew and could do. They came to the conclusion that they could do anything that God could. At that point God appeared and they told him of their conclusion. So God picked up a handful of clay and formed a living human being. One of the scientists said that he could do that also and picked up a handful of clay. God stopped him and said, "No, use your own clay".

 

The more we learn the more I believe.

 

Doug

Amos 5: 13

 

 

 

 

[littlebillie]

ASM7,

 

I know what I believe too, and I'm one of those who finds no conflict between God and science, in part because I hold no literalist view of the Bible.

 

But I AM intellectually curious as to what the literalist take on erosion might be, esp. when considered with all that's been said about evolution.

 

Honest curiosity, 's all. Evolution - ne kind of change affecting God's Creation - is dismissed or discarded, so I wonder how erosion, which wreaks change upon His Handiwork, is viewed?

 

 

[ASM7]

littlebillie

 

Sorry for the typo. The verse I meant to add was Amos 4:13. Some other verses that may help are: Matthew 5:45, 1 Kings 18:1, Job 14:18, Genesis 7:4.

These are passages that say God sends the wind and the rain. Job 14:18 talks about erosion. Hope this helps.

Doug

[Rooster7]

I'm not sure how or why you are drawing a correlation between the two (evolution and erosion). The Bible testifies that God created the heavens, the earth, man, and all living things (a testimony that contradicts a theory embraced by many of today's scientists - evolution). So, man and all that we know as nature, had spiritual beginnings...that is to say, God created them from nothing. To my knowledge, the Bible does not speak to erosion and many other things (discovered by man). But, so what? The Bible gives us a glimpse at God (creator, all powerful, all knowing, righteous, and loving), the history of man's rebellion against God, and instructs man how he may become reconciled to God (through Christ). The Bible never claimed to be the complete answer book for all things created by God. Some Christians might rightly suggest that Adam and Eve's sin triggered a downward spiral for all of creation. We know that Earth is not Heaven. All of God's creation, as it stands today, is subject to decay - all of it. Until Christ returns and we are made perfect in Him, erosion of the earth, and most notably of man's collective morality, shouldn't surprise anyone. Is it coincidence that the fate of man's physical world mirrors what the Bible prophesizes about man's spiritual world?

 

"The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Romans 8:18-21

 

[DeMann]

an interesting thought!

 

erosion is just what it is. Why could it not be a part of God's plan?

I am assuming (am I correct?) that you are also thinking of longterm erosion- like glaciers, breaking rock into sand, etc. I CANNOT speak for others, only myself. I don't think that some of those things were created over millions of years. I personally think that they were created in a radically different way. We will get to that later, though.

Please be more specific as to what you mean in your question.

[firstpusk]

littlebillies is obliquely pointing out that a key evidence for evolution is geological basis for an old earth with changing species over the period of natural history.

 

It is a common misconception that Darwin smashed a consensus belief in young earth creationism when he published The Origin of Species. Actually, acceptance of an old earth was almost universal among both scientists and the clergy. Earlier work in geology by men like Cuvier and Lyell paved the way for this viewpoint. Acceptance of the transmutation of species was also commonly accepted.

 

The key to the importance of Darwin was his ability to provide a theoretical framework to explain why species change over time. In other words, in order to establish a Biblical, young earth explanation, you must do much more than simply deny Darwin. You must overcome scientific evidence from many different fields of study. You have a lot of homework to do...

 

You are certainly free to believe whatever you choose. But if you want to truly challenge evolution, you have your work cut out for you.

[DeMann]

Actually, acceptance of an old earth was almost universal among both scientists and the clergy.

 

Hogwash. The clergy has never, as a whole or in majority, accepted the idea of the very old age of the earth. Those who believe in the literal word can trace the lineage of mankind back from the time of Christ to Adam, a period while questioned that still remains in the area of 5 to 7 thousand years. And, that is to the very first literal day of this earths existance. No, sir. It has not been universally accepted.

 

Acceptance of the transmutation of species was also commonly accepted.

Where do you find this one? This is also the stuff commonly found in hog wallows. The clergy has held to the literal translation of the Bible, that is not some new thing. The idea of evolution has been held my a small minority, my friend. Not the majority.

 

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

DeMann,

 

Please read what I say. Your carelessness becomes a bit tiresome. I said almost universal. Certainly there were a few dullards like Soapy Sam Wilberforce. But by and large, religious folks were trying to find a way to get the geological and fossil evidence to match their Bibles. Ideas like multiple creations, a million years for a day and other novel approaches were all tried before Darwin. Christians that believe in a young earth are very much in a minority today.

 

Read St. Augustine. He did not hold that a literal interpretation of Genesis was necessary. Augustine was aware of fossils and that these creatures no longer existed. He was also aware the earth was older than a literal interpretation would allow. Although there have always been some who would approach Genesis as you do, the idea of an old earth among Christian scholars is a lot older than you seem to realize.

 

On the point of tranmutation of species, again read carefully. I indicated that it was commonly accepted before Darwin published. I was not specifically talking of the clergy. Although many of the folks that were working on natural history were indeed members of the clergy and they were aware of the problem of extinction. Extinction did not fit with a literal reading of Genesis and a young earth. Therefore, you ended up with a lot of talk about multiple creations, etc.

 

The literal reading of Genesis and an young earth is still held by some clergy members. However, just as with Christians in general they are in the minority.

[littlebillie]

firstpusk,

 

thanks for jumping in. yes, I think the time evident in the carving of the Grand Canyon, say, suggests an earth older than the Bible would allow, and earth old enough to allow for some degree of evolution.

 

and I'm also interested in this - I don't think anyone can deny that EROSION takes place, but it seems to me that in some ways this is the same kind of change folks decry in evolution. God makes a geological world, and then changes it - this seems ok to many; God makes a BIOLOGICAL world and then freezes it in place? This makes sense?

 

Basically, does the stance boil down to, the world was not created the way God intended, just at first, so He put erosion into play? This works for rocks and dunes and tectonic plates, but not for species?

 

I am VERY interested in how an intelligent literalist reconciles the 2. And NOT based on Biblical verses that simply RECOGNIZE that erosion exists - the complete crumbling of mountains, from peak to plain, is NOT something that would have been noted in a single lifetime (tho' some crumbling, avalanche, stream erosions may certainly have), nor for the region in which the original texts were written, in the 4-6,000 (*maybe 8 by now?) span that some say the Bible allows.

 

(Once we bring in Biblical texts, I just gotta go back to the 4 legged crickets and katydids, and ask where they went and the 6 legged ones we know today came from?)

 

So no simple acknowledgements, please - what is the purpose, the point, the God-given reason, for erosion, and how does this kind of change over time differ from evolution?

 

St. Augustine is one of the perfect examples, btw. Far back enough to be "untainted" by theories of evolution and plate tectonics, aware enough to nonetheless consider the issues. (My fave has always T-de Chardin, authority on angels AND embracer of science - firstpusk, I'll also assume that you've read Gould's theory on him and the Piltdown man? fun stuff...)

 

 

and while we're on this geological thing, what would the purpose of fossils be? Did God create something misleading in the heart of His creation? Did he allow Satan to place stony deception in the earth? Is it a "test of faith" (as in, the faithful must believe in a young God of only a few thousand years of influence, versus an older God, of 14,000,000,000 years experience? isn't this the Alcharinga of the Aborigine?)

 

just what DO the rocks tell us!?

[firstpusk]

Yep, I've read several pieces by Gould on Piltdown. A better whodunnit you could never find...