| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
25th June 2009, 12:31 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
29    
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by sawdust  The problem is you're looking at fossils that more than likely have no bearing whatsoever on this current creation.
The scriptures teach past creations as well as future creations. As long as that fact remains unrecognised, science will continue to look at the earth as one long history and continue to make the same old mistakes (of interpretation).
What past creations are you referring to? And how to you know the fossil record reflects those past creations? And I didn't imply "kinds" were static except within the particular "kind" because that is what the scriptures teach. How much variation within a kind is possible? I have no idea. I didn't design the specifications.
If you can't recognize what constitutes a "kind", then how do you know they even exist?
What do you make of the fact that the Bible says "kinds" can interbreed and cross-fertilize? (Lev 19:19) The Bible wouldn't have to warn us against interbreeding "kinds" if it couldn't be done in the first place. You say you didn't miss the point and yet you continue to place your "observations" over and above what the word of God teaches. Learn what the word teaches first, then what we observe in the natural order will have a very different understanding. 
If, as Christians, we believe God is also the author of creation, then what harm can there be in studying it on its own merits? After all, if we didn't let our observations about the world influence our interpretation of the Bible, we'd still think the Bible teaches that earth revolves about the sun as Luther did.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
25th June 2009, 09:25 AM
|  | Veteran
59   
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,546
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Keep shifting those goalposts, juvie. You're doing a fine job.
I did not. You are running away from discussion. |
25th June 2009, 10:33 AM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun I did not. You are running away from discussion.
Telling me I'm brainwashed and then changing your standard for evidence of man's evolution mid-debate doesn't make for good discussion, juvie.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
Last edited by Mallon; 25th June 2009 at 11:11 AM.
|
25th June 2009, 12:45 PM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,546
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Telling me I'm brainwashed and then changing your standard for evidence of man's evolution mid-debate doesn't make for good discussion, juvie.
Fine. But if we switch side, I will definitely make a better response than you do. (don't ask me how. I do not answer that). |
26th June 2009, 07:37 PM
|  | redeemed waste
55   
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by Mallon What past creations are you referring to? And how to you know the fossil record reflects those past creations?
If you can't recognize what constitutes a "kind", then how do you know they even exist?
What do you make of the fact that the Bible says "kinds" can interbreed and cross-fertilize? (Lev 19:19) The Bible wouldn't have to warn us against interbreeding "kinds" if it couldn't be done in the first place.
If, as Christians, we believe God is also the author of creation, then what harm can there be in studying it on its own merits? After all, if we didn't let our observations about the world influence our interpretation of the Bible, we'd still think the Bible teaches that earth revolves about the sun as Luther did.
Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation where God made the (two) heavens and the earth.
Then something happened and the earth becomes wasted. Genesis 1:3-31 is the restoration and creation of this present age.
It is understood the reason the earth became a desolation was due to the angelic rebellion. How many times this may have happened? We have no idea but we know there was at least two, the original and the restoration.
How do you know the fossil record doesn't reflect past creations? It is logical to think they do just as in the next age (Millenial rule) fossils of this age will most likely be found.
I know they exist because it is written!
Lev.19:19 doesn't say they can interbreed, it's a command to men not to try. More than likely because, even if they have the potential to interbreed? The result would be, not some glorious, dynamic and new population filled with all sorts of variety, but rather lead to the destruction of the kinds God made to the point nothing could breed.
There is no harm in studying it. Indeed, we are encouraged to do so. (Prov.6:6) The problem comes when what is interpreted is in contradiction to what is written.
When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations.
peace |
26th June 2009, 07:45 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by sawdust When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations.
It's funny to hear that from a Gap creationist.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
27th June 2009, 10:26 AM
| | redeemed waste
55
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by Mallon It's funny to hear that from a Gap creationist.
Why is it funny? |
29th June 2009, 06:47 AM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
51  
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 12,367
Blessings: 27,003,753 My Mood 
Reps: 1,984,022,293,840,305,920 (power: 1,984,022,293,840,324) | | | In one way it should not seem strange at all. Gap Theory became popular in the 19th century as a response to the the discoveries of geology, that did not fit a young earth interpretation. Day Age and Analogical Day interpretation followed soon after and by the time modern Fundamentalism started up, all of the authors of The Fundaments were either Gap Theorist or some sort of Day age. As you say: When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations. The problem is, as science developed it no could no longer fit the Gap Theory. So Gap Theorists could either follow its founding principle and keep digging for the meaning of scripture, in which case they would no longer be Gap, or ignore the contradictions between Gap and science and insist dogmatically on Gap.
I don't know how dogmatic you are on the topic, but I have come across a lot of Gap Theorists who are highly dogmatic. I suppose modern Gap can only survive by being dogmatic and insisting that the Gap interpretation of different passages are the only true interpretation. But this dogamatism is very much at odds with the willingness to search out and explore the meaning of scripture that we see in many earlier proponents, and you seem to advocate in your statement.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
29th June 2009, 07:13 AM
| | Junior Member
37 
| | Join Date: 1st January 2008
Posts: 257
Blessings: 91,057
Reps: 2,696,755,089,648,404 (power: 2,696,755,089,653) | | Originally Posted by Mallon "Common creator" doesn't explain the nested hierarchical pattern into which life is organized. Only common ancestry accounts for that pattern.
Actually theres no linking of fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal apart from an evolutionist's imagination.This hierarchial pattern is useful only to an extent.
You are in a Christian area, denying that a Common Creator could be an explanation?
Hmmm. |
29th June 2009, 07:34 AM
| | Junior Member
37
| | Join Date: 1st January 2008
Posts: 257
Blessings: 91,057
Reps: 2,696,755,089,648,404 (power: 2,696,755,089,653) | | Originally Posted by Mallon I'm not so sure I did miss the point.
As I said, if "kinds" are real, discrete groupings within nature, then distinguishing them from one another should be a trivial matter. And if they are static through time, as you imply, then telling them apart as we progress through the fossil record should likewise be simple.
But it's not.
Not as blurred as you are making out.I think you can see that the neanderthal skulls you are attempting to present as evidence of ape?to man are in fact nothing of the sort.The habilis fragments have been filled with plaster of paris.They are some extinct ape.You can see when you take your indoctrinated goggles off thats theres no connection between the chimp skull and the human ones apart from some atheist telling you their is one.Some of those skulls are animal,some are human, thats basically it. Originally Posted by Mallon What you call discrete "kinds" today look less and less discrete as we look further back into the fossil record.
They look different because they are different.Once again you are attempting to connect them is a result of your preconcieved ideas,instead of just looking at what they just are. Originally Posted by Mallon Humans and chimps may look very different today, but the line gets blurrier and blurrier as we trace our lineages back in the fossil record:
Theres no connection,its you reading far too much into it.Theres variation in the human skulls and variation in the animal skulls, thats it.This is why i view common descent as a religion.The proponents of it, make leaps of faith without even noticing that they are doing it.  Thus,
Difficulty comes with trying to match up the biblical kinds with the manmade phylogeny.I prefer to stick with the very basic kinds as reptile,fish mammal,amphibian etc.You cant look at the natural world and point to anything to back your theory up.Its all imaginative readings of fossils.Genesis rings true when you look at things how they actually are instead of how you want them to be. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
