There are many ways to interpret scripture, and almost everyone interprets it a little differently. So my question is at what point would an interpretation no longer be considered creationist?
P.S. I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, and a creationist only in the broadest sense in that God created the Heavens and the Earth. If I have overstepped my boundaries I apologize in advanced and I will leave.
Edit:
A very moderate person could believe in special creation (abiogenesis is false), and that God made several distinct populations and guided them through evolution over billions of years while God still created us through supernatural means and we are not biologically connected to any other species. This person would adhere to special creation, accept evolution, yet put many of the same constraints on evolution as main-stream creationists do. So would this person be a liberal creationist or a conservative evolutionist?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
May Christ be your shalom.
Last edited by Darkness27; 28th July 2009 at 03:49 PM.
Reason: Adding to original post a proposed question.
Well, Ask yourself, What makes Evolutionists a Evolutionist? Then answer the question you pose. But what makes Creationists a Creationist, Is that "we" believe that GOD created everything in the Universe and the origins of Life, that lines up with the Biblical Account of creation in Genesis.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
I see what you're saying, an evolutionist is someone who accepts evolution, yet many creationists also accept evolution on small scales. It is easy to tell when people are radical on this subject, but as you get closer to the middle it gets harder. Like a young Earth creationist has a radical stance by saying that the universe and Earth were created in six literal days less than ten-thousand years ago. Or a more moderate stance from an old Earth creationist could say that the Earth is billions of years old and its not six literal days but really a day is millions, or even billions of years. You get the same kind of things on the evolutionist side too. Like you can take a radical stance and say that the origins of life is natural and everything evolved from single cell organisms including humans. Or you can have a more moderate stance and say that God created the first life and things evolved, but humans were created specially and have no biological connection to any other species. And when you start having creationists accepting micro-evolution the middle starts to get convoluted.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
Basically that God created us via supernatural means. Young Earth Creationists typically don't believe in evolution at all and believed we were poofed as we are, humans and that every "kind" was poofed as an individual act of special creation.
Old Earth Creationists vary, though most do accept some form of evolution just not as the creation point of life, whether that be initial life that evolved into all life being an act of special creation or whether kinds etc...
Creationist does not equal a person who believes God created us in some fashion. I, like any Christian, believe we were all created by God... I am not a Creationist though since I don't believe God supernaturally created us. Instead I think God naturally created us.
I mean, I understand what you are saying, but as for me, I an Young-Earth Creationist, and I do not accept any Evolution of any kind (No offense Darkness 27) That is just my views, I believe that if Creationists believe in Evolution they are being too Biased. Because really Evolution and Creation do go together, If they did, Evolution vs. Creation would not be arguing against the origins of the universe and the beginning of life. That is just my presupposition though.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
According to Wiki I adhere to the Catholic idea of special creation, but not creationism.
Still, I would say the majority of creationists do accept (not believe) some form of evolution. Usually in saying that variation with in kinds is okay, like breeds of dogs.
I don't mean to argue WingsOfEagles07, but at its most basic evolution is allele frequency changes in populations, to deny that is to ignore everything we know about genetics. An easy example is that you are different from your parents and they are different form their parents, it is a form of evolution called micro-evolution, which most creationists agree with.
A very moderate person could believe in special creation (abiogenesis is false), and that God made several distinct populations and guided them through evolution over billions of years while God still created us through supernatural means and we are not biologically connected to any other species. This person would adhere to special creation, accept evolution, yet put many of the same constraints on evolution as main-stream creationists do. So would this person be a liberal creationist or a conservative evolutionist?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
There are many ways to interpret scripture, and almost everyone interprets it a little differently.
I think there is "one" way that Scripture is written and "should" be interpreted. There are many interpretations by man, and I believe that all of them have some degree of error to them because of man's inability to understand or desire for it to fit their prior worldview.
"My" interpretation is an attempt at a "literal" translation of Scripture regarding Genesis. Simply put:
1. God created the "Heaven" (universe) and "Earth" (unfinished globe) at the "Beginning" which could have been billions of years ago if not more.
2. Some 6,000 years ago, He "fashioned" the Earth to support life and created all the biology mentioned in Genesis - fully formed.
Since the "creation week" there have been variations of "kinds" based on allowable limits within the genetic information that pre-exists.
"I believe" that any interpretation that combines the age of the universe with life on this planet is wrong. Inserting long periods for the days of the creation week is also wrong.
"I believe" that any interpretation that combines the age of the universe with life on this planet is wrong. Inserting long periods for the days of the creation week is also wrong.
I agree that there is only one truth in how the bible was constructed and how it should be read, yet I believe that no one has the one true way to interpret scripture except God.
While you believe that your interpretation is more correct than some one else, you still recognize them as Christian, or a creationist. Like you don't like the gap theory for the days in genesis, but in most circles they are still considered creationists.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
According to Wiki I adhere to the Catholic idea of special creation, but not creationism.
Still, I would say the majority of creationists do accept (not believe) some form of evolution. Usually in saying that variation with in kinds is okay, like breeds of dogs.
I don't mean to argue WingsOfEagles07, but at its most basic evolution is allele frequency changes in populations, to deny that is to ignore everything we know about genetics. An easy example is that you are different from your parents and they are different form their parents, it is a form of evolution called micro-evolution, which most creationists agree with.
A very moderate person could believe in special creation (abiogenesis is false), and that God made several distinct populations and guided them through evolution over billions of years while God still created us through supernatural means and we are not biologically connected to any other species. This person would adhere to special creation, accept evolution, yet put many of the same constraints on evolution as main-stream creationists do. So would this person be a liberal creationist or a conservative evolutionist?
I know about alle's, and genetic things because I had biology class in 10th grade im in 11th grade this year. I am sorry but I do not accept any kind of evolution, because GOD created every living creature "after his own kind" not evolution from another creature. I do not care what man says about the genetics of animals or humans, GOD says each animal and creature that is created reproduces "after its own kind" not evolution over millions of years. millions of years is wrong anyway. Here is one link,
and tomorrow, i will post some other links for you to read that shows the earth is young and not old. by accepting any kind of evolution to me is like putting your faith in what a "scientist" says because his work is based on assumptions, like the age of rocks, the scientist depends and puts his "faith" in the object that fallible man made in order to produce the correct answer. And accepting what he says, is like putting your faith into what he is saying is true. I only believe the Word of GOD and the word of GOD alone. =] And were not arguing, It's all cool =]
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
I know about alle's, and genetic things because I had biology class in 10th grade im in 11th grade this year. I am sorry but I do not accept any kind of evolution, because GOD created every living creature "after his own kind" not evolution from another creature. I do not care what man says about the genetics of animals or humans, GOD says each animal and creature that is created reproduces "after its own kind" not evolution over millions of years.
Hi WingsOfEagles07
"After his own kind" sounds kind of vague. The theory of evolution also holds that all species reproduce only their own kind, so the Bible and evolution agree on this point.
The only point of contention seems to be the millions (actually billions) of years required for creatures reproducing their own kind to change and diverge, because evolution is such a slow process.
... millions of years is wrong anyway.
The universe is at least millions of years old based on direct observations of supernova. We can measure how far away they are using trigonometry e.g. supernova 1987A is 160,000 light years away. We can also observe the laws of physics were the same when the supernovae exploded (hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago) as they are now, such as nuclear forces and the speed of light. Thus, we can prove, using direct observations, that the universe it at least millions of years old.
Linear Mode
