why is creationism plausable?

christianmomof3 · #21 13th August 2009, 09:42 PM

How about punctuated equilibrium? Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it is a plausible theory and can still be explained by creationism as well.

Mallon · #22 13th August 2009, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by christianmomof3

How about punctuated equilibrium? Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it is a plausible theory and can still be explained by creationism as well.

How do you mean?

marktheblake · #23 13th August 2009, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

I don't know of any of the apostles who preached a message of a six day creation, Adam and Eve,

Why would they, if everyone believed it, and Jesus did not 'change' it as such.

Jesus endorsed the Torah to every letter. We all know that statement.

Jesus preached his own interpretation of the Law (the Rabbi's Yoke), and the apostles continued with the teaching of their Rabbi's Yoke, as they must, only a Rabbi with authority can re-interpret scripture.

Given that the message of a 6 day creation was not taught, at least not documented, that carries the implication that Jesus did not reinterpret it.

WingsOfEagles07 · #24 13th August 2009, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

That is an interesting verse there, have you ever noticed the tense Paul uses? In Adam all die, die is present tense, Paul is not talking about everyone dying in Adam back at the fall, but something that is still going on, the human race is still 'in Adam' and continues to die in Adam today. It is worth considering if Paul might be speaking figuratively here, he is taking the story of Genesis yes, but he is interpreting it as a picture of the human race today. We are all Adam, that is what the name means, man or mankind, and in Adam we all sin and die.

You are missing the point, if Adam and Eve are symbolic then the things you take from a literal interpretation are not what the story is really on about, but is describing how we all sin. Do you see the echo of the Genesis story in Paul's description of how he fell, Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Paul was alive, he learned God's command, disobeyed and died. Who did the devil deceive? The whole world. Look at how the book of Revelation reads the serpent in Eden Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Yet that is how the apostles preached the gospel.

Creation is very important, but Paul was tellign them god was the creator of all, not telling them how long creation took or how God made everything, neither was he talking about how Adam and Eve were tempted and the fall.

Again, is Paul speaking literally here or figuratively? How was Jesus the last Adam, what about Adam Smith, Adam Faith or Adam Ant? Look at the passage. 1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Was Jesus the second man? Not if you take the bible literally, the second man was Cain and there were probably millions of other men after that. Jesus was hardly the second man, not literally. But Paul is is spaeaking allegorically, apocalyptically even, the whole human race summed up as two men Adam and Christ and everyone on earth is 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'.

Because while God did not literally make Adam out of mud (a very common biblical image that, 'you are the potter we are the clay'), God still made the human race, and he made the human race as Jesus said, male and female. Notice how Jesus never even mentions Adam and Eve. Jesus is also using the story of Genesis as if it was meant as a lesson about marriage. That is an allegorical interpretation of the passage.

Why shouldn't it? Just because Genesis is a poetic description of God's creation, it is still a description of God's creation and proclaims God as creator. Jesus said he was the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Was Jesus a literal shepherd? No. Was he protecting sheep? No. It is a figurative picture of Jesus dying for us on the cross. It is a figurative picture of the cross, but that does not mean cross wasn't real.

You can find the ten commandments again in Deuteronomy, where it says: Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Did God literally use a mighty hand and an outstretched arm to rescue the Israelites? No, it is a figurative description. They still had to keep the commandments.

Creation is true, it is just described figuratively.

What has how we were made got to do with the rights and wrongs of murder? Genesis says we are made of mud, does that mean there is nothing wrong with squishing a bit of mud? Does anybody seriously try to justify abortion by claiming the fetus is in a fish stage? I googled it and all I found were creationist sites claiming it is used as a justification. It is certainly bad biology and I can't imagine anyone with a decent understanding of biology using the argument.

You should google 'ensoulment'. In the medieval church they believed a fetus has not actually got a soul until you feel it moving and that it went through a vegetable and animal stages before it actually received a human soul. Don't blame evolution for the 'the fetus isn't fully human yet' argument.

A false dichotomy I am afraid. We do have an objective moral code in the bible, and people who don't believe the bible have to work out their own moral code, often doing a very good job too. But it has nothing to do with evolution or any other science we have been studying for the last few thousand years deciding what is true about the world and what is not. Even with the moral code of the bible, we have still had to do a lot of work deciding for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, just look at slavery or divorce.

No different from what Copernicus did when he showed the traditional literal interpretation was wrong when it said the sun went round the earth. It just meant we misunderstood those passages. Truth does not change. We cannot actually decide what is true or not. We can get a better understanding of what the truth actually is. That is what science does, why should that be a problem?

To be continued...

The point here "in Adam" is, If the Adam in Genesis did not exist like you claim. We cannot die through Adam because he never existed therefore he had to be a literal "created" being made from 'mud' but has an objective morality code. Just because we were made of mud does not mean we cannot have morality because we have a "creator". Just like a K9 dog knows his master. The dog obeys his commands. We too should obey god's commands and commandments but accepting theistic evolution is not the way in doing so my friend. If this was all just a "picture" how could we die in Adam? We die because of a symbolic picture that sinned.

Yeah the devil has deceived the whole world but there had to be an actual origin. If Adam and Eve was just a mere symbolic picture there would be no justification of the start of sin.

Anyone with a logical sense would know that I am not talking about Adam Ant, etc.. That is just stupid. It says that Adam was created a living being, therefore Adam has to be literal. If Adam is literal then Evolution cannot have happened before Adam since, "death" entered through him. You said, "Cain" What about Abel or Seth? Why Cain? Note Cain - is not from "heaven" ...

////////Because while God did not literally make Adam out of mud (a very common biblical image that, 'you are the potter we are the clay'), God still made the human race, and he made the human race as Jesus said, male and female. Notice how Jesus never even mentions Adam and Eve. Jesus is also using the story of Genesis as if it was meant as a lesson about marriage. That is an allegorical interpretation of the passage.//////////

How did God make the human race? He never has said he created a single-living cell organism to populate the earth but he told Adam and Eve that and also Noah. Not the organism. BUT NOTICE IT SAYS, "FROM THE BEGINNING OF CREATION GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."
Note at the beginning of creation, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, Male and Female. No it was not an allegorical interpretation. It was not a picture. God said HE MADE them Male and Female to substitute that marriage is between a male and female not a male and male or vice versa. Do you know what the word, "Made" means?

What does it mean to be a "creator" ?? You have to LITERALLY create something. For there to be a painting there has to be a painter. For there to be a building there has to be a builder.

Hebrews 3:4

4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

This is used in the literal sense of someone who "literally" builds a house which is a "picture" to show that God, "Literally" created all things in the account of Genesis. Still, if there was not a literal Genesis account of creation. Man kind would not be here. We would not know anything if the biblical account of creation is not literally true. You can twist the words all you want. If the biblical account of Genesis was not literal, there would be no morality, the promises of God in Revelation and just throughout the Bible would be invalid all because of Man's opinionated beliefs of evolution replacing the literal account of Genesis to a 'symbolic picture.' You know why they view this as a symbolic picture? Because then mankind can tell people their beliefs of what actually happened when in fact it is nothing but a fallacious hoax with a set of 'weak' argumentative products based upon the assumptions of a set of presuppositions that allow man to decide what was true and not God. They declare what account of Genesis says for God whenever they don't let God speak to them.

And prove that Genesis is used, "Figuratively." And no duh that would be the fallacy of reification. You still commit the fallacy of bifurcation to state that it MUST be used figuratively whenever you cannot prove this claim of assumption because you say this only so evolution can become applicable to the Bible in which turn; cannot.

I see you have committed a prejudicial conjecture. If you would just simply study the effect of evolution on people and the foundation of Evolution. You would see that this is not a false dichotomy. Just because 'you' cannot see it because you do not want to accept it does not make it false. You simply just have a lack of knowledge of what they teach. I mean I have taken biology class in High school.

Science is made up of "fallible" man opinions. Which in fact brings me to my next question. If Adam and Eve were just symbolic how come we are fallible? Obvious the 'picture' of Adam and Eve did not do this since they were not literal in your case. How come we are fallible? How come we are not perfect? And since we are fallible, you choose to take refuge in a man made belief system of opinions of what happened with the origins of life this rejecting the infallible God of creation? You are acting as if 'evolution' is the way GOD made this world and the origins of life whenever this cannot be true. I just find it very sad people put their faith in a man-made belief system (in which since they are evolutionists they do not think logically to their sense that it is actually a belief system) which is totally made fallible through the word of God in Romans, 2 Peter, Revelation, Isaiah, and Ezekiel and possibly others also to show there has to be a "literal" creation not just a symbolic picture of what happened just so a man made belief system can be entered into the realm of Christianity just because of the feigned words of Evolutionists who teach this as truth when in fact they refuse to assert that there interpretations are based only upon their beliefs of what happened through their presuppositions which is totally illogically fallacious.

Assyrian · #25 14th August 2009, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

I don't know of any of the apostles who preached a message of a six day creation, Adam and Eve,

Why would they, if everyone believed it, and Jesus did not 'change' it as such.

Jesus endorsed the Torah to every letter. We all know that statement.

Jesus preached his own interpretation of the Law (the Rabbi's Yoke), and the apostles continued with the teaching of their Rabbi's Yoke, as they must, only a Rabbi with authority can re-interpret scripture.

Given that the message of a 6 day creation was not taught, at least not documented, that carries the implication that Jesus did not reinterpret it.

So you are arguing that your literal interpretation should be considered the default because it isn't mentioned? That does not make sense. Anyway, most of the NT was written to non Jews so you cannot assume everyone believed in a six day creation. Even among Jews the allegorical interpretation of Genesis was widespread, from Philo of Alexandria to the Jerusalem priest Josephus. If Adam and Eve and six day creationism were a vital part of the gospel proclamation, someone would have mentioned them.

Assyrian · #26 14th August 2009, 08:02 AM

I came across some interesting quotes from R. A. Torrey

Revival Addresses | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
REVIVAL ADDRESSES BY R. A. TORREY

But, Some one may say, “The doctrine of evolution does away with the whole force of the argument from design.” Not at all. I formerly believed that the doctrine of evolution was true, but gave up the belief, not from theological but from scientific reasons, because it was absolutely unproven; there is not a single proof of the hypothesis of evolution. People talk about the missing link; they are all missing; there is not a single link. There is not a single place where one species passes over into another species. There is not one single observed instance of the evolution of a higher species from a lower. Development of varieties there has been, but of evolution of a higher species from a lower not one single case. The hypothesis of the evolution of species, and especially of the highest forms of life from the lowest, is a guess pure and simple, without one scientifically observed fact to build upon. But suppose the doctrine of evolution were true, it would not for a moment militate against the argument from design. If there were originally some unorganized protoplasm that developed into all the forms of life and beauty as we see them today, it would be a still more remarkable illustration, in one way, of the wisdom and power of the Creator, for the question would arise, Who put into the primordial protoplasm the power of developing into the universe as we see it today? It would take a more wonderful man to make a watch-hand which would develop into a watch than it would to make a watch outright. And, in one way, it would be a more marvelous illustration of the creative wisdom and power of God, if God had created some primordial protoplasm that developed into the world we now see than if God had made the world at once as we now see it. Nature proves that there is a God.

www.freewebs.com/ratorrey/FoolsCreed.html
The Fool’s Creed by R. A. Torrey
We have only the fourth theory remaining, viz., that the universe is the work of an intelligent and beneficent Creator. There is a God. The theory of evolution does not in the least affect the argument. If the theory of evolution were true it would only show the wonderful method by which this intelligent and beneficent Creator worked out His plans.

marktheblake · #27 14th August 2009, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

So you are arguing that your literal interpretation should be considered the default because it isn't mentioned?

No I wasnt arguing that at all.

WingsOfEagles07 · #28 14th August 2009, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

[size=2]I came across some interesting quotes from R. A. Torrey

LOL. I would like to inform you, he did not "believe" in evolution. Notice the word, "If" in there a couple times, LOL.

Also notice this when he said, " I FORMERLY believed the ToE was true..."

That means he used to, this does not prove anything whatsoever. Just notice the IF in there Assyrian. Then you might be able to figure out what he is saying, evolution is not true. Just re-read it again, lol.

marktheblake · #29 14th August 2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by WingsOfEagles07

Notice the word, "If" in there a couple times, LOL.

funny that, for some people IF means absolutely, which he did to me a few posts ago as well.

Must be like that old joke where they ask you to count the "F"s in a sentence, minds must be programmed not to see IF

Dark_Lite · #30 14th August 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by WingsOfEagles07

LOL. I would like to inform you, he did not "believe" in evolution. Notice the word, "If" in there a couple times, LOL.

Also notice this when he said, " I FORMERLY believed the ToE was true..."

That means he used to, this does not prove anything whatsoever. Just notice the IF in there Assyrian. Then you might be able to figure out what he is saying, evolution is not true. Just re-read it again, lol.

I don't think that's the point of his quotation, especially considering the highlight portions.

He's arguing against special creation as well as evolution.